Archive
Binding future governments – a question.
A letter to the editor of the NZ Herald…
.
from: Frank M <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:24 PM
subject: Letters to the editor.The EditorNZ HERALD.
.
Kia ora,
The National government wants to bind future governments to the Sky City deal for the next 35 years.
Can a Labour-Green government bind future National governments to not selling our state owned enterprises?
.
-Frank Macskasy
(address & phone number supplied)
.
.
= fs =
Blogger lays complaint with Commerce Commission – *UP-DATE*
.
Continued from: Blogger lays complaint with Commerce Commission
.
.
On 1 April (not an April Fools Joke) this year, this blogger laid a complaint with the NZ Commerce Commission, regarding National’s dealings with Mighty River Power and Rio Tinto’s Tiwai Pt aluminium smelter.
The complain was as follows,
.
Tony Ryall has recently announced that the NZ Government is intervening directly in negotiations between Meridian Energy and Rio Tinto (which is 80% owner of Tiwai Aluminium Smelter).
Mr Ryall has said,
“With this in mind, the Government has been in contact with Pacific Aluminium’s international parent company Rio Tinto this week to discuss helping to bridge the gap in their positions over the short to medium term, if this could be of assistance in concluding an agreement.
“In the meantime, we understand Meridian’s existing contract with Pacific Aluminium remains in place at least until 1 January 2016 with significant financial and other obligations beyond that.”
Ryall added that “all relevant information – including about the smelter electricity contract – will be reflected in the Mighty River Power offer document which is currently being finalised”.
Source: NZ Herald, Govt steps in to sort out stalled Tiwai power deal ( http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10874174)
I therefore submit the following;
(1) This appears to be a prima facie case of the NZ Government manipulating the future stock price of Mighty River Power (and other state owned powercos), by offering a subsidy to Rio Tinto.
(2) This subsidy is not available to any other company nor individual.
(3) As such, I submit that the NZ Government’s intention to subsidise electricity that is provided to Rio Tinto is done with a view to reduce competition in the market.
Specifically, I draw the Commission’s attention to the Commerce Act 1986; sections 27, 30, and related clauses.
(4) Furthermore, I submit that if any other corporation, company, institution, or individual attempted such an act, that they would be deemed to be guilty of price fixing and manipulation of the market.
I await your response and thank you for your consideration of my complaint.
-Frank Macskasy
.
Being somewhat naive, I believed that attempting to instigate events, that would keep the price of shares for a specific company at an inflated value, would constitute a form of manipulation of the share market.
Silly me.
What was I thinking?!
The Commerce Commission replied four weeks later,
.
from: Contact <contact@comcom.govt.nz>
to: ”fmacskasy@gmail.com” <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
date: Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:56 AM
subject: 282199 Meridian Energy Limited and the governmentThank you for the information you provided the Commission regarding the Government’s announcement that it will intervene directly in the negotiations between Meridian Energy and Rio Tinto (owners of Tiwai Aluminium Smelter). You suggest that this intervention would amount to price fixing
We assessed the information you have provided and we are satisfied that the Commerce Act is unlikely to have been breached in this instance. Although it owns one of the parties to these negotiations, Meridian Energy, the Crown appears to have tried to meditate in this dispute on an “honest broker” basis. As such, the Crown probably would not have been in trade for the purposes of this exercise.
The above is merely our view that no prima facie breach of the Commerce Act has occurred. Such a view is not a ruling of law, as only the courts can decide whether there is a breach of the Act. The Commission’s decision not to pursue this matter does not prevent an individual from initiating their own action.
We have closed the file in regard to your complaint enquiry number 282199.
Yours sincerely
Katey Salmond
Commerce Commission |Senior Contact Centre Adviser
44 The Terrace |PO Box 2351 |Wellington 6140 |New Zealand
Free phone 0800 943 600 |Fax +64 (04) 924 3700
Follow us on Twitter @NZComCom
.
One would have thought that by providing subsidised (cheaper) electricity to Rio Tinto’s aluminium smelter; for a short term period (as Dear Leader has stated: PM John Key says fresh Mighty River Float detail due on Friday; may include detail on risks around Tiwai Pt closure); for the purpose of maintaining a high price for Mighty River Power’s shares – would constitute a form of share-market manipulation.
After all, the point of the whole exercise was to maintain Mighty River Power’s share-value. As Key himself pointed out on 2 April,
“But obviously, for the number of people involved, the jobs, the impact on the local community and the impact in the short term on the electricity markets, the government would like to see the orderly exit of the smelter, or a long term agreement between the companies.”
