Archive
Charter Schools – contrary to ACT’s free market principles?
.
.
When the blogger, Imperator Fish asked in a blogpost headlined – Did You Vote For Charter Schools? – he wasn’t just using a catchy title. He was raising a valid point.
Nowhere on the ACT website is Charter Schools mentioned in any of their policies.
Not. A. Word.
Instead, ACT’s education policy page mentions the usual waffle about “more choice” and some disturbing rhetoric about “the benefits of making education more market-like and entrepreneurial” (1), and principals setting salary for teachers “like any other employer” (4),
.
.
If that is ACT’s Charter Schools policy, the message is hidden deep amongst the swirl of right-wing rhetoric.
Curiously, for a Party that allegedly has an innate aversion to taxpayer-funded subsidies for business enterprises such as farming, exporting, manufacturing, etc, etc, etc – they seem more than eager to subsidise private schools (3 & 5). Which seems more than contradictory, since one has to question what is the difference between private schools and other private businesses.
If ACT is comfortable (indeed, eager) to subsidise private schools, including their Charter School agenda, why not subsidise private hospitals? Private power companies? Private radio and TV broadcasters? Private mining compnies?
There appears to be no rhyme or reason to exempt private schooling and Charter Schools from ACT’s policy opposing state subsidies for business.
Unless they’re chasing votes for the Middle Class Aspirationists?
ACT’s “Principals” are quite clear when it comes to using taxpayers’ money,
.
.
Paragraph 5 clearly outlines that the role of central government is to provide “economic support for those unable to help themselves and who are in genuine need of assistance“. It’s hard to see where private enterprise such as private schools and Charter Schools fit with this notion.
Paragraph 8 states that ACT supports “a free and open market economy“. Are state-funded subsidies to private business conducive to “a free and open market economy“?
Ditto for paragraph 9, which states that ACT will ” limit the involvement of central and local government to those areas where collective action is a practical necessity“. Is ACT telling us that taxpayer subsidies to private enterprise is a “practical necessity”?
Rob Muldoon thought so, and his government paid millions to farmers through various subsidies, making them beneficiaries of the State.
ACT’s plan will be that whilst Charter will be owned and operated by private institutions (religious groups, businesses, etc), that they will be funded by the taxpayer. And Charter School operators will be able to run these “schools” at a profit.
If this ain’t the State subsidising private enterprise – when very few other businesses are able to enjoy similar benefits – then I fail to see the difference.
After all, we’ve lost 23,000 construction jobs and 18,000 manufacting jobs. If any sectors need state support, via subsidies, shouldn’t it be Construction and Manufacturing?
.
.
(It’s a shame that the loss of 41,000 construction and manufacturing has been offset by the creation of approximately 68,000 personal/community services – traditionally low-paid roles. See: PM – No money for aged care workers)
The question this blogger is asking is; if Charter Schools are a viable business proposition, why is the taxpayer paying for it?
Perhaps someone from ACT can explain it to us?
.
*
.
Previous related blogposts
Privatisation of our schools?! (13 Dec 2011)
Charter Schools – Another lie from John Banks! (2 Aug 2012)
Q+A – 5 August 2012 (5 Aug 2012)
Christchurch, choice, and charter schools (15 Sept 2012)
Charter Schools – John Key’s re-assurances (2 Nov 2012)
Other Blogs
Imperator Fish: Did You Vote For Charter Schools?
Sources
Fairfax media: Education shake-up ‘biggest for years’ (7 Dec 2011)
The Press: A controversial way of learning (7 April 2012)
NZ Herald: Editorial: Partnership opportunity for teachers (17 Oct 2012)
NZ Herald: Charter schools escape scrutiny (17 Oct 2012)
References
ACT Policies: Economy
ACT Policies: State Owned Assets
ACT policies: Spending Cap
ACT Policies: Education
ACT Policies: Principals
.
.
=fs =
Nothing quite sez Rich Man’s Conference than this event (part rua)
.
.
Continued from: Nothing quite sez Rich Man’s Conference than this event
I’ve always believed that the Left’s ability for in-fighting and self-mutilation is without peer. Our ability to attack each other – whilst the barbarian hordes of neo-liberals run rampant through our societies – is without peer, I’ve thought. (The self-destruction of the Alliance Party, in 2001, was a recent example of this.)
But, nah.
I was wrong.
There are times when the Right can be equally adept when it comes to bouts of masocistic self-harm.
The recent ACT conference at Alan Gibbs’ farm-estate at Kaukapakapa, about 50kms north of Auckland, was an eye-opener.
First of all, the choice of holding a Party conference at an isolated Rich White Man’s farm-estate, complete with bizarre multi-million dollar “art” and a private zoo…
Pray tell, ACT Party – precisely what message were you thinking of sending to the public of New Zealand?
That ACT chooses to be isolated from the rest of society, and stand apart from other New Zealanders?
That ACT is a Rich White Man’s Party?
That ACT surrounds itself with the trappings of an eccentric millionaire (who is absent from New Zealand most of the year), whilst unemployment, child poverty, and growing wealth-income divide worsens?
If those were the messages – consider them received and understood.
Secondly – who let the clowns out, ha, ha-ha, ha!
Rodney Hides “performance” on Saturday, 23 February was gob-smacking.
It’s pretty fair to say that I am no friend of ACT or the Right Wing in general. But even I was embarressed at Hide’s weird behaviour in front of media cameras, and felt truly sorry for all those ACT Party activists who work their butts off at elections.
But don’t take my word for it – see for yourself. The ‘action’ rolls from 0:40 to 1:30 on TV3′s video,
.
.
That kind of bizarre, blokey ‘humour’ might be fine amongst friends and colleagues, away from the public eye. But televised to the entire nation, the message it sends me is,
- Rodney Hide doesn’t give a sh*t anymore
- Rodney Hide just gave the metaphorical “fingers” to the whole country
- Arrogance and inappropriate ‘humour’ is a bad mix – especially in public.
By the way. It may escape folks attention, but Hide’s outburst against TV3 was the height of irony.
ACT is a Party that supports free enterprise and business.
Mediaworks (TV3′s parent body) is privately owned business.
ACT supports businesses because they are supposedly more efficient than the State.
TV3′s journalists are highly effective at their profession.
So what’s the problem between ACT and a business such as TV3?
If TV3′s journos are doing well at investigating and probing politicians and their Parties – then that’s free enterprise doing what it ought to; providing a service to consumers; selling advertising; and returning a profit to shareholders.
Anyone would think that ACT is hostile to free enterprise.
.
.
= fs =
Nothing quite sez Rich Man’s Conference than this event
.
.
As reported on Radio NZ’s ‘Morning Report‘ this morning (22 February), ACT’s 2013 Annual Conference kicks off today.
Part of the Conference will be held on Alan Gibb’s farm-estate at Kaukapakapa, about 50kms north of Auckland,
.
.
.
An Annual Conference on an isolated, private property, belong to one of New Zealand’s richest men; Alan Gibbs.
Gibbs – worth an estimated $420 million according to a NBR report - spends most of his time in London. This doesn’t seem to stop him from influencing politics in this country.
Holding a conference on Gibbs’ private property, away from any urban centre does hold several benefits.
Firstly, attendees can marvel and appreciate Gibbs’ very private art collection,
.
.
And secondly, there’s a low-to-zero risk of pesky demonstrators turning up, protesting at the neo-liberal policies that have been in effect for 30 years.
After all, having a bunch of poor folk turning up to a predominantly Rich White Men’s (there appear to be no women or Maori speakers at the Conference) political party, to protest policies which have increased poverty and widened the income/wealth gap, is probably not a good look.
The question I always ask myself, though is, are they locking us out? Or are we locking them in?
Meanwhile, the sell-off of the people’s assets to wealthy men like Alan Gibbs, and others like him (aka, the One Percenters), continues,
.
.
*
.
References
Radio NZ audio report: ACT meets at weekend for annual conference
.
.
= fs =
Still someone else’s country
.
.
Wellington, Newtown, 9 February 2013 – As the issue of state asset sales and other New Right policies are on National’s impending agenda, the Newtown-branch of the Mana Party considered it worthwhile taking the time to look back at recent history. The events of today are firmly rooted in the past.
The New Right had taken power in Britain with the election of Margaret Thatcher in May 1979, and in the United States, with the election of Ronald Reagan in November 1980. Our turn came in July 1984, with the snap election called by an inebriated Rob Muldoon. (Intoxication on power and alcohol – not a very healthy mix.)
The Labour government that was swept to power (see: New Zealand general election, 1984) was not the Labour Party that people thought they were voting for. In total secrecy, Labour had been captured by a cabal of fanatical neo-liberal reformers. It was a government firmly under the control of what we know today, as the ACT Party.
Twenty nine years later…
Mana’s Newtown Branch decided to hold a public screening of Alister Barry’s hard-hitting, insightful, 1996 documentary, “Someone elses’s country“. The story told within that hour-and-a-half documentary is as valid today as it was three decades ago. (In fact, watch “Someone elses’s country” and then watch Bryan Bruce’s 2011 documentary, “Inside Child Poverty in New Zealand” – and the linkages of the radical transformation of our country is all but complete.)
Prior to the screening, the audience was welcomed by Mana Newtown organisor, Ariana, who gave a brief rundown of the content and it’s impact on our society,
.
.
Many in the audience were young people who either had not been born in the 1980s, or were too young to remember the calamitous events that were unfolding. To these people, the events we now understand as Rogernomics and Ruthenasia would have been like the 1951 Waterfront Lockout dispute that rocked the nation.
Following Ariana, a brief introduction to the film was made by sitting Wellington Councillor, Bryan Pepperell,
.
.
Pepperell said,
“It’s getting into it’s final stages where the agenda to actually get democracy out of the way of business is actually now reaching a high-point.There’s an awful lot of window-dressing and democracy in New Zealand context has become that, substantially window dressing…”
He then shared with the audience when his first disquiet over the election of the Lange Government came to him,
“When David Lange actually said on national television – and I remember the day when I sat and I watched it and I thought I can’t believe what I’m hearing – ‘from now on business is going to make the major decisions’. And that was actually a fairly startling thing as far as I was concerned… unfortunately poor old David probably got quite into something that was bigger than him, and here we are today with the consequences of those early decisions. And of course the National Party is utterly committed to helping it’s friends further the direction that we started in.”
.
The introduction completed, the screening began,
.
.
For many of us who lived through the period, memories of the time came flooding back. In some instances, several people in the audience even recognisedthemselves – with much younger faces – in stills and video footage of protest actions.
It is also worth recalling that despite calls from throughout the country, TVNZ’s Board rejected calls for widespread broadcasting claiming it it “too political”.
“Too political”?!?!
Of course it was bloody political!
It was so damn political that TVNZ’s boardmembers would have soiled their panties at the thought of upsetting their Ministerial masters in the Beehive.
As the doco’s producer, Alister Barry , said in November 2009,
“It was no accident that Someone Else’s Country wasn’t screened on TVNZ when it was completed in 1996.
It wasn’t that the Business Roundtable needed to actually tell the TV programmers not to screen it. Television executives knew perfectly well where their salaries came from and that TVNZ was being readied for sale.
Fourteen or fifteen minutes of every television hour – the very limit of viewers’ tolerance – was filled with messages carefully and expensively constructed to reach into their fears and appetites. Clutches of advertisements urged New Zealanders to “buy”, to think and feel like frustrated consumers. Airing a documentary which led viewers to think of themselves less as consumers and more as citizens capable of taking political action was not in the interests of the big corporations controlling the advertising dollar.”
It was not until 2003 that TVNZ finally mustered the courage to air “Someone elses’s country” – on a Sunday afternoon. Hardly peak viewing time.
Barry also had this pointed insight to make,
“It had been anticipated by New Zealand’s New Right revolutionaries, that by the early 2000s our values would have changed and we would have come to think like them, accepting poverty and extreme wealth as both normal and necessary. To pursue personal advantage and to care less about our neighbours. But studies show that in fact our values haven’t changed much from those of our parents and grandparents.
What is happening though, is that we are forgetting how things used to be and who changed them. Even as the human and environmental costs of the neoliberal experiment increase, we are finding it harder and harder to imagine how things could be better.I hope you will find this film a useful antidote to forgetfulness.”
See: IBID
Which is what this country so desperately needs – an antidote to the collective amnesia which so many of our countrymen and woman so often succumb to.
As this blogger noted above; imagine the disquiet and anger that would result if “Someone elses’s country” was broadcast at prime-time, on a major tv channel – and then followed by Bryan Bruce’s, “Inside Child Poverty in New Zealand“…
Addendum 1
The neo-liberal agenda continues. National plans to partially-privatise three power companies; a mining company; and Air New Zealand (which was privatised once before on 17 April 1989).
National is implementing a privatised form of education via “Charter Schools”.
And the economy is to be further “de-regulated” and made the rights of foreign corporations extended.
Addendum 2
In a society run along neo-liberal lines, it becomes dangerous to upsets one’s masters investors,
.
.
And shame upon shame to Jackson and his mates for aiding and abetting Hollywood’s Heavies.
What are they hiding?
*
.
Additional Info
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
Anti asset sale rally – this Wednesday 13 February
.
.
.
= fs =
John Banks, ACT, and miscellaneous laws
.
.
ACT is very, very BIG on law and order.
In fact, they often refer themselves as the “law and order” Party.
Their website is unequivocal about ACT’s hard-line, no-compromise, approach to Law and Order,
.
.
ACT even refers to the “broken windows” concept; attacking crime at the beginning when “criminal activity is significantly less likely to escalate when caught and punished early “.
ACT even has a “One Law for All” policy,
.
.
Their “One Law for All” refers to Maori – but one assumes that ACT intends this policy to apply equally, to all people living in this country.
Right?
Well… maybe not,
.
.
One law for all, huh? That apparently demands a Tui.
However, Banks’ lawyer, QC David Jones stated that,
‘‘Mr Banks will comply with any lawful direction of the court to attend the court as required.’’
Well, that’s jolly big of him.
This case will be a test; are our elected representatives – especially those in positions of ministerial power – bound by the same laws that the rest of us mere mortals are?
After all, “criminal activity is significantly less likely to escalate when caught and punished early “.
Let’s wait, watch, and find out…
.
.
= fs =
Crony Watch!
.
Cronywatch*…
.
…Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
.
In this on-going Thread, I will be reporting on blatant political cronyism from this current government. Considering that the NBR ceased their version of “Cronywatch” in late 2008, I thought it would be helpful if folks knew what John Key and his government were up to.
Cronyism is when appointments to various quangos, Boards, organisations, departments, and even unofficial positions, are made for no other apparent reason than their membership, or close affialiation to, the National government. Governments do this for various reasons; to keep on eye on things; to try to influence decision-making; to ensure that their policies are carried out according to their agenda; and perhaps even a bit of ‘pay back‘.
This sort of thing was/is verey commonplace under authoritarian regimes where democracy and an independent civil service are alien concepts. So it is more than a little disturbing when we find such occurrences here, in little old Godzone.
So every time I find a political appointee, I’ll report it here. With each up-date added to this Thread, I’ll ‘bump‘ it back up to the top of Recent Posts.
And now for some cronies…
.
.
_______________________________________
.
Catherine Isaac
.
.
Catherine Isaac,
Party positions held:
- ACT President
- ACT list candidate (October, 2011)
Government appointments:
- Welfare Working Group (April, 2010)
- Charter School Working Group (March, 2012)
Despite having zero experience in the education sector, Ms Isaac was appointed by ACT MP, John “I-Don’t-Know-I-Can’t-Recall” Banks to chair the Charter School Working Group. Ms Isaac’s only tenuous links to educatuion is that she has served on a School Board. (In which case, I look forward to serving on a DHB and thereafter beginning a practice in brain surgery…)
As most folk know, Charter Schools is an ACT policy. Ms Isaac was appointed by ACT MP, John “What-helicopter-flights?” Banks. And Ms Isaac is an ACT Party member, ex-candidate, and President.
.
_______________________________________
.
Belinda Milnes
.
“Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has appointed a former official from her own office to the board of the Families Commission.
Belinda Milnes, a former senior policy adviser for Mrs Bennett, has been appointed to the commission for three years.
The minister has been unavailable to discuss the appointment, but in a statement says Ms Milnes understands social policy and is the best person for the job.”
Source: Radio NZ – Bennett appoints former official to commission board
Interestingly, Paula Bennett made no mention of Ms Milnes’ connection with her office when she released this media statement,
” Social Development Minister Paula Bennett today announced two new appointments to the Families Commission.
Sir Peter Gluckman and Belinda Milnes have been appointed to the Board of the Families Commission for a period of three years.
The Families Commission is currently undergoing a restructure to assume its new role providing independent monitoring, evaluation and research.
“We’ve appointed the best people for the job to oversee a major change programme within the Families Commission,” says Mrs Bennett.
The Government is reprioritising a minimum of $14.2 million of the $32.48 million funding the Families Commission receives over four years to set up a new Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit (SuPERU).
“This unit will provide research and best practise advice to government and non-government organisations,” says Mrs Bennett.
This unit will independently monitor and evaluate programmes and initiatives in the social sector, a job currently done largely by Government Departments.
“I believe giving this role to an independent body will see more community organisations entering into robust evaluation and monitoring”. “
Source: Appointments to Families Commission
I wonder how much ” independent monitoring, evaluation and research” will be produced by the new “Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit ” when it is staffed by National Party appointees who have been functionaries within a Minister’s office?
At least the Minister will hear only what she wants to hear, with no pesky dissenting opinions upsetting her day…
.
_______________________________________
.
Richard Long
.
.
“Former National Party chief of staff Richard Long has been appointed to the board of TVNZ.
[...] He spent two years as chief of staff for National leaders Bill English and Don Brash after leaving the Dominion in 2002.”
Source: Former National Party chief of staff appointed to TVNZ board
.
_______________________________________
.
Katherine Rich (#2)
.
.
(L-R) National MPs Simon Powell, Katherine Rich, former National leader Don Brash, National MPs Nathan Guy and Gerry Brownlee applaud John Key as he delivers his speech as the New Zealand National Party launch their election campaign at Sky City on October 12, 2008 in Auckland, New Zealand.
.
The latest cronyist-appointment is (again) former National MP and CEO of the Food and Grocery Council, Katherine Rich, to the newly formed Health Promotion Agency.
The Council represents a $15 billion food and beverage industry and exerts considerable influence on food legislation and trade practices.
The Council was a vocal opponant, and campaigned against, mandatory inclusion of vitamin B9 (folic acid) in bread (to prevent crippling birth defects such as spina bifida) and anti-obesity proposals such as taxing sugar. It supports liberal trading policies for alcohol.
Party positions held:
- List MP for National, 1999 – 2008
- Co-Chair, Classical Liberal Policy Advisory Group, National Party, 2004
Government appointments:
The Health Promotion Agency incorporates the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand (ALAC), the Health Sponsorship Council and other promotion work by the Ministry of Health.
ALAC was an organisation tasked with addressing the growing incidence of alcohol abuse in this country. This increasingly destructive social problem has been calculated to be a $4 billion-plus crisis in our society, wasting valuable health, police, judicial, and ACC resources, and impacting on employment and family life.
It therefore seems somewhat incongruous to appoint a person who in deeply involved in the alcohol industry in a government body that has a role in identifying and addressing alcohol problems in our society.
In fact, one could see this as a conflict of interest. John Key’s bland assurances therefore sound rather hollow,
“I’m comfortable that she’ll be able to manage any conflict….It’s important that a board has a range of different views.” – Source
Key’s views on the Food and Grocery Council’s emotion-laden campaign against folic acid was no less derisable,
“The debate wasn’t around whether folic acid might or might not work. It was about people’s rights to have that put in every piece of bread. There’s quite a difference there.”
Unfortunately, Mr Key fails to realise that foetuses deprived of this critical vitamin B9; are born with spina bifida; and spend their entire (shortened) lives in a wheelchair, have no such “rights” to choose. Foetuses rely on adults to consume appropriate foods and beverages.
Way to go, Mr Key. The manipulation of public opinion on this issue by the Food and Grocery Council was predicated on saving money for the food industry.
But it’s taxpayers who have to pick up the medical and welfare tab for people with neural tube defects (spina bifida).
That, plus the Food and Grocery Council’s staunch advocacy for the proliferation of alcohol retailing, makes Ms Rich wholly inappropriate for this new government body.
Ms Rich has neo-liberal views on the production and retailing of alcohol,
“The New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA) and Alcohol Advisory Council (Alac) strongly backed the recommendations.
Alac chief executive Gerard Vaughan said it set out a clear objective of reducing alcohol-related harm which stretched to structure and role changes for the district licensing agencies responsible for managing liquor licensing in their own communities.
Communities up and down the country were sick of the violence and vandalism that came with drinking and that proposed changes to licencing regimes would help address the problem, Mr Vaughan said.
Nearly 3000 submissions were received by the commission, many of which supported the tightening of laws around alcohol sales, purchasing and consumption.
But NZ Food and Grocery Council chief executive Katherine Rich said the report reflected “classic nanny state thinking.”
It failed to target those causing the problems and punished everyone, she said. The industry was already one of the most regulated, and more sensible ways to approach existing problems included better enforcement of current rules and better use of legal powers, along with industry-led initiatives.” Source
Final word to someone more concerned with social issues (rather than profits),
“ Professor Sellman says supermarkets normalise alcohol as an ordinary commodity and sell it by the tonne at ultra-cheap prices up to 24 hours a day.
He believes Ms Rich’s appointment is a major conflict of interest and indicates the Government wants to have the alcohol industry strongly represented in its preparations for the new agency.
“Seventy percent of the alcohol that’s sold in New Zealand comes through supermarkets and here we have a person in Katherine Rich who’s a staunch defender of the excessive commercialisation of alcohol, particularly though supermarkets, and she’s on a board that is presumably about decreasing the heavy drinking culture”. “ – Source, Radio NZ
See: Lobbyist appointment no conflict: Key
See: BERL Report Costs of harmful alcohol and other drug use
Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association: .
Other blogs
.
_______________________________________
.
Roger Sowry
.
.
Roger Sowry has been a National Party MP from 1990 to 2005 – five consecutive terms. The first two terms were as MP for Kapiti, the latter three as a Party List MP. He became Chief Executive of Arthritis New Zealand, and then worked at Saunders Unsworth,as a “consultant on Government matters” (ie; lobbyist).
Party positions held:
- National MP 1990 – 2005
- 1993, appointed Junior Party Whip
- 1995, appointed Senior Party Whip
- 1996, appointed Minister for Social Welfare
- 1998, appointed Minister of Social Services, Work and Income; Minister in charge of War Pensions; Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation; and Associate Minister of Health
- Appointed Deputy Leader of National Government from October 2001 to October 2003
Government appointments:
- Electricity Commission board, 2009 – 2012
- Appointed to Combined Council for the Whitireia Community Polytechnic and the Wellington Institute of Technology (Weltec), November 2011 (commencing 1 January 2012)
“Prime Minister John Key said he would not describe Mr Sowry as a party hack and he was qualified for the job. “We are not going to preclude people solely because they’ve been involved with the National Party. If we were to do that then the talent pool is going to be substantially reduced,” Mr Key said. – Source
.
_______________________________________
.
Wyatt Creech
.
.
Party positions held:
- National Party MP, 1998 – 2002
- Appointed Minister of Revenue and Minister of Customs in National Government, 1990
- Held various Ministerial roles
- Became Deputy Leader/Deputy Prime Minister of the National Party December, 1997
Government appointments:
- Appointed to RMA Technical Advisory Group to reform of the Resource Management Act, December, 2008
- Chairperson of New Zealand Fire Service Commission, appointed October 2009
- Commissioned by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government to head a review of the performance of Environment Canterbury, 2009 – 2010
.
_______________________________________
.
Judy Kirk
.
.
Party positions held:
- Worked as electorate agent for National Party MPs
- National Party President, 2002 – 2009
Government appointments:
- Held positions on New Zealand Lottery Grants Board national welfare committee and Rotorua regional lottery distribution committee
- Appointed as Chairperson to NZ Board of Lotteries Commission, May 2009
- Appointed to Board of NZ Metservice, July 2011
.
_______________________________________
.
Jim McLay
.
.
Party positions held:
- Joined National Party, 1963
- Served on Party’s National Council
- National Party MP, 1975 – 1987
- Appointed Attorney General and Minister of Justice, 1978
- Became Deputy Leade/Deputy Prime Minister, early 1984
- Leader of National Party, 1985 – 1986
Government appointments:
- Appointed NZ representative on the International Whaling Commission, 1994 – 2002
- Appointed New Zealand’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, 2009
.
_______________________________________
.
Penny Webster
.
.
Party Positions held:
- ACT MP, 1999 – 2002
Government appointments:
- Appointed to RMA Technical Advisory Group to reform of the Resource Management Act, December, 2008
.
_______________________________________
.
Brian Neeson
Ravi Musuku
Ken Shirley
.
(L-R) Brian Neeson – Ken Shirley – Ravi Musuku
.
All three men were appointed to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. All three have connectionas to National, or in Ken Shirley’s case, to ACT, one of National’s coalition partners.
Brian Neeson
Party positions held:
Government appointments:
The appoint was made by the Minister - without being interviewed, as is the usual process,
““It is the chair’s view that without interviews by an appropriately selected interview panel, the process will not provide an opportunity to properly assess the candidates suitability,” advice to Power in July last year said.
“The required skills cannot be evaluated without interview. He [Mr Hindle] has also expressed concern that the suggested appointment of member without interview would be at odds with the practice of past years“.” – Source
Which was unfortunate, as Neeson has a shocking record for anti-gay/lesbian beliefs that can only be described as homophobic. He consistently voted against including gays/lesbians in protective Human Rights legislation and voted against legislation to outlaw employment discrimination based on gender. (See ” National’s version of ‘human rights’ ” at Tumeke, for full details.)
It is difficult to understand how someone of Mr Neeson’s beliefs can contribute to human rights issues in NZ, unless his appointment is specifically designed to curtail human rights for women and minority groups?
.
Ravi Musuku
Party positions held:
Government appointments:
.
Ken Shirley
Party positions held:
- Labour Party MP 1984- 1990
- Ranked third on ACT Party List for 1996 elections
- ACT Party MP 1996- 2006
Government appointments:
Statement on Maori:
“Graduation day at Te Wananga. Soon after the Labour Government came to office it started showering money on all things Maori. ” – NZ Herald
“Soon after the Labour Government came to office, ushering in its flagship ‘Closing the Gaps’ programmes. It started showering money on all things Maori. ” – Ibid
“Out of this Te Wananga o Aotearoa pocketed $5.8 million and said that would go a long way towards providing for its growth. ” – Ibid
“But the Government went further. Closing the Gaps demanded even more taxpayer money be thrown at Maori. ” – Ibid
“Despite its apparent concern, it has continued to shovel huge sums of taxpayer money to this institution – all in the name of the treaty. ” – Ibid
“The Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commissioners have foreshadowed that the decision to allow the Maori Land Court to hear iwi claims to the foreshore and seabed of the Marlborough Sounds opens the way for similar claims around the country” ACT New Zealand Deputy Leader Ken Shirley said today.
I now call upon Prime Minister Helen Clark to act consistently, and to declare such claims off limits -as she recently did in the case of the claim for oil and gas reserves. In this instance, it was made quite clear that oil, gas and mineral reserves were vested in the Crown by legislation in 1937.” – Press releases on Court of Appeal decision on foreshores and seabed, Recreation Access
“I am again calling on the Labour Government to act decisively. It must spell out the bounds to claims – in order to prevent undue anxiety for tens of thousands of New Zealanders, and to ensure that iwi don’t waste any more time and money pursuing claims that should be off limits.” – Ibid
Hopefully Mr Shirley’s anti-Treaty and knee-jerk anti-Maori beliefs will not be carried over to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.
.
.(Acknowledgement: David M. and Tumeke)
.
_______________________________________
.
Wayne Mapp
.
Wayne Mapp (L) and John Key (R)
.
Announced on 28 February 2012 by Judith Collins, the Minister Responsible for the Law Commission; the appointment of National’s former Defence Minister, Wayne Mapp to the Commission.
Party positions held:
- National MP from 1996 to 2011
- Appointed as “Political Correctness Eradicator” in October 2005, by former National Party leader, Don Brash
- Chair of National Caucus Policy Committee
- Minister of Defence
- Minister of Science and Innovation
Government appointments:
- New Zealand Law Commission
“The Law Commission is an independent Crown entity under the Crown Entities Act 2004. It is funded by government and reviews areas of the law that need updating, reforming or developing. It makes recommendations to Parliament, and these recommendations are published in our report series. The Law Commission helps to maintain the quality of New Zealand law to meet the current and future needs of our rapidly changing society. The Commission’s objective is to improve the quality, relevance and effectiveness of New Zealand law, by informing and supporting discussion on and making recommendations to Parliament for law reform.” – Source
I suspect that the Law Commission may have just become a somewhat less “independent Crown entity “.
(Acknowledgement: David M.)
.
_______________________________________
.
Kerry Prendergast
.
L-R: John Banks (obscured), John Key, Maurice Williamson, Kerry Prendergast
.
Best known as Wellington’s mayor from 2001 – 2010, Prendergast is also a member of the National Party.
Party positions held:
- List candidate for National in 1999 election (unsuccessful)
Government appointments:
- Chairperson, Environmental Protection Authority
- Chairperson, Tourism Board
.
_______________________________________
.
Sir Wira Gardiner
.
.
Party Positions held:
Government appointments:
- Tertiary Education Commission for a term of three years in May 2010.
- Chair of the Board of the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in November 2010.
.
_______________________________________
.
Stephen McElrea
.
.
Party Positions held:
- Electorate Chairperson for John Key (current)
- Regional Deputy Chair, National Party Northern Region (current)
Government Appointments:
.
Some weeks ago, a furore erupted when NZ on Air boardmember, Stephen McElrea, complained about the broadscasting of a document on TV3, just four days before the Elections last year.
The documentary was a highly critical look at growing child poverty in this country.
The timing of the documentary’s broadcasting was criticised by Stephen McElrea, who complained that it was highly politicised and could impact of NZ on Air’s “impartiality”. There were suggestion made that NZ on Air should have authority over when programme should be broadcast.
Some weeks ago, a furore erupted when NZ on Air boardmember, Stephen McElrea, complained about the broadscasting of a document on TV3, just four days before the Elections last year.
The documentary was a highly critical look at growing child poverty in this country.
The timing of the documentary’s broadcasting was criticised by Stephen McElrea, who complained that it was highly politicised and could impact of NZ on Air’s “impartiality”. There were suggestion made that NZ on Air should have authority over when programme should be broadcast.
***Update***
It appears that Stephen McElrea was part of a working group that has committed NZ on Air funding to a “documentary” on Whanau Ora.
Whanau Ora is a government department created under the National-Maori Party Coalition arrangement after the 2008 General Election.
NZ On Air states that the “documentary” will look at “how successful this new initiative will be in assisting NZ’s most deprived families” and that it would be “a behind the scenes look at the roll out of this new initiative that seeks to deliver positive social outcomes for Maori“.
It is somewhat difficult to see how a documentary could determine that Whanau Ora can be a “successful… new initiative … in assisting NZ’s most deprived families” when it is still barely operating. There have been no assessments or measured outcomes yet (to my knowledge) that would merit a “documentary” on Whanau Ora’s “success” or otherwise.
The fact that Stephen McElrea was a participant in the decision-making process to fund this “documentary/propaganda” is clear evidence that NZ On Air‘s independence has been compromised.
This is the result of government cronyism.
Source: Call for McElrea to resign from NZ On Air
Additional
Scoop.co.nz: PM has questions to answer over NZ on Air link
.
_______________________________________
.
Catherine Isaac
.
.
An announcement was made on 1 February that ACT member; former ACT Party List candidate, and former ACT Party President, Catherine Isaac, had been appointed to oversee the introduction of the government’s Charter Schools programme in South Auckland and Christchurch. Ms Isaacs has no formal experience in the education field.
John Banks defended Isaac’s appointment was stating that she has sat of a School Board of Trustees for six years.
In which case, if I sat on a District Health board for a similar period of time, would that qualify me to carry out thoracic open-heart surgery? Well, I guess that would be one way to “train” our doctors on the cheap and get rid of that pesky, expensive Med School in Dunedin.
Party Positions held:
Government Appointments:
- Member of National government’s Welfare Working Group (past)
- Overseeing Charter Schools implementation (current)
It seems abundantly obvious that Isaac’s appointment is to ensure that ACT’s Charter School policy is implemented without usual critical oversight, and to further ensure that results are presented in a “positive light” to the public.
.
_______________________________________
.
Katherine Rich (#1)
.
.
(L-R) National MPs Simon Powell, Katherine Rich, former National leader Don Brash, National MPs Nathan Guy and Gerry Brownlee applaud John Key as he delivers his speech as the New Zealand National Party launch their election campaign at Sky City on October 12, 2008 in Auckland, New Zealand.
.
“The National-led Government is defending its appointment of the Food and Grocery Council chief executive to a board which will set up a new health promotion agency.
Katherine Rich has been appointed to the Health Promotion Agency Establishment Board, which replaces the Alcohol Advisory Council.
The move has outraged advocacy group Alcohol Action. Spokesperson Doug Sellman says Ms Rich has been one of the most vociferous defenders of the alcohol industry.
Professor Sellman says supermarkets normalise alcohol as an ordinary commodity and sell it by the tonne at ultra-cheap prices up to 24 hours a day.
He believes Ms Rich’s appointment is a major conflict of interest and indicates the Government wants to have the alcohol industry strongly represented in its preparations for the new agency.
“Seventy percent of the alcohol that’s sold in New Zealand comes through supermarkets and here we have a person in Katherine Rich who’s a staunch defender of the excessive commercialisation of alcohol, particularly though supermarkets, and she’s on a board that is presumably about decreasing the heavy drinking culture.”
The Labour Party agrees the appointment of Katherine Rich is too much a conflict of interest.” – Source, Radio NZ
.
The Radio NZ report does raise an important question regarding her appointment to the Health Promotion Agency Establishment Board, which replaces the Alcohol Advisory Council.
ALAC was an organisation dedicated to raising awareness of New Zealand’s considerable alcohol related (some say fueled) problems.
A 2009 BERL report estimated that “$4.437 million of diverted resources and lost welfare” could be directly attributed to alcohol abuse. That $4.4 billion is reflected in ACC, hospital admissions, crime, family violence, lost productivity, etc, and places a firm dollar cost on the harm that alcohol abuse is causing NZ society. These are costs we all pay for through ACC levies and taxes spent on medical intervention; policing; and the justice system.
Whilst working for the Food and Grocery Council, Ms Rich was a firm advocate of liberal laws surrounding marketting and retailing of alcohol,
.
“The New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA) and Alcohol Advisory Council (Alac) strongly backed the recommendations.
Alac chief executive Gerard Vaughan said it set out a clear objective of reducing alcohol-related harm which stretched to structure and role changes for the district licensing agencies responsible for managing liquor licensing in their own communities.
Communities up and down the country were sick of the violence and vandalism that came with drinking and that proposed changes to licencing regimes would help address the problem, Mr Vaughan said.
Nearly 3000 submissions were received by the commission, many of which supported the tightening of laws around alcohol sales, purchasing and consumption.
But NZ Food and Grocery Council chief executive Katherine Rich said the report reflected “classic nanny state thinking.”
It failed to target those causing the problems and punished everyone, she said. The industry was already one of the most regulated, and more sensible ways to approach existing problems included better enforcement of current rules and better use of legal powers, along with industry-led initiatives.” Source
.
New Zealand has a $4 billion-plus problem with alcohol abuse (BERL report) and Katherine Rich dismissed attempts to address this crisis as “classic nanny state thinking“?
It is worthwhile reflecting that since liquor laws were de-regulated in the mid 1980s (as part of the wave of Rogernomics “reforms”), that 25 years later things have gotten steadily worse.
Party positions held:
- List MP for National, 1999 – 2008
- Co-Chair, Classical Liberal Policy Advisory Group, National Party, 2004
Government appointments:
.
_______________________________________
.
Mervyn English
.
.
Though the State Services Commissioner did find that they were satisfied with English’s appointment, one has to question why the position was not publicly advertised, as is common practice?
Even if the SSC is satisfied of no inappropriateness, this brings up a valid point; how can we differentiate between blatant political appointees and those made on merit, if the entire system is brought into disrepute? Public perception is growing that this government is stacking various organisation Boards with party apparatchiks – and judging by recent events, that perception is not misplaced.
.
_______________________________________
.
Jenny Shipley
.
.
Party Positions held:
- National Party MP 1987 – 2002
- Various ministerial portfolios
- Prime Minister 1997 – 1999
Government appointments:
- Appointed to Chair board of Genesis Energy, October 2009
- Appointed to monitor CERA activities, at $1000 per day, July 2011
.
_______________________________________
.
.
* Carrying on, where the National Business Review left of, in November 2008. (Which, by sheer coincidence, is when National took power.)
.
.
= fs =
Heather Roy – head down the mine shaft?
.
.
Both TVNZ’s “Q+A” and TV3′s “The Nation” today (4 November) carried interviews with Bernie Monk, regarding the upcoming royal commission of inquiry report, due for release at 3.45pm this coming Monday (5 November).
See: Pike River families to get first look at report
The Q+A interview was especially interesting, as the programme followed up with panellists from the Left, Right, and a Political Scientist. In this case, the panellists were ex-ACT MP, Heather Roy; political pundit, Jon Johansson; and ex-Labour Party President, Mike Williams.
The issue quickly shifted to the de-regulation of the mining industry, and the gutting of the Mines Inspectorate. All of which happened under the neo-liberal “reforms” of the Bolger-led government in the early 1990s.
As the Dept of Labour website stated (in a belated attempt to justify de-regulation, but which actually turned into a damning indictment of National in the early 1990s) regarding the backdrop to de-regulation,
” The HSE Act 1992 and the Department’s role.
45. In broad terms, the HSE Act replaced heavily prescriptive standards (telling duty holders precisely what measures to take in a particular situation) with a performance-based approach, primarily by imposing general duties (sometimes referred to as goal setting regulation) such as to take ‘all practicable steps’ to ensure health and safety, leaving it to the discretion of the duty holder how they achieve that standard. This approach was coupled with greater use of performance standards that specify the outcome of the health and safety improvement or the desired level of performance but leave the concrete measures to achieve this end open for the duty holder to adapt to varying local circumstances. There was also a focus on systemsbased standards. These identify a particular process, or series of steps, to be followed in the pursuit of safety, and may include the use of formal health and safety management systems.
46. New Zealand embraced the Robens philosophy of self-regulation somewhat belatedly, but with particular enthusiasm and in the context of a political environment that was strongly supportive of deregulation. Indeed, in various forms, deregulation (and reducing the regulatory burden on industry more broadly) was strongly endorsed by the Labour Government that came into power in 1984 and by the National Government that succeeded it in 1990. The HSE Act was a product of this deregulatory environment and in its initial version was stripped of some of the key measures recommended by Robens, not least tripartism, worker participation and an independent executive. It was regarded, so we were told, as a ‘necessary evil’ at a time when the predominant public policy goal was to enhance business competitiveness…
[...]
50. Put differently, whereas under the previous legislation, inspectors had been expected to go into workplaces and direct duty holders as to what safety measures they should introduce (the expectation being that the inspector rather than the employer would take the initiative) under the HSE Act employers bear primary responsibility for health and safety while providing information and support, particularly when it comes to establishing and developing health and safety systems and processes and takes enforcement action where the employer fails to meet the practicability standard.”
See: Review of the Department of Labour’s interactions with Pike River Coal Limited
The up-shot of the above report is that instead of actively policing mines and their safety standards, it was all left to individual companies to address. Instead of being “prescriptive” as the DoL laments, individual companies were to adopt a “a performance-based approach” and to “to take ‘all practicable steps’ to ensure health and safety, leaving it to the discretion of the duty holder how they achieve that standard“.
Well, we know how that turned out.
29 men paid dearly for the liberalisation of safety regulations, in one of the most dangerous fields of work on this planet.
The current state of our mines inspectorate is now so bad that even state-owned coal-mining company, Solid Energy publicly expressed it’s dis-satisfaction and called for the process to be handed over to Queensland for safety oversight,
“Solid Energy has called for New Zealand’s mines’ inspectorate to be run out of Queensland, saying the lack of resource at the Department of Labour was partly to blame for the Pike River tragedy.
The state-owned power company is hoping to be the new owner of Pike River Coal, and said the best option to ensure the mine’s safety is to align New Zealand’s framework with that of Queensland.
“We are suggesting Queensland because we believe it is at the forefront of safety in Australia,” said chief executive Dr Don Elder.
“The industry needs research capability to look at the best advances overseas and evaluate how those might be applied locally.”
[...]
However, Elder said because New Zealand mining is a small industry, it would be too expensive to provide all of those services, so the most sustainable option is to contract inspectorate and support services to Australia.”
See: Solid Energy wants Australia to run mines inspectorate
So what was ex-ACT MP, Heather Roy’s, response in the discussion, that followed the interview with Bernie Monk, who lost in son in the Pike River Mine disaster?