Acknowledgment: Interest.co.nz – PM John Key says fresh Mighty River Float detail due on Friday; may include detail on risks around Tiwai Pt closure
In an ironic side-issue, it’s interesting to note that merchant bankers, share-brokers, Federated Farmers, etc, haven’t raised merry hell on this issue – as they did with the Labour-Green proposal for a single electricity buyer-desk, NZ Power.
I think we can see all manner of vested interests involved here.
Last point, Ms Salmond writes in her 29 April email to me,
“The Commission’s decision not to pursue this matter does not prevent an individual from initiating their own action.”
That almost comes across as a sly hint…
.
.
= fs =
“It’s fundamentally a fairness issue”- Peter Dunne
.
.
In a recent blogpost (see: Children’s Health: not a high priority for Health Minister Tony Ryall) the nadir of National’s cost-cutting to funding of our public services was revealed in a succession of NZ Herald stories,
.
.
In a repeat of (then-Health Minister) Bill English’s cost cutting of the public health sector in the late 1990s, National is once again targetting social services that will impact most harshly on our youngest and most vulnerable – our children. It defies understanding and flies in the face of our supposed reputation for being “a great place to bring up children”.
.
.
As one respondent stated on a previous blogpost,
“One of the major reasons in combatting glue ear is improving a child’s academic performance.
Ensuring academic success with today’s children offers the best prospect of growing tomorrow’s economy, reducing unemployment, increasing the living standard, generally reducing the country’s/ world’s problems, etc.
Is this not a smart investment? How National fails to understand this is bewildering.” - ‘Procrastinator’, 12 January 2012
.
.
“Bewildering”, indeed.
Until one starts to “connect-the-dots” and a slightly new – though all-to-familiar – picture emerges.
To complete the picture, some more “dots”,
.
.
.
.
.
.
And the latest,
.
.
Revenue Minister Peter Dunne sez,
“It’s fundamentally a fairness issue.”
I call “bollocks” on that.
This has as much to do with “fairness” as the US invasion of Iraq had to do with locating Saddam Hussein’s mythical “weapons of mass destruction”.
Let’s be upfront and honest here, Mr Dunne. This has squat to do with “fairness”. After all, if National ministers and their coalition “partners” truly wanted to make this an issue of ” fundamental fairness “, then perhaps Mr Dunne and his colleagues should look in the mirror first.
Starting with Peter Dunne himself…
Peter Dunne ” graduated from the University of Canterbury in 1977 with a Master of Arts Degree with Honours in Political Science, and has also studied business administration at Massey University ” (see: Beehive.govt.nz: Peter Dunne ).
With student loans for tertiary education fees not kicking in until 1992 (see: Timeline of New Zealand history), Peter Dunne’s own University education was free.
He paid nothing for his Master of Arts Degree with Honours in Political Science, nor for his business administration studies at Massey University which were most likely carried out prior to 1988, when he was an Associate Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Management (see: Beehive.govt.nz: Peter Dunne ). I can find no record indicating whether or not Dunne graduated from his business course at Massey.
On top of his free education, Dunne probably also qualified for a student allowance – again courtesy of the New Zealand taxpayer and non-repayable.
The Prime Minister, John Key, and Social Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett, also gained their respective University education free of charge – courtesy of the taxpayer. In Bennett’s case, she used the WINZ Training Incentive Allowance to pay for her tertiary education – which she later cut back so it is now no longer available for other solo-parents (see: Bennett cutting a benefit that helped her).
Peter Dunne was partially correct in one respect, though,
“There’s a certain sense of annoyance amongst people who stayed in New Zealand and diligently worked to pay off their loans that these freeloaders overseas are, in some cases, getting away with it.”
See: Student-loan dodgers face tough crackdown
The free-loaders though, are not the students who’ve escaped the double-standards; hypocrisy; and sheer plain selfishness of our country. The real free-loaders are every single Tory politician and bludging right-winger who gained a free taxpayer funded tertiary education – and then proceeded to force subsequent generations of young New Zealanders to pay for their University education.
The real free loaders are hypocrites such as Peter Dunne who paid nothing for his years at University – whilst now expecting others for pay. And on top of that, using the full force of the State to enforce payment.
No wonder that so many New Zealanders, like Matthew Fraher, who left for Australia in 2000, are justifiably angry. As he pointed out about politicians, they,
“… didn’t pay a dime and they’re having a go at us.”