Her response, to put it mildly, was eye-opening and jaw-dropping. In what should have been a crystal-clear message to worshippers of Neo Liberalism, that de-regulation does not always work as intended, she managed to totally ignore the lessons of the Pike River tragedy and deflected the conversation elsewhere,
” HEATHER ROY: Well, in part, but I think Bernie was right when he said the New Zealand public haven’t forgotten about Pike River mine. Things like the Royal Commission are gonna highlight that. The real thing, the tragedy for the families is always going to be ongoing for them. The thing is what lessons can we learn from this, and Mike was outlining some of the things that he thinks should be done. This might be a bit of a watershed for OSH, and that would probably be a good thing in the mining sector. Another thing that needs to be examined is New Zealand’s environmental policies. Should this have been an open cast mine? Should it have been closed? All of those things need to be discussed, not just for Pike River mine, but across the board.
[...]
HEATHER ROY: I think it’s a red hearing to blame deregulation for everything, though. What is actually important is the accountability that follows on from that. Deregulation in itself is not a bad thing. It’s what checks and balances are put in place so that accountability exists beyond that point- “
Source: TVNZ Q+A The panel
I’ve usually found Heather Roy to be the most rational of the right-wing nutjobs that pass for ACT MPs and supporters. She voices views – even if one disagreed with them – with a measure of coherency and logic that elicited a thoughtful response, rather than a gritting of teeth.
On this occassion, I gritted my teeth.
Right wingers make a fetish of demanding a high degree of personal responsibility from us, the Great Unwashed Masses.
See: ACT – Principles
But right wing political parties rarely (actually, never) take responsibility for their own actions.
It is fairly clear to everyone by now that the de-regulation of the mines inspectorates in the early ’90s was a grave mistake. 29 graves, to be precise.
So for Heather Roy to try to shift the blame onto OSH, when legislative “reforms” specifically stated that mines safety had devolved to individual companies, and was no longer the “prescriptive” responsibility of the State is more than a little disingenous – it’s downright dishonest and insulting to all New Zealanders.
How can Roy say with a straight face, “I think it’s a red hearing to blame deregulation for everything, though. What is actually important is the accountability that follows on from that. Deregulation in itself is not a bad thing. It’s what checks and balances are put in place so that accountability exists beyond that point” – is beyond comprehension.
One can only assume she is relying on collective brainfade as to what National did in the early 1990s, and public lack of knowledge on this issue, to try to get away with such bullshit.
How else does one explain her incredible statements,
“I think it’s a red hearing to blame deregulation for everything, though.” – What else would one blame, when we went from seven mines inspectors in 1992 to 1, currently? When prescriptive safety regulations were replaced with companies taking voluntary “‘all practicable steps’ to ensure health and safety“?
“What is actually important is the accountability that follows on from that. ” – It’s a bit too late for accountability after people have been killed in a disaster that need never have happened had stringent safety regulations not been removed.
“Deregulation in itself is not a bad thing. ” – It is a bad thing when de-regulation results in injury or death, that was wholly preventable.
Perhaps Ms Roy would approve of de-regulating road safety rules? Would she endorse removing the speed limit, for example?
“It’s what checks and balances are put in place so that accountability exists beyond that point” – At this point I had ground my teeth to nothing. This comment contradicted her previous statement, “Deregulation in itself is not a bad thing“.
How can we ensure that “checks and balances are put in place so that accountability exists ” – when no regulation exists requiring “checks and balances“?!?!
Nothing Roy has said made any sense, and her assertions defy common sense understanding.
For an educated, articulate woman, she has allowed her natural intelligence to be clouded by the braindead dogma of neo-liberalism, which demands de-regulation and “small government” at any cost.
But there is always a cost.
Just ask 29 families on the West Coast.
.
*
.
Other blogs
Tumeke: The myth of over-regulation and the delusion of self-regulation
The Standard: Two faced John Key on Pike River
Additional
Q+A: Transcript of Bernie Monk interview
Ministry of Labour: A Guide to the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992
.
.
= fs =
Another bare-faced lie from the ACT Party
.
.
From the ACT Party website,
“When Labour abolished the youth minimum wage in 2008, youth unemployment soared. A study by the former Department of Labour found that abolishing the youth wage resulted in a loss of up to 9000 jobs. Removing the youth minimum wage priced young people out of the market. “
See: Re-establishment of Youth Minimum Wage A Win For ACT
What nonsense. The rise in youth unemployment post-2008 was due to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.
In February 2009, the DoL (former Department of Labour) website reported,
“Unemployment has risen across the OECD
9. Statistics New Zealand reports that New Zealand’s unemployment rate is the tenth
equal lowest of the 27 OECD nations with comparable data. The Netherlands and
Norway have the lowest unemployment rate at 2.7%, with South Korea,
Switzerland and Austria also below 4%. The OECD average unemployment rate
was 6.5%, up from 6.0% when the September 2008 quarter HLFS was released.10. New Zealand has so far not been affected as much by the global financial crisis as
some other countries. Furthermore, it is in a relatively better position due to a
strong starting point, fiscal stimulus and large decreases in interest rates. In the
United States, the unemployment rate has risen from 4.8% in February 2008 to
7.2% in December 2008, a 15-year high. Unemployment has increased in other
developed nations, particularly Ireland (to 8.2% in December 2008, from 4.7% a
year earlier) and Spain (to 14.4% in December 2008, from 8.7% a year earlier).[abridged]
15. Youth are often the most at risk during a recession and their unemployment rate is
expected to rise further over the next year. This can be attributed to them having
low levels of experience, but also because those aged 15-24 years old are two to
three times more likely to be unemployed in general. In the early 1990s recession,
the unemployment rate for 15-24 year olds rose from 13.3% in early 1990 to
19.5% in early 1992.”
Source: EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT – DECEMBER 2008 QUARTER
The DoL website also stated that “Maori and Pacific workers are also expected to be affected by the downturn. These groups have a greater proportion of youth relative to Europeans and also tend to be disproportionally employed in low-skilled and semi-skilled occupations, which are often more affected in a recession“.
Does ACT have a policy advocating a lower wage rate for Maori and Pacific islanders, based on their ethnicity?
After all, if one can discrimiminate on age – why not race?
It is dishonest to lay fault with a previous government’s policy when facts point to a completely different cause and effect scenario.
ACT should learn to be a bit bit honest with the facts rather than re-writing history, Orwellian-style, to suit some confused ideology.
But then again, this is John Banks’ Party. ’nuff said.
.
.
= fs =
Neo-liberal Libertarian holds up Victorian England as “model for success”
.
.
As the sun slowly sets on the political tragi-farce that was the rich man’s parliamentary vehicle – the ACT Party – it’s core supporters are desperate to find a new Party to call home.
Colin Craig’s Party is most likely anathema to socially-liberal and fiscally neo-liberal ACT-types and Libertarians – they would view the Conservatives as another ‘false god‘, to be studiously avoided.
Libertarians are of a strange species who hold ideological views diametrically opposed to socialists/marxists/social democrats – and even National Party policies.
For Libertrarians, the State is something to be cut back and allowed to wither away.
Which, strangely enough, is what Marxist/Leninists also propose in their vision of a communistic society, where the State “withers away”.
The difference, of course, is that in a Libertarian world (which I shan’t call a “society” as societies do not exist in an individualistic, Libertarian model) property is individually owned and protected by all means, including use of deadly force.
In a communistic society, the same property is collectively managed, though again deadly force is used to prevent counter-revolution taking place…
It’s interesting to note that whilst marxist/socialist/communist regimes have existed in various forms, throughout the world – not one single modern nation has ever existed using a Libertarian model.
In some ways, Somalia came close, with two out of three Libertarian tenets in play; minimal government and no taxation. The third tenet, a strict rule of law to protect private property rarely exist – though property rights were often enforced by force of private militias.
Indeed, the use of private militias to protect one’s own property is naked libertarianism at it’s truest form. After all, if Libertarians argue that taxation is theft; that individuals should not contribute to the education of everyone’s children – then it stands to reason that one should not have to pay for a Police Force to protect someone elses’ property.
When Richard McGrath was asked on TV3′s “The Nation“ about the implementation of libertarianism in any country, his response was eye-opening,
THE NATION: ‘Is there anywhere in the world that’s a model for how you think?”
RICHARD McGRATH: “Well though it sounds strange, Victorian England actually had a lot of institutions that really looked after people in need, the friendly societies, and those sorts of voluntary organisations. And a lot of that’s gone now because the government’s moved in, muscled in, and taken it over.”
See: Is John Banks causing ACT’s demise?
“Victorian England“?!
Is that the model of a Libertarian nation? A society that was class-ridden; poverty-stricken; poorly-educated; rampant with disease and crime; and where factories were free to dispense massive pollution into the air (causing the infamous London “fog”) and Thames River, turning it into an open-air sewarage channel?
Is McGrath holding up, as the ideal Libertarian model, a society where mentally ill were incarcerated as criminals; ill treated; and poorly fed? Where children worked as slaves in vast factories? Where, if a husband deserted his wife and children, she’d be forced into prostitution to survive?
McGrath refers to the charity work of “ friendly societies, and those sorts of voluntary organisations ” - which was indeed the case. There was no organised State social welfare, healthcare, or superannuation for pensioners.
Whilst factory owners made vast sums of profits on the backs of lowly-paid, over-worked, and mis-treated workers – those without work; the sick; the infirm; and other unfortunates survived on the meager handouts from charities that relied solely on the generosity of some benefactors.
‘Oliver Twist‘ was not some fanciful tale of a dark Fantasy World. It was a slice of life from our nasty, brutish past.
A nasty, brutish past that Libertarians want to bring back?
To show how utterly mad these people are, and how disconnected they are from the real world, I refer the reader to another Libertarian, Peter Cresswell.
In the same programme, on Christchurch’s rebuild, Peter Cresswell suggested,
” You could say, no taxes; get rid of the RMA; so for 3 or 4 years or 5 years you’ve got complete freedom for people to do what they wish with what little they have left.”
See: Ibid
“ Complete freedom for people to do what they wish“?!
What – like rebuild on the same fault-lines where previous buildings crashed into piles of rubble on 22 February, last year? Or re-build using techniques , designs, and material that would be wholly inappropriate and dangerous to occupants?
Perhaps build a fifty story high-rise in the same manner as the ill-fated CTV Building?!
It is little wonder that in last year’s general election, the Libertarianz Party won only 1,595 votes (See: 2011 general election official results).
Very few people would want to live in a Libertarian nirvana that replicated Victorian England. It might be a fine thing if you’re a rich Estate holder, Industrialist, or Merchant.
But it’d be Hell to be working in one of their factories.
.
.
= fs =
John Banks – escaping justice (Part Toru)
Continued from: John Banks – escaping justice (Part Rua)
.
A link to the blogpost, John Banks – escaping justice (Part Rua) was emailed to John Banks earlier today (14 September).
Unexpectedly, this blogger has received a response from John Banks’ office,
.
Date: Friday, 14 September 2012 3:12 PM
From: Christopher Diack <Christopher.Diack@parliament.govt.nz>
To: “‘fmacskasy@yahoo.com’” <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: John Banks.Dear Frank
On behalf of the Hon John Banks Leader of ACT and MP for Epsom thank you for your email of 14 September 2012 regarding the recent release of Official Information relating to the investigation into Mr Banks’ 2010 return of donations and expenses for the election of the mayor of Auckland.
Mr Banks has asked me to respond as follows.
In our system of government the Police independently decide if there is a case to answer and if charges are laid under the law.
Mr Banks filed his return in good faith believing it to be correct and true.
There was an extensive three month investigation by the Police which weighed all the evidence and concluded that the intent to file a return that was materially false was not established. Therefore no charges were laid. The conclusion is that Mr Banks has complied with the law.
As far as Mr Banks is concerned the matter is closed.
Regards
Chris
Christopher J. W. Diack
Chief of Staff & Legal Advisor
Office of Hon. John Banks, CNZM, QSO
Minister for Regulatory Reform | Minister for Small Business | Associate Minister of Commerce
Associate Minister of Education | MP for Epsom | Leader ACT New Zealand.
11.21 Bowen House
Parliament Buildings
Wellington
DDI +64 4 817 6970 | FAX +64 4 817 6523 | Mobile +64 21 800 901
christopher.diack@parliament.govt.nz
.
Astounding.
Actually receiving a response…
We must be living in an Age of Miracles…
Reply emailed to Mr Diack this evening (15 September),
.
Date: Saturday, 15 September 2012 8:43 PM
From: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: John Banks.
To: Christopher Diack <Christopher.Diack@parliament.govt.nz>
Cc: John Key <john.key@parliament.govt.nz>Kia ora, Chris,Thank you for responding to me letter, and with promptness. Your courtesy in this area is to your credit considering that most National ministers no longer bother to reply to correspondence from the public.In response to your email dated 14 September, I would like to pose several questions that you and Minister Banks may be able to assist with, and clarify.1. Can you confirm that Minister Banks has declined to give permission for his Statement to the Police, to be released to the public?2. Can you or Minister Banks explain why he refuses to make public his Statement when he has consistantly adopted a personal position that he had “nothing to fear, nothing to hide”?3. You stated that “Mr Banks filed his return in good faith believing it to be correct and true”. How do you reconcile that assertion when Minister Banks requested that Kim Dotcom split his $50,000 donation in two equal parts of $25,000 each, so as to be recorded as anonymous donations? 4. You stated that “Mr Banks filed his return in good faith believing it to be correct and true”. How can that be true when, Minister Banks’ own lawyer, Gregory Towers, stated to Police investigators that Minister Banks instructed him on 8 February, “… that as much as [he, John Banks] wished to publicly support Kim that may backfire on Kim if it became known about the election support” – and yet on 27 April, nearly three months later, Minister Banks told TV3 News, “Well, I don’t know. I mean I haven’t seen the forms now for a couple of years, so I don’t know who gave me money, I can’t remember now”.5. Are you or Minister Banks aware that, on 2 May, ACT Party President, Chris Simmons, was interviewed on Radio New Zealand’s “Checkpoint” programme by Mary Wilson, where he stated that splitting the $50,000 donation was, “…one of the suggestions made to Dotcom.… He has given me an indication why he made that suggestion and that was that he initially was going to put in $25,000 of his own money and he figured that other people should be putting in the same sort of numbers”. Was Mr Simmons correct in that initial statement?6. Mr Banks’ mayoral campaign received three additional “anonymous” $25,000 donations for his mayoral campaigns. Who were those donations from? Were they one $75,000 donation from one individual/organisation? Were receipts issued for those donations? Did the Police investigate the source of those donations? What, if anything, was the outcome of scrutiny into those three $25,000 donations?
7. You stated in your email to me that ” The conclusion is that Mr Banks has complied with the law. “ How do you reconcile that proposition with Police statements that they are unable to prosecute because the matter falls outside a statute of limitations on laying prosecutions? Do you accept that rather than ” the conclusion is that Mr Banks has complied with the law”, that Minister Banks escaped prosecution only because of a legal technicality?
8. You further stated in your email to me that “There was an extensive three month investigation by the Police which weighed all the evidence and concluded that the intent to file a return that was materially false was not established. ” How do you reconcile that statement with a claim by Ms Mackey, who challenged claims that Mr Banks signed the Electoral Form without reading it and insisted, “But John Banks did read the document.” And do you accept that rather than ” the conclusion is that Mr Banks has complied with the law”, that Minister Banks escaped prosecution only because of a legal technicality?
9. Is Minister Banks in a habit of signing documents he has not read?
10. Is it correct that Minister Banks incited Kim Dotcom to break the Electoral law on reporting donations by advising him to hide the $50,000 donation: “I want to help you Kim and I can help you more effectively if no-one knows about this donation.”?
11. Are you or Minister Banks aware that Skycity received a receipt from Bank’s Campaign Treasurer for their $15,000 donation and that donation was later listed as ‘anonymous’? How can a donation that was acknowledged by way of a written receipt be considered as “anonymous”? What is the definition of “anonymous” when the identity of the donor is known?
12. Why did Minister Banks continue to insist to media and public alike, that he had no memory of any of these matters – and yet evidence and statements by others proved that he had full knowledge of donations made; the identity of donors; that he advised donors how to ensure that donations were recorded as “anonymous”; and that Minister Banks had sought prior legal advice how to evade provisions of the Local Electoral Act 2001?
13. Will Minister Banks offer his resignation to the Prime Minister and step down from all ministerial roles?
I look forward to answers to these questions and matters raised therein.Thank you for your time.Regards,-Frank MacskasyBlogger
.
Mr Diack’s response, received this morning (17 September),
.
Date: Sunday, 16 September 2012 6:26 PM
From: Christopher Diack <Christopher.Diack@parliament.govt.nz>
To: ‘Frank Macskasy’ <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: John Banks.Dear Frank
Please refer to my earlier email.
Regards
Chris
.
Unfortunately, Chris Diack’s previous email does not answer any of the thirteen questions put to John Banks. (In fact, this blogger is aware that Mr Diack’s response has been sent to other citizens, who have emailed his office expressing concerns on this issue.)
This is unacceptable and I wonder how Messrs Diack and Banks can reconcile their evasiveness with the latters constant mantra, “nothing to fear, nothing to hide”.
John Banks seems to be hiding a great deal and his continuing warrant to serve as a Minister of the Crown is based solely on the desperation of his patron, John Key, to preserve his one seat majority in Parliament. This is the sordid, shabby, self-serving situation that John Key lambasted Prime Minister Helen Clark, over the Winston Peters-Owen Glenn donations affair,
.
“ Peters unacceptable in a National-led Government
Wednesday, 27 August 2008, 4:24 pm
Press Release: New Zealand National PartyJohn Key MP
National Party Leader27 August 2008
Peters unacceptable in a National-led Government
National Party Leader John Key says Winston Peters would be unacceptable as a Minister in a government led by him unless Mr Peters can provide a credible explanation on the Owen Glenn saga.
“Labour Party donor Owen Glenn’s letter to the Privileges Committee completely contradicts Winston Peters’ version of events about the substantial $100,000 donation made by Mr Glenn to Mr Peters’ legal costs.
“Mr Glenn’s letter represents a direct challenge to Mr Peters’ credibility, from the only other person in the world in a position to know the facts.
“From Parliament’s point of view, the Privileges Committee provides an appropriate vehicle to resolve the points of conflict and to hold individuals to account. But from the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s point of view, that is not enough.
“Governments and Ministers must enjoy the confidence of the Parliament and, ultimately, the public. Faced with today’s revelations, it is no longer acceptable for Mr Peters to offer bluster and insults where simple, courteous, honest answers are required.
“It is no longer acceptable or credible for Helen Clark to assert a facade of confidence in her Foreign Affairs Minister and to fail to ask the plain questions of him that she has a duty to the public to ask.
“Faced with today’s revelations, Helen Clark must stand Mr Peters down as a Minister. That is what I would do if I were Prime Minister. Helen Clark has stood Ministers from Labour down for much less.
“Unless he can provide a credible explanation about this serious issue, he should be unacceptable to Helen Clark as a Minister in her Labour-led Government.
“Mr Peters will be unacceptable as a Minister in a government led by me unless he can provide a credible explanation”. “
Source: Scoop.co.nz – Peters unacceptable in a National-led Government
.
Same situation.
Same desperation to to hang on.
Same standards.
It is even more laughable that John Key states that he has not read the Police file on this case; is not going to read the Police report; and is satisfied that he has taken John Banks at his word,
” Shane: This isn’t about the issue being you. All I want to know is having read the police report, whether you believe Mr Banks when he said -
John: I haven’t read that police report, and I’m not going to because I don’t need to. I rely, as any prime minister would, that I enjoy the confidence -
Shane: Why wouldn’t you read the police report?
John: Because it’s not my job to do a forensic analysis. What I can tell you is the law doesn’t work. What I can tell you is this is a politically motivated attempt by the Labour Party to get at the government. Fair enough. That’s called politics.
Shane: So you believe him even though others say he was lying?
John: No, what I’m saying to you is accept his word. I accept that the law is very ambiguous, and I accept that the Labour Party are using this as a politically motivated attempt to get to the government. Because they’re not going after – This is a guy that lost the mayoral election. They didn’t try and test this out after he lost. They didn’t test it out for every other candidate. They’re not testing it out around the country. And, by the way, when they changed the central government law around donations, they didn’t bother to do it for local government. But today they care about it, and that’s because it’s politically motivated. “
See: TVNZ Q+A Interview with Prime Minister John Key
His “word”?
What “word”?!
Throughout this shameful affair, the public has seen John Banks obfuscating; forgetting; lying; and blaming everyone else for his own actions.
For John Key to buy into the “blame-everyone-else-game” (Labour, the law, etc) shows how bankrupt National’s Standards really are.
National and ACT demand a high standard of personal responsibility from everyone else. They are the Parties built on the mantra of Taking Personal Responsibility. It is the height of hypocrisy that neither Banks nor his handler are prepared to Take Personal Responsibility they expect from everyone else,
“ 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.”
See: Food parcel families made poor choices, says Key
Whilst the poor are beaten about their heads with messages of Taking Personal Responsibility, dishonest politicians who escape prosecution on technicalities and the patronage of the Prime Minister, laugh and thumb their noses at the law.