See: Student loan debtor: I’m better off in Australia
And the system is actually encouraging graduates to leave the country. As Mr Fraher correctly stated,
“I was paying about $10,000 a year just doing the minimum amount for the last three and a half years.
When I go to Australia I’ll be paying back $3000 a year.
They’re actually making an incentive to leave the country. “If anyone thinks that’s sensible or good policy, their head’s not right.”
See: IBID
None of the student fees/loans/debt makes any sense. Not socially, not economically, and certainly not for our country’s future as we continue to bleed people to Australia and further afield.
.
.
Only certain politicians and the low-information voters who voted for this mess could possibly think any of this was a good idea.
The sad thing is that New Zealand was warned of this eventuality in the 1990s by social commentators, left-wing activists, and political parties such as The Alliance.
The real motive for National’s under-funding and cutting social services; taxing newspaper-delivery boys and girls; and their latest witch-hunt to grab back every cent they can manage to ring from ex-students, is quite simple: National is desperate for cash.
After two unaffordable tax-cuts in 2009 and 2010, which cost this country in billions of dollars in lost revenue (see; Govt’s 2010 tax cuts costing $2 billion and counting, Deficit halved, but still higher than forecast), National is scrambling to cut services to save money and to raise revenue from every possible source.
All for promises of two tax cuts we couldn’t afford in 2008 – and still can’t afford now, five years later.
Alex Tarrant, from Interest.co.nz, summed matters up succinctly when he wrote last year,
.
.
Mr Tarrant left out one vital factor: the tax cuts. He refers to “government receiving almost NZ$8 billion less in tax revenue over the next four years” – which is precisely the figure that The Green Party uncovered after some judicious political detective work,
The Green Party has today revealed that the National Government has so far had to borrow an additional $2 billion dollars to fund their 2010 tax cut package for upper income earners.
New information prepared for the Green Party by the Parliamentary Library show that the estimated lost tax revenues from National’s 2010 tax cut package are between $1.6–$2.2 billion. The lost revenue calculation includes company and personal income tax revenues offset by increases in GST.
“The National Government said that their signature 2010 income tax cut package would be ‘fiscally neutral’ — paid for increased revenues from raising GST. That hasn’t happened. The net cost for tax cuts has been about $2 billion,” Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman said today.
“Borrowing $2 billion in 18 months to fund upper-income tax cuts is fiscally irresponsible.
“National’s poor economic decisions have led to record levels of government debt and borrowing.
“They have also broken a promise to the electorate when they said their tax cut package was going to be fiscally neutral.”
See: Govt’s 2010 tax cuts costing $2 billion and counting
Dr Norman is correct – National did indeed promise that tax cuts would be “fiscally neutral”. But more than that, in 2008, National also pledged,
National’s rebalancing of the tax system is self-funding and requires no cuts to public services or additional borrowing.
See: National/Economy/Tax Policy
That has to be the biggest, bare-faced lie from National since John Key took over leadership of that Party in November 2006.
It is also worth noting that National’s expected surplus for 2014/15 is a mere $66 million. That is a fraction of the $72.9 to $74.9 billion in Core Crown expenses for the 2014/15 period (see: Fiscal Outlook). It’s the cost of a damaged bridge-repair or other unforeseen circumstance requiring government expenditure.
Little wonder that Ministers are directing their departments to scrimp and scrape to save every dollar they can get away with.
The reason this is so vital to National?
Because every other economic and social indicator is either stagnating, or getting worse. With their free market “hands off” policy, National is unable to intervene directly in the economy in any meaningful way (except provide subsidies to certain industries like multi-billion dollar movie conglomerates).
National finds itself unable to engage in job creation programmes – that is the role of business, said Dear Leader,
“Nothing creates jobs and boosts incomes better than business growth. ” – John Key, 24 August 2012
See: Key Notes: Honouring our fallen soldiers
National can’t even bring itself to help Cantabrians with housing – that is the role of private enterprise, said Roly Poly Leader, Gerry Brownlee. (see: Christchurch rent crisis ‘best left to market’)
With much of the economy “off limits” on ideological grounds and National unwilling to address critical social problems (I refuse to call them “issues”) – there is only one area where Key and his Party can show the voting public that they are an effective Party in power and “on top of things”: government spending.
In a bizarre form of political roulette, Key and English are gambling their political reputations on one throw of the dice; returning to Budget surplus in 2014/15.