No wonder that John Key has stated that if National loses at an election that he would step down as Party leader,
“He also said he had made it reasonably clear that he did not want to revert to being Opposition leader.
“I don’t think it suits me as a person. I’m not a negative person and a lot of Opposition is negative“.”
See: Key says he’ll quit politics if National loses election
I would add that Key’s credibility is shot to hell and he could never again launch a critical attack on a Labour government minister who has been shown to be engaged in lies and wrongdoing. The word “hypocrite” would echo through the Debating Chamber every time Key stood to criticise someone.
If, reading this, you feel a sense of frustration and outrage that our elected representatives can behave in such a reprehensible manner – rest assured, you are quite normal and your “moral compass” is set as it should be.
If, however, you are an ACT or National supporter, and you see nothing wrong with Banks’ and Key’s behaviour – rest assured, this new standard of political cronyism will be used by future governments when it suits their purposes.
No doubt then we’ll hear some serious braying and moral chest-thumping from National/ACT supporters?
Oh, how I’ll look forward to that day.
.
*
.
Relared blogpost
Key on Banks; Staunch, stupid, or stuck?
.
.
= fs =
Christchurch, choice, and charter schools
.
.
National is a Party of choice. National loves to give individuals choice. National hates the idea of “Nanny State” taking away the individuals’ right of choice and governments making decisions on their behalf. National believes that individuals know better than the state.
“Choice is good”.
“State decisionmaking is bad”.
According to National.
Which is why, when National announced it would be adopting ACT’s policy of implementing Charter Schools (in poor areas only – but no doubt that was just a coincidence), choice was high on the list of rationale’s for this policy,
.
.
Dear Leader John Key stated,
“ It’s a step towards more choice, at the end of the day I expect the vast bulk of schools will be the same as they are now.”
See: Ibid
Little Dear Leader, Bill English, parrotted the Party line; Charter Schools offered choice,
” Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member knows, the issue of whether teachers are qualified is being discussed in the context of charter schools, which will offer an element of choice, although a very small element of choice, in the general school system. All other schools will continue to run with registered teachers.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: In respect of the State-run schools, no. In respect of the charter schools, it is an aspect of providing choices for young New Zealanders that are not currently available to them. “
See: Parliament: Questions for Oral Answer
National MP for Maungakiekie, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, repeated the mantra (in case we missed it the first time),
” With our Government’s focus on raising achievement for all our students, I see partnership schools as just another option for our parents and students. It will give them more freedom to choose the type of education that best suits their children’s learning needs. “
See: Scoop.co.nz – Partnership Schools are Good for High Needs Communities
And the only human member of ACT with high-functioning mental processes, Catherine Isaac, chipped in (as it was ACT policy after all – even though it had never been announced during last year’s election campaign),
” Well, what is different is that these schools are going to get greater freedom to innovate, to find different ways of engaging with children who are struggling to learn, and you need more opportunities, more freedom... “
See: Scoop.co.nz – Q+A – Corin Dann interviews Catherine Isaac and Ian Leckie
It is abundantly clear that National’s preference is always; choice. Lots and lots of choice!
Except…
When National takes away an entire city’s choice.
Like with Christchurch,
.
.
On 13 September, National announced the closure or mergers of dozens of schools in the quake-hit city of Christchurch. Amongst those closing or merging, according to NBR and Radio NZ stories on 14 September,
Schools to close include:
- Aranui High years 1 to 13
- Aranui Primary
- Banks Avenue Primary, or relocate depending on geotech report
- Branston Intermediate
- Burnham Primary
- Burnside Primary
- Chisnallwood Intermediate years 1 to 13
- Duvauchelles Primary
- Glenoor Primary
- Greenpark Primary
- Hammersley Park Primary
- Le Bons Bay Primary
- Linwood Intermediate
- Manning Intermediate
- Ricmond Primary
- Wainoni Primary
Who will merge:
Avonside Girls High will merge with Christchurch Girls High as a “dual shift” or may close depending on geotech report.
Christchurch Boys High will possibly merge with Shirley Boys High as a “dual shift”.
Central New Brighton Primary will merge with New Brighton Primary.
Burwood School and Windsor School on Windsor School site
Discovery One School and Unlimited Paenga Tawhiti as Year 1 to 13 school
Freeville and New Brighton North School
Linwood Avenue School and Bromley School on Bromley School site
Lyttleton Main School and Lyttleton West School
Philipstown School and Woolston School (moving to new site)
South New Brighton School and Central New Brighton School
Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o te Whanau and Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Waitaha
See: Up to 13 Chch schools to be closed, as many as 18 will merge
See: 13 schools to close, others to merge in Christchurch
The shock news was delivered to a packed meeting of principles and Boards of Trustees members by these three,
.
DELIVERING THE NEWS: Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee, Education Minister Hekia Parata and Secretary for Education Lesley Longstone deliver the news.
.
The proposed closures and mergers would result in hundreds of teachers losing their jobs; thousands of students uprooted and moved; and the remaining centres of communities – which have lost many of their infra-structure and services – finally eradicated.
The response from many Christchurch education-sector workers, parents, and residents was unsurprisingly one of anger and disgust. It seems that what the earthquakes had begun – National was hellbent on finishing off.
For many, this was an unprovoked, unforeseen, craven attack on their communities,
” I state here and now … Shirley Boys’ High School as a school exists and will continue to exist – mark it. There is no way in God’s creation that we cease to exist. (source)
We are not going to merge for the most practical reason. I have 1300 students in the school I think Trevor McIntyre at Christchurch Boys’ will have something similar.
To simply say that Shirley closes and suddenly Christchurch Boys’ High School is equipped to double in size is absurd. They don’t have the land, they don’t have the infrastructure. It’s nonsense. (source)”
- John Laurenson, Shirley Boys’ High School principal
“I just don’t understand what’s going on . . . my boy’s got three years left and I didn’t want him to move.
We live nearby and yes, it’s damaged but this is our community so you can’t just pick us up and move us.”
“We’ve got five classrooms at our school, excellent staff doing wonderful things and just can’t for the life of me see why they would want to close Ouruhia.”
“ I wonder how many people who were staying so their kids had stability and didn’t have to be uprooted from schools, will now leave and follow all the others to Brisbane… say 20 schools x 500 pupils/school… is a lot of affected families…. “
“Men and women are in tears at the possibility of losing their jobs, their schools and communities.
Schools are the focal point of their communities. Schools are identified by the names of their community. Families now have to gravitate, take their children to other places, create new identities.
This is going to affect families in a major way. This is going to affect parents in a major way, just like it is going to affect teachers and children.”
- Paul Kennedy, Cathedral Grammar school headmaster
“Our house is TC3 and everything around this school is red-zoned pretty much, but Banks Ave has been the one and only constant in their lives since the earthquakes.
Children had gone through enough without having their school taken off them“.
“We got more than we bargained for today.”
- Philip Harding, Paparoa Street School principal
”Where are the kids supposed to go? Haven’t we been through enough? Half the kids are on medication because of the earthquakes.”
“No parent is going to enrol their child in an intermediate school that they know is closing so already we’re looking at losing half our pupil population next year alone.
I need to look after my staff, maintain the quality of teaching and keep looking after the children because they’ve been heroes since the quakes . . . everyone has gone through so much and now we have to go through this.”
- Geoff Siave, Shirley Intermediate principal
As this blogger pointed out above; National loves choice.
Except when it’s not convenient.
Then it will act with all the ruthlessness of a mad Arab dictator or ex-Soviet Asiatic republic that never quite “got democracy“.
National will give us the ‘choice’ of Charter schools, whether we want them or not.
Whilst at the same time it will gut the heart out of Christchurch, inflicting more heartache, stress, misery, and uncertainty on a city that has endured more than the rest of us could possibly imagine.
I leave the reader with this piece, taken from a National Party 2011 policy-document on education,
12. Support Canterbury
Rebuilding Canterbury is a top priority for National. We supported the people of Canterbury in the immediate aftermath of the earthquakes and we are committed to getting greater Christchurch back on its feet over the coming months and years.
National:
• Ensured all schools were up and running eight weeks after the February earthquake.
• Double-funded students who moved out of Christchurch for 2011. That is, we funded the Christchurch school they no longer attended and also funded the school outside of Christchurch they did attend.
• Created new exemptions so that Christchurch students would not unfairly miss out on NCEA qualifications.National will rebuild the Canterbury school network
* Ensure schools make the most of their facilities and resources, and they collaborate rather than compete with each other.
* Ensure there is a range of education provision so parents can continue to have choice about what type of school they send their children to.
Schools in Christchurch will become part of the most advanced schooling network in New Zealand with facilities that support education in the 21st Century.
See: National Party – Education in Schools – Building Better Public Services
Choice.
We all have it.
Especially on Election Day.
- Christchurch schools -
- Lest We Forget -
.
*
.
Additional
Scoop.co.nz: Christchurch schools to reopen as charter schools?
.
.
= fs =
Charter Schools – Another lie from John Banks!
.
.
Somewhere in New Zealand is a building. It’s not signposted and it most likely looks like any other building in any other town or city.
The only difference is what this building contains.
This building contains all the stupid ideas that humanity has ever come up with in the last 100,000 years or so. It’s quite a big building, because there are so many stupid ideas that have been collected; filed; and lovingly stored. There is practically a stupid idea for every occassion.
This is the building where National and ACT Ministers go to get their next big, “bright”, idea.
This is where John Banks, along with Hekia Parata, went in search of the lunatic concept that is known as “Charter Schools”. It was stored in a little shoe-box, labelled,
“Dumb and Dumber – how to Dumb Down Your Child Using Taxpayer’s Money
Stupid Idea #2,717,990: Charter Schools”
The idea goes something like this;
- Organisations and/or private companies will set up schools – Charter Schools
- Charter Schools would be managed by said Organisation/Church/Company, but funded by the taxpayer
- Charter schools could be run for profit, or non-profit
- Charter schools need not employ qualified, trained teaching staff
- Charter School managers would negotiate salary levels and employment conditions directly with employees – so a “teacher” could be hired on minimum wage – $13.50 an hour
- Charter schools would set their own hours, term dates, etc.
- Charter schools can set their own curriculum
- Charter schools could be run by religious groups such as the Destiny Church cult
Education Minister Hekia Parata and Associate Education Minister, John Banks, today announced the framework for the New Zealand Model of Charter School – or, as they have euphemistically branded them, the Orwellian-sounding “Partnership Schools”, or pandering to culturally-sensitive niceties, “Kura Hourua” .
In effect, ACT and National will be using tax-payer’s money to fund private schools. Not since farming subsidies has National come up with such an odd way to throw our taxes at private companies and organisations.
Private schools and educational institutions have always been a part of New Zealand’s social structure. They were usually religious-based, such as Catholic high schools; Jewish schools; or private training institutions.
Many have now become “State integrated” schools,
” There are three types of school: state, private (or registered or independent) and state integrated schools. State and state integrated schools are government funded. Private schools receive about 25% of their funding from the government, and rely on tuition fees for the rest.
State integrated schools are former private schools which are now “integrated” into the state system under the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act 1975 “on a basis which will preserve and safeguard the special character of the education provided by them”.
According to Ministry of Education statistics, of the 286,886 secondary students (Years 9–15) enrolled in New Zealand schools at 1 July 2011, 81.9 percent (235,048) attend state schools, 12.4 percent (35,631) attend state integrated schools, and 5.6 percent (16104) attend private schools. “
See: Wikipedia Secondary education in New Zealand
The odd thing about Charter Schools is that they are an American construct, originating in 1988, and with the first Charter School law enacted in 1991 in the US.
See: Wikipedia Charter Schools
It could be justified that Charter Schools is an American attempt to employ free-market principles to produce better education outcomes,
“Caps on the number of charters in a state drag down performance as much as lax oversight, because they cramp the diversification of the market and discourage investment…
[abridged]
… Since 1993 15% of charter schools have shut their gates, most because of low enrolment, a sign that the market is working.”
See: The Economist – Charting a better course
It’s hardly surprising that our American cuzzies would turn to their precious capitalist Market Place for solutions to their poor education system.
In a recent OECD PISA report, member states were ranked according to education outcomes for reading, mathematics, and science. The results were… educational.
See: OECD PISA report Education at a Glance, 2011
The graphic below is an abbreviated version of data gleaned from the report,
.
.
It’s interesting to note that in reading achievement, Finland, New Zealand, and the US ranked;
# 3 Finland
# 9 New Zealand
#18 United States
In mathematics,
# 2 Finland
# 9 New Zealand
# 26 United States (below OECD average)
In science,
# 2 Finland
#10 New Zealand
# 23 United States
Any reasonable, rational adult could conclude that Finland must be doing something better with it’s education system than either New Zealand or United States. However, since right wing political parties like National and their low-information supporters don’t always engage in issues on a reasonable, rational level, it’s usually left up to the public to persuade National to review policies that are incoherent and based more on dubious ideology, rather than proven methods.
One simple fact; Finland does education better than us, and way better than our American cuzzies.
When it comes to charter schools, it’s mostly an American ‘game’. Few other countries follow it. Finland certainly doesn’t,
“… What can we learn from Finland and South Korea?
Finland probably has the most successful school system in Europe. Tests of 15-year-old students from 34 nations find the Finns leading in reading, mathematical literacy and scientific literacy. Finnish schools have been in a reform mode for the past 40 years.
Yet, Ms. Ravitch says, “Finland rejects all of the ‘reforms’ currently popular in the United States, such as testing, charter schools, vouchers, merit pay, competition, and evaluating teachers in relation to the test scores of their students.”
The Finnish system is built on rigorously prepared teachers. Teacher training in Finland is an elite profession, open to only the most qualified and offered at only eight universities, which have formidable entrance requirements. Teachers are high achievers, well paid and highly respected.
Ms. Ravitch, who was in Finland last year, found bright and cheerful schools where students engaged in music, dramatics, play, and academic studies with 15-minute recesses between classes. She found that: “Free from the testing obsession that consumes so much of the day in American schools, the staff has time to plan and discuss the students and the program”. “
See: Lessons from Finland, Korea
How do our Finnish cuzzies do it, you may ask. Perhaps a clue can be found here, by Paul Frysh, from CNN,
” The most important lesson the United States can take from Finland is the “preparation and development of high-quality teachers,” Paine said.
This starts with honoring the profession, he said.
“In Finland, it is a tremendous honor to be a teacher, and teachers are afforded a status comparable to what doctors, lawyers and other highly regarded professionals enjoy in the U.S.,” he said.
In addition, like other professions, teachers gain seniority and tenure primarily on the basis of training and experience, and teacher unions have a strong voice in shaping education policy — all very controversial in the United States.
The profession is held in such high regard that competition to get teacher training is fierce. Nationally, only about 10% of some 7,000 applicants to primary school programs are accepted annually to Finnish teacher training programs, according to statistics from the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture.
And it’s not about the money.
“In Finland, they do attract the very best and brightest into the profession, and it has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with the respect that is given to the profession,” Paine said.
In fact, teachers in Finland are paid about the same as teachers in the U.S.
One young Finnish teacher, asked why he went into the profession, told Paine: “Because it is the most honorable of all professions. It is a patriotic, national calling to be a teacher.”
But what he learned in Finland, Paine said, is that the respect must be more than just lip service.
Administrators in Finland really listen to teachers, then back up their words by giving teachers autonomy and resources, said Paine.
“If you want enduring, lasting student learning, there’s no easy way around that but to invest your time and your resources, including money, as close to the classroom as you can possibly get and that’s with the teacher.”
Part of this investment is in initial teacher education.
In the U.S., most teachers accumulate debt paying for their education, teacher-mentoring is rare and training ranges wildly from a few weeks of training in alternative teacher training programs such as Teach for America to world-class four-year and graduate college programs.
In Finland, by contrast, teachers train for free, receive a stipend and begin hands-on teaching with a mentor almost immediately. All school teachers must hold a master’s degree in addition to four or five years of undergraduate training to be permanently employed, and teachers without a master’s are given time and resources to get it.
And it turns out that well-respected, well-educated teachers stick around longer. “
See: West Virginia learns Finland’s ‘most honorable profession’: Teacher
So Finland did not achieve it’s high education outcomes through short-cuts and fads such as “charter schools” and performance pay. Their strategy was a greater investment in the teaching profession itself. It wasn’t about the school structure – it was about the teachers – the men at women who actually front up, at the chalk-face, of our class-rooms.
By comparison, Charter schools have had a poor education outcome in the US, according to a 2009 report by Stanford University’s Centre for Research for Education Outcomes (CREDO),
” The group portrait shows wide variation in performance. The study reveals that a decent fraction of charter schools, 17 percent, provide superior education opportunities for their students.
Nearly half of the charter schools nationwide have results that are no different from the local public school options and over a third, 37 percent, deliver learning results that are significantly worse than their student would have realized had they remained in traditional public schools.
.
A study done by Stanford University found that charter schools on average perform about the same or worse compared to public schools.
Source: Wikipedia Charter Schools
These findings underlie the parallel findings of significant state‐by‐state differences in charter school performance and in the national aggregate performance of charter schools. The policy challenge is how to deal constructively with varying levels of performance today and into the future…
[abridged]
… Our national pooled analysis reveals, on the whole, a slightly negative picture of average charter school performance nationwide.
On average, charter school students can expect to see their academic growth be somewhat lower than their traditional public school peers, though the absolute differences are small. “
See: Stanford University: Charter School Performance in 16 States (USA)
So the question we now pose is; Why do it? Why borrow from a country that has worse education outcomes than us – instead of looking toward an education system from a country near the top of the OECD?!?!
Hekia Parata stated,
” We want all our students leaving school with the skills they need to reach their potential in the modern economy. Partnerships schools or Kura Hourua will be based on international best practice and will ensure high levels of accountability and flexibility, while being tailored to New Zealand’s education environment. “
See: Ministers announce framework for Partnership Schools
In which case, who in their right mind emulates a nation’s education system that has a worse ranking on the OECD scale than we do? Because if that’s the standard that John Key, Hekia Parata, and John “I-can’t-recall” Banks is searching for, then perhaps we should emulate Indonesia.
They’re at the bottom of the scale.
If anyone knows the answer to this question, you may have unlocked the enigmatic, convoluted inner-workings of a right wing politicians brain.
As for John Banks – he was interviewed on today’s (2 August) Radio NZ “Checkpoint” programme, where he stated,
“… because I know, Suzie [RNZ interviewer] , that for the kids that are not engaged in the education system today, abandoning them to the dole is not good enough. This does work in Britain, does work in America, does work in Finland, does work in Switzerland, and this special partnbership schools are going to work here. “
Radio NZ Checkpoint: Associate Education Minister on charter schools
Unfortunately for Banks, his comments are not supported by evidence,
- Charter schools “does not work” in the United States. The CREDO report states quite clearly that only 17% showed any appreciable improvement in outcomes. The remainder showed either no difference (46%) or a worse outcome (37%).
- Finland does not use the Charter schools system; “Finland rejects all of the ‘reforms’ currently popular in the United States, such as testing, charter schools, vouchers, merit pay, competition, and evaluating teachers in relation to the test scores of their students.”
- This blogger can find no evidence that Charter schools exist in Switzerland. Indeed, quite the oppposite; “In Switzerland, most children go to public schools. Private schools usually are expensive and people tend to think that students of private schools probably didn’t make it at the public school. Public schools include “Kindergarten”, “Volksschule” (elementary school), “Gymnasium” (secondary school) and “Universitäten” (universities). Most municipalities provide kindergarten, primary and secondary schools. Most cantons provide at least one secondary school. There are eleven universities in Switzerland, nine are run by cantons, two are run by the confederation“. See: Information about Education in Switzerland
- Of the countries mentioned by Banks, only Britain has Charter Schools, which they call academies. This blogger can find no peer-reviewed study to confirm their effectiveness or otherwise.
Once again, John Banks appears to be lying to the public. Nothing that escapes his lips can be taken at face-value.
There are further points that warrant attention,
Subsidies
ACT has, in the main, been quick to oppose subsidies. It is a Party that prefers the “free market” approach. Indeed, it went so far as to oppose subsidies for superannuitants for GP visits, power bills, and insurance.
See: John Banks - Speaking Truth To (Grey) Power
ACT has condemned Kiwisaver subsidies - incentives for people to save for retirement - as a “bribe”.
Likewise, subsidies for doctor’s visits and University education were condemned as not in the “public good”.
See: Saving New Zealand: Building a More Prosperous New Zealand
ACT condemned the previous Labour’s job-creation programme, which invested $251 million subsidising young people into work, as an “expensive band-aid”.
See: Labour Created Record Youth Unemployment
Yet, at the same time, ACT sees no contradiction in subsidising private organisations, churches, and corporations to set up and run Charter Schools?
One can only surmise that corporate welfare is still very much an integral part of ACT policy. “Money for mates” – business mates – is one way to put it.