That’s all they have. Most other economic and social indicators are worsening on an almost weekly or monthly basis and National’s Party strategists know that come the 2014 general election, they are in for a real nasty hiding if they cannot demonstrate to the public that they can return to surplus. After all, if the Nats can’t achieve even that, then voters would be scratching their heads and wondering what on Earth Key has been doing for six years.
That’s when Labour, NZ First, et al, will be showing clips of John Key dancing at radio stations, Gangnam-style. Or gormless-style.
Peter Dunne was being dishonest when he said, “It’s fundamentally a fairness issue“.
Rubbish. It has nothing to do with “fairness”.
What Dunne was really saying was, “It’s fundamentally a fiscal issue”.
If Dunne was really interested in fairness, then I suggest that he, John Key, Paula Bennet, Stephen Joyce, et al, all pay back the full amount of student fees and living allowances that were paid to them when they were at University. Plus interest.
It might not dent the debt that National has accumulated since 2009 – but at least they’d be setting an example to the country, and not engaging in rank hypocrisy.
What about it, Mr Dunne – will you be paying for your University degree?
Addendum 1
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 at 0:06
From: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
Subject: Student debt
To: “peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz” <peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz>Kia ora Mr Dunne,
You have been recently reported in the media as pursuing student loan holders who have left the country and who are not re-paying their student loan debt.
In the NZ Herald you are quoted as saying,
“There’s a certain sense of annoyance amongst people who stayed in New Zealand and diligently worked to pay off their loans that these freeloaders overseas are, in some cases, getting away with it.”
It is common knowledge that you yourself (along with John Key, Paula Bennett, Stephen Joyce, et al) are all beneficiaries of a free, tax-payer funded tertiary education.
The record states that you graduated from the University of Canterbury in 1977 with a Master of Arts Degree with Honours in Political Science, and has also studied business administration at Massey University.
You may even have been in receipt of a taxpayer funded and non-repayable student allowance.
To show true leadership on this issue and to set an example to student loan holders, can we assume that you will be paying the cost of your tertiary education, along with repayment of any allowances received; plus interest?
To many people it seems curiously hypocritical that you are demanding payment for education from other people whilst not paying your own fair share.
As you said in the NZ Herald on 10 January,
“It’s fundamentally a fairness issue.”
Let’s put it to the test, shall we? It’s fundamentally a fairness issue that you pay for something that others have to pay for as well.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
Addendum 2
National’s (tax payer funded) media spin doctors have been using a particular ‘line’ when it comes to cost-cutting our social services; instead of reducing government debt, they say that “savings will be reinvested” in other areas of state services.
Here are a few examples from above,
“The money would be used for smarter investment in other parts of the health system.”
See: Govt eyes cuts to elective surgery
“Joyce says the changes will slice $250m off the loan book and create $60m to $70m per annum savings for the Government, which would be re-invested in the tertiary sector.”
See: Student loan repayments hiked, allowances restricted
“The Government has announced it will make the first increase in prescription cost in 20 years at next week’s budget to fund reinvestment in the health sector in lean economic times.”
See: Meds price hike: ‘Children will die‘
It’s such a subtle piece of BS spin that it’s hardly noticeable. But it all a lie, of course. The cost-cutting – which they refer to as “savings” – will be used to reduce borrowing. And the borrowing is necessary because of the unwise, progligate taxcuts of 2009 and 2010.
Eventually, of course, most New Zealanders become weary of constant cuts to essential services and vote for a return to a Labour-led government. The re-building of our social services then begins in earnest,
.
.
Been there. Done that. Lost the t-shirt off my back.
.
*
Previous related blogposts
Children’s Health: not a high priority for Health Minister Tony Ryall
It’s official: Political Dissent Discouraged in NZ!
References
The Atlantic: Tax Cuts Don’t Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds
NZ Herald: Outlook slashes tax-take by $8b
Fairfax media: Budget 2012: The main points
Scoop.co.nz: Govt’s 2010 tax cuts costing $2 billion and counting
Fairfax media: Student loan repayments hiked, allowances restricted
Dominion Post: Ten students owe $2.9 million in loans
NZ Herald: Student-loan dodgers face tough crackdown
NZ Herald: Student loan debtor: I’m better off in Australia
Beehive.govt.nz: Peter Dunne
.
.
= fs =
John Key – more pledges, more broken promises?
.
.
Continued from: As predicted: National abandons climate-change responsibilities
As if John Key’s broken promises on environmental concerns and reneging on pledges expressing “National’s commitment to addressing global climate change. We view this as the most serious environmental challenge of our time“ was not enough (see: John Key, Speech: Environment Policy Launch), Dear Leader has made a new committment to New Zealanders,
“Next year New Zealand will name a binding commitment to climate change – it will actually have a physical rate that we’re going to hit – but instead of being what’s called a second commitment period that is likely to run from 2012 to 2020, we’ll be able to set our own rules around that.”
See: Key defends decision not to stick with Kyoto Protocol
This blogger demands to know from John Key why on Earth we should take him at his word? This is a man who has broken so many pledges; back-tracked on so many policies; and paid lip-service to committments – that it has become a standing joke.
Some of Key’s previous statements on the environment include,
“What global Leaders know, and what the National Party knows, is that environmentalism and a commitment to economic growth must go hand in hand. We should be wary of anyone who claims that one can or should come without the other. And we should always measure a Government’s environmental rhetoric against its environmental record.
In the years ahead it will be increasingly important that New Zealand marries its economic and environmental policies. Global climate change awareness, resource shortages, and increasing intolerance of environmental degradation will give environmental policy renewed relevance on the world stage…
… And, in seeking the balance between environmental and economic goals, National will never forget that New Zealand’s outstanding physical environment is a key part of what makes our country special. Kiwis proudly value our forests, mountains, rivers, lakes, and oceans. They are part of our history and they must continue to define our future.”
See: John Key, Speech: Environment Policy Launch
“National will also ensure New Zealand works on the world stage to support international efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. We are committed to honouring our Kyoto Protocol obligations and we will work to achieve further global alliances that build on the goals agreed to at Kyoto.”
See: Ibid
Up until April/May 2010, Key maintained National’s supportive position on the ETS,
“I’d say it’s unlikely it would be amended.”
But by 9 November, National had completed a 180-degree turn on the the Kyoto Protocol, and completed what can only be deemed as a covert policy to repudiate the ETS and our committments to Kyoto. As Climate Change Minister Tim Groser said,
“The Government has decided that from 1 January 2013 New Zealand will be aligning its climate change efforts with developed and developing countries which collectively are responsible for 85% of global emissions. This includes the United States, Japan, China, India, Canada, Brazil, Russia and many other major economies.”
See: New Zealand Commits to UN Framework Convention
John Key has backtracked on the ETS and Kyoto Protocols – and now expects us to take him at his word at new committments announced today?
I don’t think so.
To rationalise National’s abandonment on Kyoto, Key stated,
“We are a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of world emissions … New Zealand needs to play its part, it is playing its part, it’s already part of the emissions trading scheme and we’ve made quite a lot of other changes – we are there doing things about climate change. But I think we never wanted to be a world leader in climate change.”
I don’t think anyone could ever accuse Dear Leader of “wanting to be a world leader in climate change“. He’s right on that score.
As for his laughable assertion that “New Zealand needs to play its part, it is playing its part, it’s already part of the emissions trading scheme” – that is the same ETS that National has gutted by excluding agriculture from, despite prior pledges to include it by 2015.
By October of this year, National scrapped the five yearly State of the Environment Reports, despite John Key having endorsed it in September 2008.
See: National scraps crucial environmental report
No one could ever accuse John Key of keeping his pledges.
He is not to be trusted.
Addendum
For a full time-line of National’s slow dismantling of the ETS and backttracking on Kyoto Protocols, see: ETS – National continues to fart around.
.
*
.
Other blogs
Tim Groser misleads Parliament
.
.
= fs =
As predicted: National abandons climate-change responsibilities
.
.
Continued from: National ditches environmental policies
As predicted eight days ago, National has abandoned all pretences at meeting our Kyoto Protocol obligations, and cutting back on air pollution,
.
.
As this blogger wrote on 1 November, John Key was adamant that National was committed to reducing greenhouse gases, and making environmental concerns a priority for his “government”,
” What global Leaders know, and what the National Party knows, is that environmentalism and a commitment to economic growth must go hand in hand. We should be wary of anyone who claims that one can or should come without the other. And we should always measure a Government’s environmental rhetoric against its environmental record.
In the years ahead it will be increasingly important that New Zealand marries its economic and environmental policies. Global climate change awareness, resource shortages, and increasing intolerance of environmental degradation will give environmental policy renewed relevance on the world stage…
… And, in seeking the balance between environmental and economic goals, National will never forget that New Zealand’s outstanding physical environment is a key part of what makes our country special. Kiwis proudly value our forests, mountains, rivers, lakes, and oceans. They are part of our history and they must continue to define our future.