If someone wants to set up a school, within certain Ministry of Education guidelines, then let them spend their own money on such a venture. This blogger sees no reason why the taxpayer should be spending our taxes on private enterprises. That is not why we pay our taxes.
Untrained Teachers
The prospect that Charter Schools will be staffed by untrained “teachers” beggars belief. This is not how a modern nation upskills it’s people – by engaging untrained staff instead of highly educated professionals.
If National is going for the cheaper option, where untrained “teachers” are paid minimum wages to teach vulnerable, low socio-economic children – then what is the point of spending millions of dollars on teacher training?
Especially when Education Minister Hekia Parata recently announced last week that a postgraduate qualification would become the new minimum requirement for all trainee teachers.
As Hekia Parata stated, on 16 May, National’s new policies would include,
” 1. Invest an additional $60 million over four years to boost new teacher- recruitment and training
2. Ensure that student teachers are equipped with the best teaching practices for 21st century learning
3. Shift to a post-graduate qualification for new teachers
4. And give stronger mentoring and coaching for those teachers working towards full registration. “
See: Hekia Parata: Raising achievement for all in Budget 2012
Parata went on to say,
” Even so, our National-led Government is committed to improving the quality of teaching through an ongoing investment of just over $300m over the next four years in professional learning and development.
· Today I am pleased to announce that in Budget 2012 we will invest a further $511.9m of new money into quality frontline education services.
· Quality teaching is about holding high expectations of, being able to relate to and finding what works for every single child in the classroom. That’s what every one of our teachers needs to be able to do. “
So if National is pushing for new teachers to attain postgraduate qualifications – an expensive investment in on-going education – then what is the point of spending taxpayers’ money on setting up Charter Schools staffed by untrained or poorly trained staff?!
On what planet does this make sense to anyone? Planet National?
The Finns certainly did not achieve their #2 and #3 rankings on the OECD scale by dumbing down the teaching profession and opting for second-best.
In contrast to Parata’s 16 May statement, it is sobering to note that the 2 August media release by Hekia Parata and John Banks, announcing the advent of Charter Schools, did not once mention teachers or improved teacher training.
Not once.
See: Ministers announce framework for Partnership Schools
.
.
That little fact speaks volumes about National/ACT’s reliance on ideology rather than common sense.
John Key’s insistance that we shouldn’t get “hung up” on the issue of untrained teachers in classrooms simply boggles the mind.
See: Key: Don’t worry about unqualified teachers
In this instance, his casualness will have raised eyebrows and probably a few hackles. His suggestion that “he would be happy with his children being taught by unregistered teachers” is a derisable joke – Key sends his kids to expensive private schools.
The stench of hypocrisy…
But I’ll leave the last word to investigative journalist/documentary maker, Bryan Bruce,
” So… charter schools will not have to employ qualified teachers. What a brilliant idea!
Let’s see …next we could have charter doctors, charter dentists, charter architects, charter engineers… all totally unqualified.. and Hey! we could get rid of universities.. Think of all that lovely money we’d save.
Goodbye student loan – who needs one?Hip hip! for our charter politicians John Banks and Hekia Parata . Hurrah !
Now our Charter kids won’t have to worry about the future.
They won’t have one.”
See: Facebook -Inside Child Poverty
.
*
.
Previous Blogposts
Privatisation of our schools?!
Additional
Education shake-up ‘biggest for years’
Destiny Church may get funding for new school
Key defends state-funded private schools
On charter schools – Gordon Campbell
OECD: Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science
OECD: PISA – Education at a Glance 2011
Ministers announce framework for Partnership Schools
Charter schools could employ unregistered teachers
Government allows non-qualified teachers into school system
New charter school model ignores findings of research
Key: Don’t worry about unqualified teachers
Stanford University: Charter School Performance in 16 States (USA)
The Economist: Charting a better course
Radio NZ: Checkpoint – Plan to allow unregistered teachers into charter schools
West Virginia learns Finland’s ‘most honorable profession’: Teacher
Majority against hiring unqualified teachers
From around the world
Salon: Education reform’s central myths
allthingslearning: Can a teacher “create” LEARNing THAT LASTS?
BBC: Academies told they can hire unqualified teachers
New Statesman: The American revolution in English schools
Huffington Post: In Support of the Whole Child
Other Blogs
No Right Turn: Charter schools are bad schools
Local Bodies: NZ Charter Schools Defined
The Standard: Incoherent education policy
The Standard: Robber’s charter
.
.
= fs =
Ministers, Mad Moralists, and Minor Parties
.
.
A previous moral hysteria surrounding welfare beneficiaries and especially solo mums (but never solo dads) took place back in August 2009, when Paula Bennett released the files of two solo-mothers who had dared to criticise the Minister for closing down the Training Incentive Allowance.
Despite having no authorisation or right to do so, Bennett released details of the women’s WINZ files to the media and three years later there is still an outstanding complaint against her. It was a nasty, vindictive abuse of Ministerial power not seen since the autocratic rule of Robert Muldoon.
Attacks on solo mums reached a hysterical crescendo that could only be described as naked misogyny – especially from a sector of the male population that has never had much success in relating to women. There were vile comments on many internet fora that cannot be repeated in polite company.
Fast forward to April 2012, and National is facing so much bad news that the media and bloggers are finding it difficult to choose what to hone in on. Just to remind us about some of the problems confronting National,
- Youth unemployment up from 58,000 last year to 87,000 this year
- Total unemployment up to 160,000 – 6.7% of the workforce
- The government tax-take is down by $1.57 billion in the first nine months of the fiscal year
- Government deficit increases to $6.13 billion, or $800 million more than forecast
- Migration to Australia is increasing, with a net loss of 39,100 to the year ending February 2012
- Wages continue to lag behind Australia
- New Zealand’s sovereign debt is at a massive $13.5 billion dollars
- Student debt is at a record $13 billion – and rising
- Widening wealth/income gap
- Increasing child poverty and poverty-related disease on a massive scale
- Increased repayments demanded from tertiary students – effectively a tax increase
- Ongoing public resistance to state asset sales
- Ongoing public resistance to selling productive farmland to overseas investors
- Ongoing public resistance to mining in conservation lands
- A growing public disquiet over a hydrocarbon-extraction process known as “fracking”
- Selling legislation for a convention centre and 500 extra pokies
- Ministers involved in scandal after scandal
- Key’s ‘teflon coating’ now practically non-existent, and developing a reputation for not being upfront with the public
- A coalition partner whose brand is now so toxic that even right wingers are singing it’s funeral dirges
- and numerous other negative indicators
Time for the government Spin Doctors to swing into action, and deflect attention from National’s apalling track record thus far.
Time to dust of the Manual for Deflection, and flick through to the chapter on blaming solo mums (but never solo dads) for the ills of the country; the Black Plague in the Middle Ages; both World Wars; and most likely the sinking of the Titanic.
Time for John Key to point at some young woman pushing a pram, and shout – “Hey! Look over there!”
It worked in 2009.
See: Benefits of 50 to be scrutinised
Why not try it again, wonder National’s faceless, taxpayer-funded spin-doctors and strategists, to deflect public attention from scandals and poor management of the economy?
See: Bennett increases pursuit of welfare ‘rorts’
See: Drug tests for more beneficiaries mooted
See: New welfare law a ‘war on poor’
See: Big families mean big welfare dollars
New Zealanders (in general) are suckers for this kind of Deflect & Demonise Strategy.
It’s what National does, when their economic policies fail; they blame it on the poor; the unemployed; widows; solo-mums (but never solo-dads), etc. It’s what the right wing do, blaming their failed policies on others. Because as we all know, right wingers are Big on Personal Responsibility… (Except for themselves.)
It happened in the 1990s. It’s repeating again.
.
.
It’s pretty much a given that the ACT is now living on borrowed time, and will end up in the political rubbish bin of history. It was never popular with mainstream New Zealand in the first place – New Zealanders having had a bitter taste of it’s ideology in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s.
Events over the last couple of years; last twelve months; and last few weeks, a cascade of scandals and dirty dealings have left the public wondering if lunatics had, indeed, taken over the asylum called ACT. For a Party that advocated the purity of market-driven efficiency, it was prone to one bizarre gaffe after another. They couldn’t even update their own website several months after last year’s elections.
So ACT will be gone after the next election.
The result has been media, pundit, and public speculation of a new potential Coalition partner for National. There has been recent speculation in the last week or so that Colin Craig’s Conservative Party might make a suitable candidate to shore up National’s numbers in the House.
I doubt that.
For one thing, does National really want a new coalition partner that appears to be every bit as flaky as ACT?
.
.
“We are the country with the most promiscuous young women in the world. This does nothing to help us at all.”
Riiiiight.
Obviously Mr Craig has, um, “researched” this issue in some depth?! Did he go “undercover“, I wonder? And did he go “one-on-one“ with his “subjects“?
On this rare occassion, I find myself in sympathy with the Smiling One,
“… Colin Craig, had suggested New Zealand women were the most promiscuous in the world and therefore should not get taxpayer funded contraception.
Key resisted taking the Lord’s name in van and rolling his eyes.
But he did say “it’s going to be a long two and a half years.”
See: John Key’s problem with partners
Indeed. If the government lasts full term. Which I doubt.
National has a problem in this area. It has no viable coalition partner, and is unlikely to find one in the foreseeable future.
Part of that reality is based on MMP and how it has affected Labour and National.
After MMP was introduced in 1996, Labour splintered into it’s constituent factions; the centrist ‘rump’ Labour Party; the environmentalist/social justice Green Party; the overtly left-wing, worker’s, Newlabour Party ; and the nationalist Maori party, Mana Motuhake. (The Greens, Mana Motuhake, and NLP briefly coalesced into the Alliance Party, along with the Social Credit/Democrat Party and short-lived Liberal Party.)
The Greens, Mana Motuhake, and NLP, had been part of the factional make-up of Labour. MMP simply separated out it’s componants like a laboratory centrifuge. So when coalition talks took place, to form a Labour-led Coalition Government, those same factions simply re-morphed.
Before anyone complains that MMP has created a “mess” – not true. These factions had always existed in Labour, and had constantly ‘jockeyed’ for influence within the greater ‘umbrella’ Labour banner.
Under MMP, these factions and negotiations were simply forced out into the open, for everyone to see. The same had been happening under First Past the Post, but behind closed doors. This was internal party politics exposed to the glare of sunlight and public scrutiny.
National, on the other hand, did not fractionate in such a similar, dramatic, manner. It lost two MPs to the New Zealand Liberal Party (in 1992), Conservative Party (formerly Right-Of-Centre Party), and one to the Christian Democrats. None of those fledgling parties survived the grueling electoral process and quickly vanished into political history.
A third party, New Zealand First, had splintered from National earlier, and like Mana Motuhake became a nationalist party, but mainly from a pakeha perspective.
ACT was another party on the right, and appeared to draw support from both National and, to a lesser degree, Labour. It remained a small grouping, peaking in 1999 with nine MPs – largely at the expense of it’s larger right wing cousin, National.
It’s not that National doesn’t have potential coalition partners. On the whole, National remains intact; a solid bloc of the centre-right. It’s potential coalition partners are already a part of National.
National’s only hope of picking up an extra seat or two is to rort the MMP one-seat threshold system, as it did by supporting John Banks in Epsom (with success now mixed with regret, no doubt). It could give a ‘nod and wink‘ to Colin Craig in the Rodney seat, and if he won that electorate, and if Craig’s Conservative Party polled the same as it did last year (2.65%), then it would gain four seats in total.
That might give National a chance at winning the next election.
But at what cost?
- It would be seen to be once again manipulating the electoral system. The Epsom deal did not end well for National – do they really want to go down that road again?
- The Conservatives are opposed to asset sales – so that policy would be off the agenda.
- How would urban liberal voters view a coalition with a party such as the Conservatives? New Zealanders have always been averse to electing overtly religious parties to Parliament (eg; Christian Heritage, Christian Coalition, Destiny New Zealand) and when some of United Future’s MPs were revealed as having a strong religious bent, they were pretty smartly voted out.
- And would National want a flaky coalition partner with quasi-’Christian’ overtones, and who seemed to view New Zealand women in a casual Talibanesque-sort of way? How would National’s women MPs feel sitting alongside Colin Craig, knowing that he viewed them as the ” most promiscuous… women in the world “?
Craig’s Conservative Party may have a better chance to win seats in Parliament if the Electoral Commission’s review on MMP decides to recommend to Parliament that the Party Vote threshold be reduced from %5 to 4%. Of course, the Commission can only recommend to Parliament, and any decision to reduce the Party Vote threshold will ultimately be up to the National-ACT-Dunne Coalition.
I suspect the Nats will adopt the 4% recommendation. Not because it’s fair (get a grip!), but because anything that assists ACT or the Conservative Party gain seats in Parliament will be welcomed with open arms by the Nats. Self interest rules.
The Greens’ submission to the Electoral Commission supported abolishing the Electoral Seat threshold as inherently unfair, and promote reducing the Party Vote threshold from 5% to 4% to compensate for smaller Parties such as NZ First, ACT, etc.
See: Green Party submission on the MMP Review
Likewise, this blogger suspects that National will probably reject any recommendation to abandon the Electoral-Seat threshold. (The Electoral Seat threshold is where Party X does not cross the current 5% Party Vote threshold, but if one of their candidates wins an electoral seat, they get an exemption from the 5% threshold, and gain as many MPs as their Party Vote allows.)
This may be National’s one and only “electoral lifeline”, as ACT heads for the political guillotine – especially after John Banks’ incredible performance over his fraudulent 2010 Electoral Donations fiasco.
See: John Banks – escaping justice
However, since Craig’s comment nearly three months ago, he has moved on from denigrating women, to gays and lesbians. His latest comment is indicative of a man who has little tolerance for matters outside his narrow worldview, when on 27 July he ‘tweeted’,
“It’s just not intelligent to pretend that homosexual relationships are normal.”
See: Conservative leader says gay marriage ‘not right’
It take a spectacular degree of arrogance to decide that another consenting adult’s relationship is “not normal”.
This blogger feels it only appropriate that Mr Craig’s marriage to his wife should be put under the microscope.
It has been said often enough that those who vociferously oppose homosexuality (especially in males) often have a measure of sexual insecurity themselves. For many men, condemning and reviling homosexuality has been an attempt to reaffirm their own heterosexuality by “proving their straightness” to themselves.
Perhaps, in this instance, Mr Craig may have something he wishes to get of his manly chest,
” He was so sure that homosexuality was a choice, he bet his own sexuality on it.
“Do you think you could choose to be gay if that is the case?,” he was asked.
“Sure. Sure I could,” he responded.
“You could choose to be gay?,” he was asked again.
“Yea, if I wanted to,’ he replied. “
See: Colin Craig: ‘Gay parents not good role models’
Anything you want to share with us, Mr Craig? Don’t worry, we’re all consenting adults here…
Why are all small right wing parties loony-tunes?
Is this the sort of political party that National wants to cosy up to?
And more important – would a possible coalition with a bunch of religious homophobes and misogynists really endear National’s voting-base to keep supporting the Nats?
Happy times for Dear Leader, John Key.
.
.
National does have another potential coalition partner – the New Zealand First Party. Though their first attempt at coalition (in 1996) ended very badly for Winston Peters, that could be explained as “growing pains” after our very first MMP election. I doubt if any small Party would ever repeat such horrendous mistakes again.
But in coalescing with NZ First, National would have to abandon much of it’s right wing, neo-liberal agenda. State asset sales would be gone by lunchtime. The sale of farmland to overseas investors would be restricted (if Peters is to be taken at his word). And the edge might be taken of other policies favoured by National.
On the other hand, NZ First had been punished previously for coalescing with National. As well, NZ First has an active youth-wing that might not appreciate ‘sleeping with the enemy’.
Working with Winston Peters would be one very big rat for John Key to swallow. Considering how adamant he was back in 2008,
“Mr Peters will be unacceptable as a Minister in a government led by me unless he can provide a credible explanation.“
See: Peters unacceptable in a National-led Government
And just last year,
“I don’t see a place for a Winston Peters-led New Zealand First in a government that I lead.”
See: PM rules out any NZ First deal
“If Winston Peters holds the balance of power, it will be a Phil Goff-led government.”
See: Key names election date, rules out Winston Peters
Sealing a coalition deal with someone he has categorically ruled out in the past would damage Key’s credibility even further. Our Dear Leader is already developing something of a reputation for being “untrustworthy, dishonest, arrogant, smarmy and out of touch”.
See: ‘Polarising’ PM losing gloss
Does he want to compound that perception by backtracking on his declaration that he cannot/will not work with the NZ First leader?
So Colin Craig it is.
And yes,
“It’s going to be a long two and a half years.”
.
.
= fs =
ACT. Auckland. Chooks. Roosting.
.
This is Stephen Franks,
.
.
Stephen Franks was an ACT MP from 1999 to 2005, and later stood (unsuccessfully) for the Wellington Central electorate in 2008.
Stephen Franks is also an occassional guest on Jim Mora’s Afternoon Panel on Radio NZ, where Franks occassionally espouses his neo-liberal, free market ideology.
This is John Banks,
.
.
But he’s not important.
This is Rodney Hide. He is central to this story,
.
.
Rodney Hide was an ACT MP from 1996 to 2011, and led the party from 2004 onward, until he was replaced in a bizarre coup d’état by Don Brash, in April last year.
See: Wikipedia Don Brash
During his role as Minister for Local Affairs, Rodney Hide oversaw the forced amalgamation of several city and district councils. By 2010, several councils were merged into one, “supercity” – Auckland Council.
This amalgamation was enabled by Parliamentary legislation (Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009), and which was passed under urgency.
See: Auckland super city bill passed by parliament
Though quite why it was considered “urgent” has never been satisfactorily explained by National or ACT. Were they expecting Auckland to be beamed aboard a flying saucer and carried away into outer space?!
.
.
In fact, when Rodney Hide first presented the amalgamation Bill to Parliament on 15 December 2009, he was quite enthusiastic about it,
” The importance of local government to the growth and prosperity of Auckland should not be underestimated. Good governance enables civic leaders to think regionally, plan strategically, and act decisively. Governance arrangements affect the ability to solve the larger and longer-term challenges effectively.
The Auckland region needs decisive leadership, robust infrastructure, and facilities and services to cater for its people.
The provisions of the two previous Acts and the proposals in this bill will deliver a united Auckland governance structure, strong regional governance, integrated decision-making, greater community engagement, and improved value for money. “
See: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — First Reading
When the Bill was passed on it’s third and final Reading in the House, on 2 June 2010, it passed 64 votes to 57. Those voting for it were,
- 58 National MPs
- 5 ACT MPs
- 1 United Future MP (Peter Dunne)
Thus was born the Auckland supercity, a creature of the ACT Party.
So it is a bit rich now, that the same Stephen Franks, ex-ACT MP, is gnashing his teeth and making great wailing noises about how the Auckland Council – now two years old, in law – is operating,
.
.
Contrast Stephen Franks’ complaints, with that of his one-time Party Leader, Rodney Hide,
Stephen Franks: ” The law setting up the Super City deliberately created a presidential mayoralty and gave councillors no clear rights to information.
It certainly does not protect council officers who want to provide unbiased information to councillors against the wishes of their bosses, the chief executive and the mayor.
The law may have been drafted out of frustration with years of indecision fuelled by endless reporting and consultation as excuses for inaction. Perhaps the law’s designers chose to give elected dictatorship a go instead.
Amazingly till now there has been little publicised protest at the constitutional barbarity of this structure. Without clear rights to the same information available to the executive they must monitor, councillors become spare wheels.
“Carping critics” who are also unavoidably ignorant are in no position to maintain the safeguards of democratic control.
Some have called the Auckland governance structure the corporate model. If so it is a poor copy. The company model is robust about directors’ rights to oversee management. Directors have an almost unrestricted right to information from anywhere in the company. Even conflicts of interest create only a partial exception. “
Rodney Hide: ” The importance of local government to the growth and prosperity of Auckland should not be underestimated. Good governance enables civic leaders to think regionally, plan strategically, and act decisively. Governance arrangements affect the ability to solve the larger and longer-term challenges effectively.
The Auckland region needs decisive leadership, robust infrastructure, and facilities and services to cater for its people.
The provisions of the two previous Acts and the proposals in this bill will deliver a united Auckland governance structure, strong regional governance, integrated decision-making, greater community engagement, and improved value for money. “
Just what is Stephen Franks complaining about?
His Party voted for “decisive leadership” and “strong regional governance” – and he got it.
Why on Earth is he complaining bitterly that “perhaps the law’s designers chose to give elected dictatorship a go instead” – when it was the ACT Party, his party, that drafted and sponsored the Bill in Parliament in 2009 and 2010?
If ever there was a case of chickens coming home to roost, then this is it.