Our environment isn’t just a bonus. It’s part of being a Kiwi. It underpins our enviable quality of life. It gives us an in-built edge over many of our economic rivals. I’m thinking, for example, of what Australia would do for our abundant water resources. And, increasingly, New Zealand’s environmental credentials will underpin our prosperity and our trade profile…
… One of National’s key goals, should we lead the next Government, will be to stem the flow of New Zealanders choosing to live and work overseas. We want to make New Zealand an attractive place for our children and grandchildren to live – including those who are currently living in Australia, the UK, or elsewhere…
… Labour has talked big talk on the environment but all too often it has failed to deliver.
• Labour promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% – but instead they have gone up by 20%.
• Labour promised a target of 90% renewable electricity by 2021 – but the actual proportion of renewables has sunk to an all-time low.
• Labour promised 250,000 hectares of additional trees by 2020 – but the past three years has seen the worst deforestation since records began… “
Source: John Key, Speech: Environment Policy Launch
Key was emphatic in demanding stronger environmental protections for our country,
” I urge you to read our environment policy in full. But let me pick out some highlights.
First, this policy underlines National’s commitment to addressing global climate change. We view this as the most serious environmental challenge of our time.
National believes that New Zealand, as a responsible international citizen, and as a country that values our clean, green environment, must act to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This policy sets out our commitment to that goal.
National will set an achievable emissions reduction target for New Zealand. We seek a 50% reduction in New Zealand’s carbon-equivalent net emissions, as compared to 1990 levels, by 2050. 50 by 50. We will write the target into law.
National will also ensure New Zealand works on the world stage to support international efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. We are committed to honouring our Kyoto Protocol obligations and we will work to achieve further global alliances that build on the goals agreed to at Kyoto.
Our approach to future international negotiations will be to work with fellow countries on finding a pragmatic way to include large emitters like China, the United States, India, and Brazil. It’s clear that the absence of these large emitters from any post-Kyoto agreement would severely compromise global progress on this issue.
In order to achieve domestic emission reduction, National will pursue sound, practical environmental policies. We want to reduce emissions in ways that result in least cost to society and the economy.
To that end, we consider a well-designed, carefully balanced emissions trading scheme (ETS) to be the best tool available for efficiently reducing emissions across the economy. “
Source: Ibid
Up until April/May 2010, Key maintained National’s supportive position on the ETS,
“I’d say it’s unlikely it would be amended.”
But as New Zealanders have now come to expect, what National sez – and what National does, are often two completely different things.
If one was sufficiently uncharitable, one could say that National was highly dishonest as it back-tracked on it’s committments. But seeing as this blogger is not uncharitable, let’s just call them lying bastards and settle at that.
By November 2011 Environment Minister Nick Smith announced,
“ … It is not in New Zealand’s interests to include agricultural emissions in the ETS yet.
And true to word, in August of this year, National introduced legislation to remove agriculture and the egg industry from the ETS, entirely.
By October of this year, National had scrapped five yearly State of the Environment Reports, despite John Key having endorsed it in September 2008.
See: National scraps crucial environmental report
Today, National completed what can only be deemed as a covert policy to repudiate the ETS and our committments to Kyoto. As Climate Change Minister Tim Groser said,
“The Government has decided that from 1 January 2013 New Zealand will be aligning its climate change efforts with developed and developing countries which collectively are responsible for 85% of global emissions. This includes the United States, Japan, China, India, Canada, Brazil, Russia and many other major economies.”
See: New Zealand Commits to UN Framework Convention
Which is an outrageous admission from a National minister, and makes a mockery of Key’s fuzzy-wuzzy words just four years ago.
Groser went on to state,
“I want to emphasise that NZ stands 100% behind its existing Kyoto Protocol Commitment. We are on track to achieving our target – indeed we are forecasting a projected surplus of 23.1 million tonnes. Furthermore, we will remain full members of the Kyoto Protocol. There is no question of withdrawing. The issue was always different: where would we take our next commitment – under the Kyoto Protocol or under the Convention with the large majority of economies? We have decided that it is New Zealand’s best interests to do the latter. ”
If New Zealand was “on track to achieving our target – indeed we are forecasting a projected surplus of 23.1 million tonnes” – then why withdraw from the Second Kyoto Protocols?
This makes no sense unless National is continuing to bullshit the public.
This is another broken pledge from John