And irony of ironies – Franks complimented Cr Cathy Casey for her outstanding attempts to instill some measure of democracy and transparency into the Auckland Council culture,
” Councillor Casey has done what oppressed councillors do across the land, and asked the Auditor-General for help…
… Let’s hope Councillor Casey does not just wait for the Auditor-General fairy to give her x-ray vision. She could get alongside Councillors Fletcher, Wood and Cameron Brewer, who have been warning of this constitutional problem for some time, to get the upgrade under way. “
Ms Casey is a left-wing Councillor, having had close affiliation with the now-defunct Alliance Party.
In which case, suggesting that Cr Casey “get alongside “ Councillors Fletcher and Cameron Brewer, simply beggars belief. Either Mr Franks is woefully amnesiac like the current leader of ACT – or he is willfully mischievous.
Why, you ask?
Because Councillors Fletcher and Cameron Brewer are both members the National Party. (Cr Wood is a member of the Citizens & Ratepayers group, which is linked to the National Party through it’s membership.)
See: Blogpost – Right Way the Wrong Way
And the National Party supported ACT’s legislation to draft; table; and pass the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 – the law which created the supercity and it’s current governance model.
It is unclear why Franks believes that right wing city councillors ( Christine Fletcher, George Wood and Cameron Brewer) might work with left wing Cr Casey, when Fletcher, Wood, and Brewer support the Party that enabled the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 in the first place?!?!
If Stephen Franks has a gripe about the legislation, he should take it up with the ACT Party – which presently consists of one man, John Banks.
But he better be quick about it. ACT is living on borrowed time, and is soon to follow the dinosaur, mammoth, and moa, into extinction.
.
.
= fs =
20 May: End of the Week Bouquets, Brickbats, & Epic Fails
.
- End of the Week Bouquets, Brickbats, & Epic Fails -
.
.
“Think Tank“
TV3′s current affairs “chat” show, “Think Tank” is hosted by John Tamihere, on Sunday mornings. This half hour programme discusses critical issues confronting our nation, but in a low-key, constructive manner. There are no flashy graphics; no distracting backgrounds; and the guests are encouraged to offer their views without being talked over by other guests or the host.
The only slight criticism? that this excellent show is “ghettoised” on Sunday mornings (alongside TVs’s “The Nation” and TVNZ’s “Q+A”).
It would be a radical moment in our media history if “Think Tank” (as well as “Q+A” and “The Nation”) were re-scheduled for prime-time evening viewing. The public might actually be exposed to intelligent viewing for a change.
Shayne Currie (Editor, New Zealand Herald)
Who tweeted (@ShayneCurrieNZH), ‘We wouldn’t want to be populist now would we Mr Key‘, after Dear Leader whinged on Newstalk ZB that “the media are in a more aggressive and hostile mood towards us” . Key singled out the Sunday Star Times and NZ Herald for special criticism.
Nice one, Shayne. Sometimes it takes a gentle reminder for politicians to understand that the Herald is not Pravda, nor is Sunday Star Times New Zealand’s own Izveztia.
AFFCO workers
Locked out by their employers, the Talley Brothers – millionaire businessmen – who are hell-bent on driving down staff’s wages and destroying the Meatworkers Union.
The AFFCO meatworkers are ordinary New Zealanders – they could be any one of us – who have been harrassed and persecuted by the Talleys.
In a display of sheer courage that our ANZAC forebears would be proud of, the workers have faced up to the bullies who are their employers.
These brave men and women should be hailed as true Kiwi battlers.
An incoming Labour-led government should not forget the AFFCO workers when they next review employment legislation.
.
.
Paula Bennett (National MP
For planning to force welfare recipients to immunise their children for no other reason than they are receiving welfare assistance from the State. This has to be the worst case of State coercion since military conscription.
If National wants everyone immunised, by law, then make it compulsory for everyone. Yeah, right! There would be rioting in the streets, and this rotten government would fall within a week.
But it’s fairly obvious that Key, Bennett, and their misguided mates are exploiting the vulnerability of New Zealanders who happen to be on welfare, for their own political ends.
This country’s economy is in dire straits; we are stagnating; unemployment is on the up; and kids are starving and going through pig-slop buckets to get a feed. Plus on top of that numerous scandals and dodgy deals, and National is desperate to focus public attention elsewhere.
In the 1930s, the nazi government used gypsies and jews as scapegoats. We can’t use jews – Israel would kick Key’s sorry arse to the curb. And we don’t have gypsies.
But we do have welfare beneficiaries, and the public doesn’t mind if they’re ‘bashed’ around a bit.They are the 1930s “jews” of our society.
This is shameful. For a New Zealand government to demonise a sector of the population in such a cynical manner is unforgivable.
Pita Sharples (Maori Party)
For citing that there had been a number of gains for Maori the upcoming budget, such as “funding for treatment of cancer, funding for tackling rheumatic fever…”
Yes, Mr Sharples – but at the expense of raising prescription charges from $3 to $5, which will hurt welfare beneficiaries, superannuitants, and low income earners the hardest. Many of whom already have to make hard choices whether to pay the rent and electricity bill, or cut back on food, medicines, etc.
Many of those low-income earners are the Maori Party’s constituents.
By any definition, that is not a “gain”, Mr Sharples. This is robbing Pita to pay Paul.
Wally.
ACT Party
For not distancing itself from racist bigot, Louis Crimp, and returning his $125,520 donation. Is ACT so desperate for funds that it willingly accepts money from a person who believes,
“I don’t give a stuff what I’m called. You have to look at the facts and figures. This is the problem with New Zealanders. Most of them dislike the Maoris intensely – I won’t say hate – but they don’t like to say so.”
At what point does a Party draw a line and refuse to accept financial support because the donor is just so repugnant?
Act’s president, Chris Simmons, said he disagreed with Mr Crimp but respected his right to have a view,
“One of the beauties of the Act Party is we believe everyone should have their say.”
That may be, Mr Simmons. But by accepting a racist’s money, you are giving tacit approval to their abhorrent prejudice.
It’s called tarred by association.
Think about it.
.
And for the final category, the Epic Fail of the Week,
.
.
Businessman and bigot. Unfortunately, he may not be alone is holding such racist views.
We have a long way to go, in this country.
.
.
= fs =
Money in the Banks (Part #Rua)
.
.
John Banks has dug himself further into a hole by stating yesterday,
“If I had have quite specifically and quite easily answered all of those questions upfront, contrary to the legal advice, then I wouldn’t find myself in this situation where people think I’m obfuscating. I shouldn’t have taken that legal advice, I should have answered questions much more straightly.”
See: Banks’ Dotcom call: ‘I’d do it again‘ (1 May 2012)
Banks is using the excuse that he received “legal advice” which advised him not to say anything to the media (1 May),
“I could have quite easily answered all of those questions up front, contrary to the legal advice. I have never had any problem answering questions in a very straight manner…that is why the public will be surprised I took the legal advice literally, not to jeopardise any inquiry.”
See: Banks ‘regrets’ legal advice to stay silent (1 May 2012)
To understand why that excuse is about as flimsy as wet toilet paper in a sewarage pond, one has to look back at the timelime of this scandal.
TV3 broke the story of Banks failing to declare the source of Sky City’s donation on 5 April.
See: Banks accused of failing to declare donation (5 April 2012)
At that point there was no knowledge or mention of any other dodgy donations.
Twentytwo days later, TV3 again broke the story that Banks had received donations from web entrepreneur, Kim Dotcom, and had listed them as “anonymous”,
“Kim Dotcom is the latest person to have been found to have allegedly donated money anonymously to John Banks.
It is already known that in the race to be super city mayor, Sky City donated $15,000 each to the two front runners.
Len Brown listed Sky City as a donor but Mr Banks did not.
Campbell Live was interested in that because we had heard Kim Dotcom had made a donation three times that size to the John Banks mayoralty campaign.
Campbell Live has even been told Mr Banks was so grateful that he called Dotcom to thank him for it.
An investigation found that like the Sky City donation, the Dotcom donation appears to be listed as anonymous.
The question is why?”
See: Banks knew about ‘anonymous’ Dotcom donation – reports (27 April 2012)
That TV3 report is time-stamped on the TV3 news website at 7pm. In a phone call, the following exchange takes place,
Campbell: Did you ever helicopter out there?
Banks: I… don’t remember that. I mean, I had my own helicopter or course – I was flying, myself.
Campbell: Did you ever land it at his house or go out there in a helicopter?
Banks: I don’t recall…
Campbell: You’d remember that – you’d remember that surely if you helicoptered into the Coatsville mansion. You would surely remember that?
Banks: I can’t recall whether I did or not…
Campbell: What, you can’t recall if you flew a helicopter into the Coastville Mansion of Kim Dotcom?
Banks: No, no.
See: Ibid
Now the interesting thing here is that given that phone call, which was aired after 7pm on Friday 27 April – how could John Banks have had time to consult a lawyer for legal advice?
There was no mention of any police investigation until the following day, on Saturday 28 April, when told RadioLIVE,
“If and when the police want to come and see me and talk to me, I’m very happy to do so.”
And if, as he claims, he had somehow managed to consult a lawyer prior to John Campbell speaking to him on the phone on Friday 27 April, why did Banks continually state “he could not remember” instead of “the matter is currently under Police invesigation and I have been advised by legal counsel not to make any public statements at this point”. Or even a simple “no comment”?
Because the reference to so-called “legal advice not to talk publicly” doesn’t surface until Tuesday 1 May – some four days later. In those four days, Banks keeps insisting that “he can’t remember”, “he can’t recall”. He makes no reference to this mysterious “legal advice” until four days later.
It is the opinion of this blogger that Banks’ did not have any legal advice when John Campbell first phoned Banks on 27 April.
It is the opinion of this blogger that Banks’ continuing claim that he “could not remember” was a weak attempt at obfuscation and not based on any manner of “legal advice”.
Furthermore, one has to question that if John Banks is being truthful and Kim Dotcom is lying – what would be the point of requiring “legal advice”? Legal advice for what?
It should be noted that thus far, not one claim made by Kim Dotcom has been proven to be incorrect or lie.
On the other hand, despite Banks first claiming that he did not phone Dotcom to thank him for the $50,000 donation – he now admits to phoning the entrepreneur to thank him for sponsoring a fireworks display in 2010, estimated to cost about $500,000.
See: John Banks dined at mansion, gave advice on Dotcom residency
Interestingly, at first Banks couldn’t recall phoning Dotcom. Now he not only recalls that he did – but remembers the substance of that phone conversation?!
How does that work?
Banks himself admits to lying – on legal advice,
“If I had have quite specifically and quite easily answered all of those questions upfront, contrary to the legal advice, then I wouldn’t find myself in this situation where people think I’m obfuscating.”
See: Banks’ Dotcom call: ‘I’d do it again‘
This blogger has never heard of “legal advice” that advises a client to deliberately lie. Legal counsel usually advise a firm “no comment”, and say nothing further.
Furthermore, Banks at first said “his contact with Dotcom was limited to 20 minutes conversation and he had been to Dotcom’s mansion in Coatesville only once for dinner“.
See: Banks sought split donation: Dotcom
Since then, Banks has admitted several visits to Dotcom’s Coatsville mansion; possibly two phone calls; and advocating on behalf of the entrepreneur by phoning Minister Maurice Williamson,
“One, because he had been particularly generous to New Zealand; two, he was an entrepreneur who came to New Zealand to live in this home and do great things for New Zealand; three, he was a New Zealand resident; and four, I could see no reason a New Zealand resident … shouldn’t be able to buy property here.”
See: Banks: I didn’t lie, I simply forgot
Again, Dotcom’s claims are confirmed – whilst Banks’ story changes almost daily.
I leave the final comment, to the Prime Minister,
“If he’s complied with the law, some people might not like it but he’s complied with the law, and you wouldn’t sack a minister for complying with the law of New Zealand.”
See: previous Blogpost on Pansy Wong, Richard Worth, and Phil Heatley
.
*
.
References
Banks knew about ‘anonymous’ Dotcom donation – reports (27 April 2012)
Police expected to investigate Banks’ campaign donations (28 April 2012)
Banks regrets not being up-front over donations (1 May 2012)
Banks’ Dotcom call: ‘I’d do it again‘ (1 May 2012)
Banks ‘regrets’ legal advice to stay silent (1 May 2012)
John Banks: I briefed Dotcom (2 May 2012)
Banks: I didn’t lie, I simply forgot (2 May 2012)
Previous Blogposts
John Banks – Demented or Slippery as an eel?!
Key on Banks; Staunch, stupid, or stuck?
.Banks: I didn’t lie, I simply forgot
.
= fs =
Key on Banks; Staunch, stupid, or stuck?
.
.
One of the Golden Rules of politics is: learn to count. This refers to everything from passing legislation to votes of confidence. In short, it means if you don’t have the numbers in government, you might as well call it a day and hand power to the Opposition (or call a snap election).
Counting especially focuses the attention of parliamentary leaders such as Key and Gillard, who have (respectively) one and two seat majorities in their respective Parliaments.
It means, also, that if a government has a generous majority, it can afford the luxury of holding their own Ministers to account and make grand exhibitions of standing down those who have done something naughty.
Conversely, if a government has only the slimmest majority, that same government will hang on to, and defend to the bitter end, any errant Minister or MP.
Some recent history should illustrate how this works…
.
That Was Then…
.
2008 – 2011 National-led government majority: 16
.
Richard Worth
Richard Worth was Minister of Internal Affairs, Minister for Land Information, Minister Responsible for Archives New Zealand, Minister Responsible for the National Library, and Associate Minister of Justice, in the Fifth National Government.
In March 2009, reports emerged that Worth’s trips to India were a conflict of interest. It was alleged he spoke on behalf of the Government while engaging in private business deals.
On 3 June 2009, Prime Minister John Key announced Worth’s resignation from his Ministerial portfolios, after several allegations of inappropriate behaviour toward woman.
John Key said,
“Dr Worth tendered his resignation to me last night, and I have accepted it. He advised me of some private matters in respect of which he felt it appropriate that he should resign as a Minister. I accepted his resignation and have advised the Governor-General accordingly.”
See: PM’s Statement on Richard Worth’s resignation
On 12 June 2009, Worth announced his resignation from Parliament.
See: Embattled MP quits Parliament
In October 2010, Richard Worth was appointed to a diplomatic role, “to the surprise of the prime minister”, as Monaco’s honorary consul to New Zealand.
.
Pansy Wong
Former National Party politician. Ms Wong was New Zealand’s first Asian MP, serving as a member of parliament for the National Party from 1996 to 2011. She was also the first Asian Cabinet Minister, with portfolios; Minister for Ethnic Affairs, Minister of Women’s Affairs, Associate Minister for ACC, and Associate Minister of Energy and Resources in the 2008-11 National Government.
In November 2010, it was alleged that Ms Wong mis-used Parliamentary travel funds so that her husband could conduct private business in China.
See: Pansy Wong’s political future in jeopardy
On 12 November 2010, as allegations surrounding her and her husband’s mis-use of Parliamentary funding were investigated, Pansy Wong stepped down from her Ministerial portfolios.
John Key said,
“At the end of the day she has to take responsibility for the fact her spouse was using her travel discount by virtue of her tenure in parliament, and on that basis she failed to exercise her responsibilities properly. She offered her resignation to me and I though it was appropriate that I accepted that resignation.”
See: Key: Wong ‘paying a very heavy price’
On 3 December 2010, an investigation by Speaker of the House, Lockwood Smith, found “no evidence of systemic abuse” of the Parliamentary allowance,
“It found that one trip, a flight from Beijing to Lianyungang, China in December 2008, could have been in breach of the Speaker’s Directions,” Speaker Lockwood Smith said in a statement.
“While this trip was unplanned and inadvertent, it could be construed as having been for a private business purpose.”
The report recommended Mrs Wong and her husband repay the travel rebate for that trip of $237.06 each.”
See: ‘No evidence of systematic abuse’ of travel perk by Pansy Wong
Dissatisfied with the Speaker’s investigation, Labour MP, Pete Hodgson, called for the Auditor-General to carry out an inquiry into Mrs Wong and her husband’s use of the travel allowance.
Eleven days later, on 14 December, Ms Wong made her decision and resigned from Parliament.
.
Phil Heatley
On 25 February 2010, Phil Heatley resigned from his portfolios of Minister of Housing and Minister of Fisheries after announcing that he had wrongly charged two bottle of wine to his Ministerial credit card,
“I charged two bottles of wine already highlighted this week to my account as food and beverages. There was no food included in this purchase, and I accept this could be viewed as an inaccurate representation of the expense.”
See: Phil Heatley’s resignation statement
John Key said,
“I spent about an hour saying to him `look, I don’t think you should resign, I think you should stand aside. I don’t think he’s a dishonest individual, I think he made some mistakes and they were silly, stupid and misguided.”
See: Key says Heatley “a decent bloke”
However, Heatley did not resign from Parliament, and regained his Ministerial portfolios about a month later.
See: Phil Heatley to be reinstated as a Minister
.
This Is Now…
.
2011 – ? National-led government majority: 1
.
John Banks
Allegations of not disclosing the sources of campaign donations have been made against John Banks. These donations were made by Sky City and web entrepreneur, Kim Dotcom.
In the case of Sky City, Mayor Len Brown received a similar amount of $15,000 from the Casino, and Brown later formerly declared it.
John Banks listed his $15,000 donation as “anonymous”.
In the case of Kim Dotcom, Banks has repeatedly stated, that he,
- “could not remember” discussing donations with the businessman;
- “could not recall” flying in Dotcom’s helicopter;
- “could not recall” suggesting that Dotcom split the $50,000 donation into two separate amounts of $25,000 each
- “could not recall” phoning Dotcom to thank him for the donation
- “barely knew Dotcom” and had met him for only 20 minutes – despite video later emerging of Banks and his wife partying with Dotcom and his wife, at the Dotcom mansion
John Key said,
“At the end of the day, he either complied with the law or he didn’t – he said he did, I have absolutely no reason to doubt him. That’s not my responsibility. If somebody thinks that John Banks isn’t telling the truth, there’s a very simple remedy: they go to the police. That’s not my job to do a forensic investigation, my job is to assure myself I can retain confidence in a minister. If he tells me he followed the local government laws, then I accept him at his word.”
It appears that John Key’s previous standard of accepting Ministerial resignations, whilst investigations are carried out, no longer applies.
What’s changed?
A difference in majority of 15, I would guess.
.
Postscript:
PS 1; In yesterday’s NZ Herald, John Banks repeated his now well-known mantra,
“I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear...”
The Herald noted that Mr Banks has not been returning their calls.
So much for not hiding or being fearful.
See: ‘I’ve nothing to fear’ – John Banks
PS 2; Police have confirmed they have received two complaints over “anonymous” donations made to John Banks during the 2010 mayoralty campaign.
See: Police confirm Banks complaints received
.
Your call, Prime Minister.
.
*
.
Additional
Banks accused of failing to declare donation
Dotcom’s secret donation to Banks
Banks did not reveal SkyCity as big donor
Banks questioned over Dotcom donation
Calls for John Banks to be stood down as minister
‘I’ve nothing to fear’ – John Banks
PM standing by under fire Banks
PM ‘turning blind eye’ to Banks – Shearer
Radio NZ Interview: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams
Previous Blog Posts
.
.
= fs =
Interview: A Young NZer Acts to make a Difference
.
.
This is another in a series of on-line interviews with Young New Zealanders who are the up-and-coming next generation of political activists and leaders. We may or may not always agree with them – but these young people will be the ones who influence and form our society in years to come…
.
Hayden Fitzgerald
.
This online interview is with Hayden Fitzgerald, current President of ACT on Campus; ACT Party Board Member for Central Region; and ACT Candidate for Rangitikei in the 2011 Election.
Kia ora, Hayden, and thank you for giving us your time and answers to the following questions…
Q: You’re the current President of ACT on Campus and stood as a candidate in the last election; how long have you been a member of ACT, and what attracted you to that Party – as opposed to, say, another Party?
I was originally a Green Party fan, switching to National as I studied more economics. I became dissatisfied with National’s failure to act upon the areas it identified as problems while in opposition so switched across to ACT early last year.
Q: What has been your personal best experience with ACT thus far?
I thoroughly enjoyed the experience of representing ACT as the Candidate for Rangitikei.
Q: How do you feel about ACT’s numbers dropping from five to just one MP at the last election?
I think it’s really sad to see ACT’s numbers shrink so much but ACT’s campaign was far from perfect so I think it was predictable.
Q: If ACT goes the way of The Alliance, which other Party do you think would be the natural home for ACT supporters – National?
Personally I don’t think there is a natural other home for ACT supporters. A large majority would likely go to National but others wouldn’t. I think if ACT was to disappear another party similar would rise up to fill the gap before long.
Q: Do you think ACT can re-build its electoral support? Or do you feel that ACT is a “tarnished brand”, and a new liberal party is required with a fresh look to it?
There’s no doubt that the ACT brand is damaged but I think the support base can be rebuilt if the Party sticks to its core values. A complete rebranding of the Party could be something worth considering but the cost of doing so may not outweigh the cost of repairing the current brand. Which direction you think ACT should take here will differ depending on who you talk to!
Q: What are your thoughts on ACT’s recent leadership changes and what impact, if any, do you think they had on ACT’s support?
Referring to John Banks I think it was something that had to happen. Having your only MP as the leader of the Party is really the only practical option. I don’t think it has influenced the support base of the party much. The next three years will determine.
Q: If you had been casting a vote for ACT’s leadership, who would you have supported, Rodney Hide or Don Brash?
Don Brash
Q: Why is that? What are the qualities that you believe Don Brash had, but not Rodney Hide?
Fresh face; one would have thought he would have brought a lot of existing popularity with him.
Q: There have been suggestions that Heather Roy could have made a good leader of ACT. Do you agree with that? If she had been leader, do you think she could have attracted a greater share of the womens’ vote?
I think Heather is a lovely lady who made a very good politician. I think that she could have contributed a lot as a leader of ACT and no doubt the women’s vote would have increased if she were leader. However, the same would be true of many others.
Q: Do you have a top three list of priorities that ACT should focus on, this Parliamentary term?
Choice, Personal Responsibility and Limited Government.
Q: Have you read or heard of Gareth Morgan’s “Big Kahuna”, and his proposal for a Universal Basic Income/negative tax for the first $11,000?
Yes. Personally I favour a tax free threshold of $30,000 and a flat 20% after that with GST kept at 15% and no company tax.
Q: But no negative tax (or Universal Basic Income as some call it)?
There would definitely have to be some form of “Universal Basic Income” in the way of a safety net. We just have to be careful not to create incentives not to work.
Q: Recently, US billionaire Warren Buffett highlighted how he paid tax at a much lower rate than his own staff, who, in many instances were paying roughly double the rate he was. What do say to people like Buffett who state that the rich are not paying their fair share in taxes? Or do you agree with him?
With a simpler tax system, as I identified above this sort of thing would not happen. This is also an American example. This doesn’t happen to the same extent here in New Zealand.
Q: New Zealand has a fairly free market economic regime compared to, say, the Scandinavian countries. Yet places like Finland and Denmark, notable social-democracies with strong welfare systems and state services, have a high PPP per capita income to New Zealand. Why aren’t we light years ahead of the Scandinavians – especially after 27 years of reforms?
I think it’s very hard to compare New Zealand’s economy to these as we’re so different.
Q: Oh, in what way? What do you think are major differences?
Different climate, population and distance from other countries. Truth is I don’t know much about these economies but I do have a friend who lives in Finland that isn’t too fond of the way things are run.
Q: What, if anything should we be doing different?
Simpler tax system, smaller Government.
Q: State funding of private schools? Or should they be left to succeed or fail on their own merit?
I favour the voucher system, so parents can send their child to whichever school benefits their child the most, be it public or private.
Q: But would you allow a private school to fail and go into liquidation, if it got to that stage?
Yes; I don’t support Government bailouts.
Q: The minimum wage? Especially when Bill English said on Q+A that it was extremely difficult to live on the minumum wage for any long period of time?
The problem with minimum wages is that they harm the very people they’re supposed to help. I also question whether or not it is up to the Government to decide what an individual can and cannot work for; should it not be up to the individual to decide what a fair wage for them is? I also note that the current minimum wage equates to a lot more than being on social support. Under a simpler tax system with a high tax free threshold low income people would be a lot better off as they would pay no tax.
Q: In what way do you think a minimum-wage harms people?
Locks them out of employment; particularly young people. In theory there is no need for a minimum wage. The minimum wage is equivalent to the safety net that is provided; currently just under $5 an hour.
Q: The Auckland waterfront dispute? What are your thoughts on how Labour and National have responded to this issue? Or should they not intervene?
I don’t think the Politicians should intervene in these issues.
Q: The partial sale of some SOEs? Should New Zealanders be given first option to buy shares, or should the IPO be made available to any/all without any restrictions/criteria at all?
I’m fine with all New Zealanders’ getting first option.
Q: The sale of productive farmland to overseas investors?
Foreign investment is extremely important to our economy. We also invest a large amount of money overseas. If we want to maintain our free trade agreements we cannot discriminate against foreign buyers. It also raises an issue around property rights; should you not be allowed to sell something you own to whomever you choose?
Q: Mining? Especially of conservation lands?
Cost vs. benefit analysis. I’m generally against mining of conservation lands but we must weigh up how much damage would be done to how easy it would be to repair it etc.
Q: Climate change?
I’m skeptical but willing to be persuaded.
Q: Deep sea oil drilling? Especially after the ‘Rena’ stranding? Are we adequately prepared?
The Rena was a boat whose Captain wasn’t following the rules; as such the company who own the ship and their insurers should be taken for the full cost of repair. I think our regulations around this could do with a review; whether or not much needs changed I don’t know enough to comment.
Q: Should Kiwisaver be compulsory? Should there be an opt-out option?
No. Kiwisaver performance is nowhere near good enough to warrant it being compulsory. Also raises issues around freedom. It would be unfair for the Government to force me to put my own money into Kiwisaver.
Q: Roads or rail? Which should have priority?
That should be up to the market! Personally, I think both have a place though. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. The proper market would allocate them accordingly.
Q: Free school meals – should they be introduced in all schools? Just low-decile shools? Or not at all?
Not at all. Could perhaps look at doing something based upon individual applications for those in genuine need but I think the real solution is better parental education.
Q: Republic or not?
Republic
Q: What, in your opinion, has been the worst aspect or single thing, about John Key’s government?
Continuation of wasteful spending that has resulted in high debt levels that my generation will have to pay back, particularly around ignoring the elephant in the room relating to our superannuation scheme.
Q: What, in your opinion, has been the best aspect, or single thing, about John Key’s government?
Mixed ownership model.
Q: How do you feel about our current media? Do you feel that the state has a role to play in public broadcasting – perhaps to set standards or broadcast material that, while informative, might not rate highly on a commercial level? Or should it be left totally to the Market to deliver quality broadcasting?
Lean toward it being left completely the market. If people want to watch it, regardless of what it is, the market will provide it. Likewise with broadcasting standards, if a tv channel is broadcasting obscene content then not many will watch it; no need for regulation.
Q: And is TV3′s planned “The GC” ‘quality tv’?
Probably not something I’ll watch but none the less does seem like the kind of show that would have a broad appeal.
Q: If ACT was in government as the major coalition Party, and you were an MP offered a ministerial role, what portfolio would you want? And why?
Tough decision. Probably Finance, Small Business, Primary Industry or Social Development as these are areas that interest me.
Q: In your opinion, what is the single most critical problem affecting us as a society? How would you address that problem? And what time-frame would you give yourself?
Inflated Government. I would address this by cutting unnecessary regulations and laws like the RMA, cut Government Spending and taxes and shrink all areas of the Government except core services. This could all be done very quickly but I would like to see it happen over 5-10 years as to ease transitional unemployment as people shift from public sector to private sector employment.
Q: What, in your view, would constitute core services?
Defence, basic safety nets (including adequate access to health care for all), basic standards in education, stopping market dominance (via Commerce Commission), Law and order, negotiating with overseas countries (free trade etc.)
Q: Are your friends and family political? How do you relate to those friends and family who aren’t political?
Very few of my friends are political and none of my family are. I suppose I relate to them the same as anyone else does! (Politicians are people too
)
Q: Can you share with us some of your most favourite things,
* food?
Subway (I dream about it!)
* place to live?
Anywhere in the bottom half of the South Island.
* movie and/or tv program?
American Pie (all of them)
* book?
“The Greatest Show on Earth” – Richard Dawkins
* prominent historical person you admire the most? And why?
Roger Douglas for having the balls to do what’s right.
Q: And your Last Word is on;
National and Labour are the biggest obstacles to the modernisation and eventual success of our economy. New Zealanders need to wake up and stop trying to vote themselves rich. The only way to prosperity is through choice, personal responsibility, individual freedom and limited Government.
Thank you, Hayden, for sharing with us!
Folks wishing to contact Hayden and ACT may do so at; president@actoncampus.org.nz, www.actoncampus.org.nz, www.act.org.nz
Facebook: ACT on Campus, ACT, Hayden Fitzgerald
.
*
.
Disclaimer
This blog is not affiliated to ACT in any way, shape, or form.
Other Blogposts in a similar theme
Interview: A Young NZer’s Thirst to make a Difference
Ms Heka Goes To Wellington. (Part #Rua)
Citizen Meegan’s submission to Parliament – hand’s off our stuff!
.
.
= fs =
Money in the Banks…
.
.
As if the “Tea Party” fiasco wasn’t sufficient, John Banks – leader of the “1 Percent Party” (aka ACT) – is now embroiled in another scandal: undeclared or wrongly-declared campaign donations,
.
.
.
If these allegations are proven, Banks’ career as a politician has screeched to a grinding stop. He will be lucky if any subsequent police investigation does not result in a prosecution, as happened with ex-Labour MP, Phillip Taito Fields.
Should Banks be forced to vacate his seat, that would force an automatic by-election. The chances are that the Right would probably win any such contest. Epsom is still a blue-ribbon electorate.
See: previous election results for Epsom.
In terms of Parliamentary numbers for the government, it doesn’t matter if a National or ACT candidate wins it. They maintain their one-seat majority.
What will matter is that if National wins and the ACT loses Epsom, then the Nats will no longer have an excuse to implement right wing policies such as Charter Schools. That was an ACT policy, not National.
National would be within it’s rights to dump it, should they regain Epsom.
If they don’t, it would be a fairly dramatic indication to the public that the Nats are moving to the Right, regardless of their coalition deal with ACT.
That should give pause for thought for many voters.
On a related thought, the Banks/donations scandal is yet more convincing proof (not that we really needed it) that this government is shonkey and has no hesitation in engaging in secret, back-room dealing. New Zealanders should be very cautious in continuing to support National.
Very rarely do we have an opportunity to glimpse the secret deals taking place behind closed doors. As this blogger wrote in the previous blogpieces, Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How and Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua),
“Once upon a time, at the bottom of the world, there was a small country that prided itself on being a fair, open, and uncorrupted society.
I’m no longer sure about the last bit.
Last year, Transparency International ranked New Zealand as the #1 least corrupt nation on Earth. We ranked above Denmark (#2), Finland (#3), Sweden (#4), Singapore (#5), and Norway (#6).
I’m no longer certain we deserve that top ranking, either.
The further that the Sky City/Convention Centre and Crafar farm deals are scrutinised – the stronger the odour of something unpleasant fills our nostrils.”
As for who might be a suitable candidate to contest Epsom; considering it’s conservative, Tory nature, this could be a job for the former Member for Tauranga,
.
Winston Peters
.
The most suitable candidate would be the highest polling person from any given Opposition Party. In fact, this might be a suitable occassion to employ the US style of “Primaries“, where a candidate is selected from a group, to go up against the incumbent.
Should National or ACT lose Epsom (unlikely) this government will fall.
.
Related
TV3 John Campbell: Banks knew about ‘anonymous’ Dotcom donation – reports
.
.
= fs =
Isn’t it a crying shame…? (Part #Rua)
… that politicians continue to lie and misrepresent issues, just to push their own perverse agendas,
.
.
Banks is telling outright lies when he says,
“Too often politicians spend up large in the good times, leaving nothing in reserve for when things get tough. We saw this type of spend up occur under the previous Labour Government.” – Ibid
Every time this blogger reads comments like that, reinforces the view that the Right Wing are desperate to re-write history, to paint Labour as as fiscally incompetant.
The truth, though, is completely the opposite: Labour posted surpluses year after year, during it’s administration from 2000 to 2008. This IMF graph is fairly clear how debt dropped from 2000 to 2008 – and rose once National took power in November, 2008,
.
The Government Debt in New Zealand was last reported at 31.6 percent of the country´s GDP. From 1985 until 2010, New Zealand's average Government Debt to GDP was 41.50 percent reaching an historical high of 71.60 percent in December of 1986 and a record low of 17.40 percent in December of 2007
.
See more here: Labour: the Economic Record 2000 – 2008
Under Labour (red), debt dropped.
Under National (blue), debt went up (not helped by two tax cuts in April 2009 and October 2010 we could ill afford).
This is reinforced by another chart, with data sourced from NZ Treasury, that shows government budgets under National (in blue) and Labour (in red),
.
New Zealand reported a government budget deficit equivalent to 3.3 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2010. Government Budget is an itemized accounting of the payments received by government (taxes and other fees) and the payments made by government (purchases and transfer payments). A budget deficit occurs when an government spends more money than it takes in. The opposite of a budget deficit is a budget surplus.
.
In fact, if any government is guilty of massive deficits and borrowing, look no further than this one,
.
.
.
And just to prove how incompetant National truly is,
.
.
So much for the ’09 and ’10 tax-cuts being “fiscally neutral”. Rubbish. Those tax cuts were made at a time we could not afford them; were funded by massive borrowings from overseas; and are a dead weight on this country’s finances.
What makes all this even worse is that our Dear Leader, John Key, was warned about the unsustainability of National’s tax cuts programme,
.
When right wingers try to re-write history, it gives the rest of us the opportunity to set the record straight. It serves as a valuable opportunity to remind New Zealanders that centre-left governments tend to be fiscally prudent, whilst right wing governments give away money (through tax cuts) that we do not have.
Eventually, the message percolates through to the Great Unwashed. And people like John Banks are caught standing in a rather cold wind, with their trousers down around their ankles.
.
.
= fs =
Isn’t it a crying shame…?
… that National and ACT have such a poor sense of priorities,
.
.
To show the reader what I mean, let me re-write the above story,
.
Poverty limit a victory for ACT
.ACT New Zealand, Fuseworks April 26, 2012, 2:32 pm
.
Today’s announcement that the Government will introduce a poverty limit into the Public Finance Act is another welcome victory for the ACT Party, ACT Leader John Banks today.
“ACT has long believed in the need for a legislated poverty limit to keep politicians’ attention focused. It is for this reason that we pushed so hard to have it included in our Confidence and Supply Agreement with National,” Mr Banks said.“
The provision in the Public Finance Act will reduce poverty to population growth and inflation, but will include decent, affordable housing, free medical care for all children, and unemployment benefits linked to inflation and living-costs.
“If the poverty limit is exceeded, the Minister of Finance will be required to explain to Parliament the reasons for doing so. The introduction of a poverty limit will create greater accountability and transparency in government job-creation policies and could prevent future poverty blow-outs.
“Too often politicians waste resources in pointless tax cuts, leaving nothing in reserve for when things get tough. We saw this type of spend up occur under the previous National Government.
“The poverty limit will force politicians to be more accountable and upfront about their taxation and job creation policy promises, and therefore more likely to stick to good social outcomes.
“The Minister of Finance thus far does not deserve praise for the improvements he is making to poverty levels, to strengthen State responsibility as part of New Zealand’s evolving fairness in social frameworks,” Mr Banks said.
.
Now that would be a media story worth reading!
.
.
= fs =
ACT on polling – naughty, naughty, chaps!
.
Naughty Mat for ACT!
.
Searching for details on a previous blogpost, this blogger came across this interesting poll result on stuff.co.nz,
.
.
Making my vote, the Poll showed me the following results,
.
.
Interestingly, the poll results for Labour, Greens, National, Mana, Maori Party, and United Future more or less mirror the 2011 election results.
2011 Election Results
National: 47.31%
Labour: 27.48%
Greens: 11.06%
Mana: 1.08%
Maori Party: 1.43%
United Future: 0.60%
No surprises with those figures.
NZ First polled higher than their Election Result of 6.59%.
The figures for NZ First may be easily understand as a nationalistic response to the current government’s policies on partial asset sales and the sale of farmland to offshore investors. (Though whether the Stuff poll translates into success at the Ballot box is another matter entirely.)
The real surprise is ACT’s result on the Stuff poll; 6.4%.
Really? 6.4%?!
No, I don’t think, so, my fellow Kiwis.
ACT’s election result was a meagre 1.07%. Recent polls by Roy Morgan and News Reid has ACT barely registering,
Roy Morgan: 0.3%
News Reid: 0.2%
Which indicates to this blogger that some naughty ACT apparatchiks have been “stuffing Stuff’s electronic ballot box”, by voting multiple times. Naughty boys. Off to the naughty mat with you – and don’t come out until Election Day!
.
.
= fs =
Right Way the Wrong Way
|
|
= 1 =
|
There is a war for the soul of Auckland.
The declaration for that war may have been made in October 2010, when Len Brown was elected the first mayor of the new amalgamated supercity. Or in September 2009 when legislation forming the super-city was enacted. Or in November 2008, when ACT MP Rodney Hide - the author of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act – was elected to Parliament.
I call the date today; 30 March 2012, with a media statement released by Christine Fletcher of the so-called “Citizens & Ratepayer (C&R) group,
|
Auckland To Become Unaffordable, Not More Liveable
Thursday, 29 March 2012, 2:18 pm
Press Release: Christine FletcherAuckland To Become Unaffordable, Not More Liveable
News that a majority of councillors voted not to include affordability in the context of costs imposed by council for the Auckland Plan will make Auckland unaffordable, said C&R Leader Christine Fletcher, and Cr Cameron Brewer, representing key independent councillors.“The Mayor has set out a vision for Auckland as most liveable city – but his vision will actually hurt the ability of people, especially those on fixed incomes like the retired to stay in their homes. Already massive rates rises are coming, and future generations of Aucklanders will suffer too. When you add the prospect of higher regulatory fees, toll roads to pay for the Mayor’s rail plans, and user-pays rubbish, it’s going to get very expensive to live in Auckland,” said Cr Brewer.
“We all agree that the Auckland Plan is a far-reaching, profound document for our city. But without the principle of affordability to help guide it, it sends a message that rates and fees will be massively hiked to pay for all the big ideas within. That’s wrong – there are many people who simply can’t afford big rises in rates and fees,” said Cr Fletcher.
“C&R along with key independents proposed an amendment by way of addition that the Auckland Plan does have regard to affordability as a principle. It was defeated 12-9. City Vision, Labour and the left have embarked on a 30 year program of spending, but only providing a 10 year long term plan for budgeting”, said Cr Fletcher.
“It is especially disappointing that Cr Penny Webster, the Chairman of Finance from Rodney District, has abandoned her duties to be fiscally responsible, and voted for this big spending plan without appropriate fiscal prudence. I guess it’s easy for Len Brown to spend billions of dollars when he’s got a Penny in his pocket”, said Cr Fletcher.
.
Councillors who voted to support an affordability principle in the Auckland Plan include:.
Chris Fletcher (Leader C&R)
George wood (Deputy leader C&R)
Des Morrison (C&R)
Dick Quax (C&R)
Noelene Raffills (C&R)
plus the following independent councillors:
Cameron Brewer
Calum Penrose
Sharon Stewart
Sir John Walker
ENDS
|
Firstly, a bit about the C&R group.
C&R states on it’s website that they “are not affiliated with any central government political party“. However a cursory examination of that claim yields some interesting revelations.
Citizens and Ratepayers leadership consists of the following individuals;
Councillor Chris Fletcher, Caucus Leader
Ms Fletcher was an ex-National Party MP, serving three consecutive terms in Parliament, from 1990 to 1999. Ms Fletcher held Ministerial roles of Local Government, Women’s, Cultural and Youth Affairs
Mark Brickell, President
Mr Brickell served as electorate campaign manager for National MP and Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett, in last year’s general election.
Alastair Bell, Vice President
Mr Bell has been a Board Member of the National Party since 2009, to present. He was a senior advisor to Prime Minister Jenny Shipley, from 1999 to 2000.
Edgar Henson, Vice President
Mr Henson managed ACT’s election campaign in 2008. He will be attending ACT’s Annual Conference & AGM on 21 April.
Leigh Morrow, Treasurer / Secretary
National Party supporter in last year’s general election, according to this entry on Ms Morrow’s Facebook page,
|
|
Jim Stevens, Corporate Services / Administrator
(No party affiliation found.)
As the above information shows, C&R is anything but a neutral entity. It is an unofficial arm – a political ‘creature’ – of the National Party. The NZ Herald article, “Ex-National MPs deluging Citizens & Ratepayers card “, also recognised C&R as such.
As for the so-called “independent” Councillors who also appended their name to the 29 March Media Release, above,
Cameron Brewer
Mr Brewer was a one-time National Party candidate for the Tamaki Electorate.
Calum Penrose
Mr Penrose is a centre-right Councillor who endorsed National MP Judith Collins in last year’s election campaign.
Sir John Walker
Sir John Walker is a centre-right Councillor who also endorsed National MP Judith Collins in last year’s election campaign.
|
Why does all this matter?
Because the Media Release issued by C&R on 29 March is the first shot fired in a campaign by right wing city Councillors – many with Party affiliations to National or ACT - to unseat Len Brown at the next local body elections.
For C&R and their fellow-travellers, the election campaign has begun in earnest, and expect either Christine Fletcher or Cameron Brewer to be nominated as the Right’s mayoral candidate. Expect the coming campaign to be nasty, as Cr Fletcher’s comments indicated,
“It is especially disappointing that Cr Penny Webster, the Chairman of Finance from Rodney District, has abandoned her duties to be fiscally responsible, and voted for this big spending plan without appropriate fiscal prudence. I guess it’s easy for Len Brown to spend billions of dollars when he’s got a Penny in his pocket.”
Cr Webster was not impressed, as she made her feelings known in a Radio NZ/Morning Report interview on 30 March,
|
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/remote-player?id=2514238
|
Cr Cathy Casey – not one to suffer fools or right wingers who bend the truth to suit their hidden agendas, replied on her Facebook page,
“This C&R media release yesterday was online yesterday by 2pm while the Governing Body was still in session. It caused mayhem when it was discovered! It must have been written ahead of time therefore the amendment and speeches by Councillor Fletcher and Councillor Cameron Brewer were clear political posturing. Radio NZ has just said it will be reporting on it on Morning Report after 8am this morning.
… It was pointed out yesterday to Councillors Fletcher and Brewer that there is already an affordability principle in the Auckland Plan (p.19) “Make the best use of every dollar spent.” It states that we will “act prudently and commit to projects and initiatives that achieve the best value result without compromising quality, affordability, or stifling creativity and innovation. Focus on achieving long-term benefits and intergenerational equity.”
This is party politics of the worst kind! ” – 30 March
It appears that right wingers in Auckland Council are getting up to mischief?
An interesting exchange then took place on Facebook between Cr Casey and at least two C&R members
Cr Cathey Casey: “ Hi George Wood, You are a member C&R so I presume you signed off this media release? “
George Wood: ” No Cathy, the role of making media releases is delegated to the leader of C&R, Cr Fletcher, and in this case the leader of the independent councillors that work with C&R, Cr Cameron Brewer has also had input to this document. “
Interesting that a nominally “independent” councillor and a de facto National Party councillor are working together on what appears to be very clear stategy.
The FB conversation continued,
Cr Cathy Casey: ” Hi George, So now that you’ve read it what do you think of the content and the fact that it was sent out of the meeting at 2pm, two hours before we had even completed our deliberations on the Auckland Plan? “
At which point another C&R member jumped in, with a rather weak attempt at derision and deflection,
Michael Williams: ” Big deal. Affordability is a huge issue. That’s the point here. Why protest against someone saying that? “
Cr Cathy Casey: ” Hi Michael, You are a member of C&R, are you are saying the process engaged in by Councillors Fletcher and Brewer on your behalf yesterday is kosher? And that it is okay for C&R to publicly malign Councillor Penny Webster? “
Williams then responded with the usual “no biggie” approach,
Michael Williams: ” There’s always a bit of rough and tumble in politics. If we all checked each others press releases nothing would get anything published. Individual members have to take personal responsibility for what they say in public and how they say it. As for C&R, we all agree that Affordability is a key issue. “
Cr Casey persevered,
Cathy Casey: ” Hi Michael, Maybe I wasn’t clear. Let me try again. As a member of C&R, are you are saying the process engaged in by Councillors Fletcher and Brewer on your behalf yesterday is kosher? YES or NO And that it is okay for C&R to publicly malign Councillor Penny Webster? YES or NO. “
Michael Williams: “ I see your angle, you are inviting me to take sides against a member of my own team.”
Well, actually, no – I thought Cr Casey was asking a perfectly responsible, straight-forward question. At this point it should be made clear that Michael Williams is a C&R member as well as the Chairperson of the Auckland Council’s Howick Local Board. In which case, Cr Casey had just cause to be asking Williams these questions – especially considering he had voluntarily joined the conversation on Cr Casey’s FB page.
Cr Casey continued,
Cr Cathy Casey: ” Hi Michael, Depends on whether it is a YES or a NO. I am inviting you to bring some integrity into the way your own team does its political busness. I note in the release Councillor George Wood is listed as “Deputy Leader, C&R” but he says he had no input. “
Michael Williams: ” Life is not Black and White Cathy. “
?!?! And the point of that statement was —?
Obviously by now, Williams is having difficulty answering a straight question with a commensurately straight answer.
By this time others have entered the conversation, and they are not happy with C&R’s obfuscation.
Cr Casey continues to push her line of questioning,
Cr Cathey Casey: ” Still waiting for an answer from George Wood too. Dick Quax is also a member of C&R. Dick do you support the process of sending out a media release during the council meeting yesterday? Do you support the content of the media release especially in relation to remarks about Penny Webster? “
Williams then responded with a deflection-non-sequitur combo,
Michael Williams: “ You people should read your own posts, they are every bit as offensive as the throw away comment you are referring to. “
Which is laughable, as Williams earlier had stated, ” There’s always a bit of rough and tumble in politics.“ Evidently “rough and tumble” is ok if it’s from the Right – but a naughty no-no if it comes from anyone else. Damn, I keep forgetting their funny rules and ways…
Williams did not respond, but C&R Deputy Leader George Wood did,
George Wood: ” … the situation really is that C&R and other like minded councillors are spending hours of time working through the myriad of issues around affordability and the make up of the 10 year budgets. It is no easy task but we are getting explanations to specific questions. We also went out to the community through radio adverts and have been getting good feedback. We are running things along the lines of how we did things when I was mayor of North Shore City although I’m more in an opposition role. Things seem to be progressing well. “
That statement is interesting in it’s own right, and raises several more questions,
- If “ C&R and other like minded councillors are spending hours of time working through the myriad of issues around affordability and the make up of the 10 year budgets “ – then why are they issuing vitriolic Media Releases – and abusing other councillors in the process? What is the gain in such actions?
- ” It is no easy task but we are getting explanations to specific questions. ” – What questions? The ones asked above seemed fairly straight forward. Does it require a collective mind-set from the entire C&R Team to respond to simple questions on a social media?!
- ” We also went out to the community through radio adverts and have been getting good feedback. ” – ??? Is that normal Council procedure, for factions in the Council to pursue ad hoc means to seek public feedback on issues? Surely there are more professional, traditional means of seeking responses from the public. In fact, I’m certain of it – they are usually called “Making a Submission to the Draft Annual Plan”!
- ” I was mayor of North Shore City although I’m more in an opposition role. ” Why are you in an “opposition” role, Mr Wood? Do you consider the Auckland Council to be Parliament? And just what are you ‘opposing’?
The FB conversation ended with Mr Wood’s posted statement.
But it does in no way end the matter of C&R’s unprovoked, ad hominem slur against Cr Penny Webster, suggesting that she is “in the pocket of the mayor”.
One can only assume that the Right Wing in Auckland are starting to panic. They have lost another ‘battle’ in the ports industrial dispute, and the National Government is under siege from multiple directions from scandals, cronyism, and unpopular ideologically-based policies.
It is not a happy time to be a right winger.
|
= 2 =
|
As I started this piece with; there is a war for the soul of Auckland.
For the Right Wing, there is unfinished business to settle; Rodney Hide’s Master Plan to privatise Auckland Council’s assets, and to strip away any services that the Right consider “non essential” or “non-core business”.
All this was supposed to have been taken care of soon after the founding of the supercity, Auckland Council. John Banks was to have been elected mayor; along with a bevy of barely-restrained free-marketeers; and with Central Government’s nodding agreement, the Firesale of the Century would have ensued. Anything not nailed down would have been flogged off to “mum and dad” investors (ie; corporate interests).
Except, it didn’t quite go the way things were planned.
Aucklanders elected a centre-left mayor, and C&R and their fellow travellers were a neutered minority.
Default to Plan B.
(There is always a Plan B.)
Port workers were due for a renegotiation of their Collective Employment Agreement (CEA). The Agreement had expired on 30 September 2011, and formal negotiations had been ongoing since 5 August 2011.
However, POAL Board and management were in no mood to settle, and plans were afoot to casualise the workforce. A secret POAL memo leaked to the Maritime Union confirmed suspicions that POAL management were up to no good.
The Port dispute worsened as management became more and more intransigent. As the industrial dispute became a crisis, and workers were locked out, public pressure was brought to bear on Mayor Len Brown.
As the mayor elected on a centre-left platform, port workers; centre-left councillors; and many other Aucklanders looked to him to intervene and bring the crisis to a head. It was only after the 5,000+ strong street march on 10 March that Brown offered to mediate.
By then, the damage was done – Brown’s reputation and credibility with the Left had been shredded. He was seen as ineffectual at best – and kowtowing to the Right at worst.
The Left began openly discussing an alternative mayoral candidate to Brown for the next upcoming local body elections. Every left-wing blogger (including this blogger) expressed frustration at Brown’s inaction and wanted change. If Brown couldn’t stand up to the New Right – then by golly, we’ll find some who could!!
On 30 March, on his TV blog-show, “Citizen A”, Bomber Bradbury asked his panellists,
” Will the Left stand a different candidate against Brown for the mayorlty, and if they would, who would it be? “
Unfortunately for us, the Right were paying attention – very close attention – to what the left were openly debating on various blogs. To paraphrase H.G. Wells,
“And yet, across the gulf of the political divide, minds immeasurably greedier to ours regarded these assets with envious eyes; and slowly, and surely, they drew their plans against us.”
You bet they did.
The Right are counting on the Left putting up an alternative candidate to Len Brown. And if Brown stands again – we end up splitting the centre-left vote.
End game result: a C&R mayor sneaks through.
Or, if the Left does not engage an alternative candidate and simply turns our collective back on Brown – his vote will collapse (as it did for Labour generally, last year).
End game result: the C&R mayor’s support stays firm, and beats Brown at the ballot box.
The Left needs to be more clever abour this.
Instead of showing Len Brown the door, and all but guaranteeing a C&R victory for the mayorlty, we may have no choice but to hang on to him. All passions aside – do we really want to see Cameron Brewer as mayor?!?!
|
|
The best way to deal with this situation? We need to re-think our strategy.
Instead of dumping Brown – the Left must work damn hard to build on our electoral support in the community, and get more centre-left candidates elected! With more centre-left councillors, the Left will be in a stronger position to “support” and “encourage” Len Brown when it comes to those awkward “minty moments”.
‘Cos sure to goodness, getting rid of Brown and inadvertantly letting a centre-right mayor win office would be an own-goal of incredibly dumb proportions.
So, fellow Aucklanders. Take note of Cr Fletcher’s Media Release. Class war is upon us. Our mission – should we choose to accept it – is to be more cleverer than them.
Game on.
|
* * *
|
Related Blogpost
Additional
Scoop.co.nz: Auckland To Become Unaffordable, Not More Liveable
NZ Herald: C&R leader offers to quit after debate turns heated
|
|
= fs =
Authors of our own mis-fortune?
.
.
.
.
“Those who would actively choose to drive New Zealand into further debt to pay for tax cuts lack real ambition for our economy.” – Finance Minister Michael Cullen, 7 March 2008
.
.
.
“…in 2005 we promised tax cuts which ranged from about $10 to $92 a week, roughly $45 a week for someone on $50,000 a year. I described it as a credible programme of personal tax cuts and I’m committed to a credible programme of personal tax cuts. I believe that an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts that delivers the sort of magnitude that we’ve had in the past is potentially possible.” – John Key, Leader of the Opposition, 20 May 2008
.
“National will fast track a second round of tax cuts and is likely to increase borrowing to pay for some of its spending promises.” - John Key, Leader of the Opposition, 2 August 2008
.
“Our tax policy is therefore one of responsible reform… We have ensured that our package is appropriate for the current economic and fiscal conditions… This makes it absolutely clear that to fund National’s tax package there is no requirement for additional borrowing and there is no requirement to cut public services… National’s rebalancing of the tax system is self-funding and requires no cuts to public services or additional borrowing.” – John Key, Leader of the Opposition, 20 October 2008
.
“Taxpayers do not want further tax cuts if they mean more government borrowing, a new survey shows. The survey comes as social welfare campaigners say tax cuts failed to help those most in need. The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development survey found that while most people wanted tax cuts planned for 2010 and 2011, they did not want them if it meant further borrowing… The survey found most people would spend the tax cuts on living expenses, while others looked to credit-card debt and mortgage payments. “ – New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, 11 April 2009
.
In 2008, National campaigned on promises of tax cuts knowing full well this country could not afford them. By November 2008, as New Zealand went to the polls, the international global banking crisis was in full swing, and recession was beginning to hit nearly every single nation on Earth (Australia and China were the lucky exceptions).
By March 2008, the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corp had identified 76 American banks as “in trouble”.
By July 2008, US financial giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in trouble – and by September, both corporations were placed into a form of receivership.
A week later, and Lehmann Bros – one of the largest financial institutions in the US filed for bankruptcy. On the same day, the Russian stock market was forced to close, as shares plunged by up to 20% in a day.
On 26 September 2008, it was officially declared that New Zealand was in full recession.
Against this backdrop, National proceeded with it’s election promises of tax cuts. As unfolding events would show, they were irresponsible promises – and carrying them out in April 2009 and October 2010 was even more reckless,
“John Key has defended his party’s planned program of tax cuts, after Treasury numbers released today showed the economic outlook has deteriorated badly since the May budget. The numbers have seen Treasury reducing its revenue forecasts and increasing its predictions of costs such as benefits. Cash deficits – the bottom line after all infrastructure funding and payments to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund are made – is predicted to blow out from around $3 billion a year to around $6 billion a year.” – NZ Herald, 6 October 2008
Fast-forward four years, and we are now having to pay for those taxcuts – which were funded by borrowing other peoples’ savings from offshore banks,
.
.
.
.
It is obvious to all but the most blinkered National/ACT supporter that our debt is growing because we have a shortfall of revenue, caused by this government’s ill-conceived tax-cuts. That shortfall is in the order of $1.4 billion.
A business columnist for the NZ Herald wrote,
“Just how much became apparent yesterday with the $1.4 billion drop in forecast tax revenue for this financial year.
The overall upshot is the Government’s cash deficit has blown out from $13.3 billion to $15.6 billion this year taking into account the unexpected expenditure and the drop in forecast tax revenue.” – Fran O’Sullivan, 15 December 2010
CTU President, , Helen Kelly wrote,
“The unsuccessful tax switch (we called it a “tax swindle” at the time) last year was not fiscally neutral as was claimed. There is a $1.4b revenue hole. It wasn’t a fair switch. The gap in take- home pay between someone on $30,000 and someone on $150,000 a year grew by $135 a week as a result of tax cuts made by this Government.” – Helen Kelly, 23 May 2011
And ex ACT MP, Muriel Newman said,
“If we look back at the state of the books just before the last election, the impact on the country of the recession and the earthquakes become more evident. Crown revenue today is $1.4 billion lower than three years ago and Crown expenses $2.2 billion higher.“ – Muriel Newman, 14 November 2011
Interestingly, Ms Newman blames the blow-out in government debt on “the recession and the earthquakes” – but makes no reference to the ’09 and ’10 tax cuts. In fact, she pours petrol on a bon-fire by saying that “ACT would lower the top rate of income tax to 25% and the company tax to 12.5%“.
One can imagine what that would do to the government deficit! (But then again, ACT would sell every single state-owned enterprise and scrap most welfare, to fund their deep tax cuts. A society governed under ACT policies would be utterly alien to anything most New Zealanders could have dreamed of. I suspect Australia’s population would rise by four million, practically overnight.)
And, spelling it out in even simpler terms, the PSA’s analysis of the figures,
.
“Tax Cuts Widen the Gap Between Rich and Poor
- Government chose to make tax cuts in worst recession in 70 years
- Total tax cuts worth $5.5 billion
- Top 10% income earners got tax cuts worth $2.5 billion
- GST increased to 15% – hurts low and middle income most
- Tax cuts + GST left $1.4 billion hole in budget
Since 2008, National has introduced tax cuts that cost New Zealand around $5.5 billion a year in lost revenue. Most of the benefit has gone to the wealthiest.
National’s first set of tax cuts – the personal tax cuts and ‘Independent earner rebate’ taking effect in April 2009 – cost approximately $1 billion a year.
The second set of cuts – cutting the top income tax rate from 38% to 33%, and the company rate to 28% – will cost $4.5 billion a year, according to figures from the 2010 Budget. That gives a total of $5.5 billion.
National claimed that because it was also increasing GST, the tax changes would be “revenue neutral” – that is, the increase in GST would cancel out the income tax cuts. In fact, the losses from the income tax cut will outweigh the gains from GST by $1.4 billion. In other words, the so-called “tax switch” has blown a $1.4 billion hole in the budget.
The tax cuts have also made New Zealand a less fair place. According to Labour, the wealthiest 10% of New Zealanders will get 43% of the tax savings. And the gap in take-home pay between someone on $30,000 and someone on $150,000 a year grew by $135 a week as a result of the tax cuts.
New Zealand’s income tax rates are among the lowest in the OECD, as the Tax Working Group acknowledged.
In Australia , for example, income over $80,000 is taxed at 37%, and income over $180,000 is taxed at 45%.
Figures from the OECD itself show that, before National’s tax cuts, New Zealand’s “all in” top income tax rate – a measure that includes all taxes on income, including local and regional ones – was 38%. In contrast, the all in top income tax rate in Australia was 47%, and in most countries it was higher still.” – PSA.org.nz
.
This blog can confirm the PSA’s statement that “figures from the OECD itself show that, before National’s tax cuts, New Zealand’s “all in” top income tax rate – a measure that includes all taxes on income, including local and regional ones – was 38%“.
Why did they do it? Why did National make a $1.4 billion committment it knew we could ill-afford?
Answer:
- Because they could.
- Because they wanted to be the government. Badly. And nothing quite wins votes like promises of tax cuts (even unaffordable ones).
- Because they probably had no idea how bad the recession would be? Rubbish. Of course they knew: John Key’s background was in international finance. He knew precisely how bad the Recession was – and how bad it was likely to get in Europe.
The question is: why did we, the voters, do it? Why did 1,053,398 New Zealanders cast their vote for National in 2008? Why did we vote for tax-cuts – something we knew was unaffordable?
Whatever the reason, we are having to pay for those tax-cuts – or rather, the $1.4 billion in revenue short-fall that we now have to borrow from overseas. In doing so, as this government continues to post budget deficits, it continues to cut back on services; raise government charges; and sack those state workers who have spent many years of their lives doing all the things we expect done for us in education, health, defence force, border control, conservation, etc.
It is inevitable that, unless New Zealand wins the international equivalent of Lotto, this government (or it’s successor, sometime in the next three years) will have to raise taxes again. Or, steal a page from Gareth Morgan’s book and implement a new, Land/Wealth tax. There is no other way to pay of our debt and pay for Christchurch’s re-build.
Something for all New Zealanders to ponder, next time National (or any other Party) promises us a tax cut, in return for our votes.
In the mean time, Bill English signed a document last year called a “PREFU” – Pre Election Economic & Fiscal Update,
.
.
This document is now worthless. It may have only one use left.
And finally, will Finance Minister Bill English accept “overall responsibility for the integrity of the disclosures within the Update“?
Does any politician ever accept responsibility for anything?
.
.
Minister for whut?!?!
It appears that ACT is in a world of it’s own…
.
.
Don Brash resigned as Leader of ACT on 26 November – about two and a half months ago.
But perhaps even more curious is this,
.
.
There is no such portfolio as “Minister of Parliament for Epsom”.
At best, John Banks is the MP (Member of Parliament ) for Epsom.
And of course, there was this little item I blogged about back in December, last year,
.
.
It’s interesting that ACT has managed to “update” the above page by adding a Facebook “Like” button, and a Google “+1″ button – but have not yet figured out that they have only one MP (John Banks) – not five, as pictured.
This would be mildly amusing (and not really worthwhile to blog about) – except that ACT is now on course to implement it’s unpopular and ideologically-based, “Charter Schools” policy (which was never mandated by voters, as it was never raised as a public issue), and has appointed Catherine Isaac (ex-ACT President, and ACT List candidate for 2011 Election) to oversee the implementation of Charter Schools.
This re-structuring of part of our education is a major change to our education system, and has the potential to impact on the lives of an entire generation of children.
It seems inconceivable that the implementation of this radical, controversial policy, is in the hands of people who don’t know how many MPs they have in Parliament; who their Leader is; employ Parliamentary titles that don’t exis; and can’t be bothered to update on-line information.
What, exactly, should we trust about ACT?
This should be cause for concern for all New Zealanders.
For the record:
- John Banks is not the “Minister” for Epsom – he is the Member of Parliament for Epsom.
- The term “Minister for Epsom” does not exist.
- ACT has one MP, not five.
- None of the five persons depicted on the ACT webpage as “MPs” are MPs (none stood for re-election in 2011).
- Don Brash is not the Leader of ACT.
***
.
Acknowledgements for this story
Previous Blog post
ACT woefully behind the times?
.
.
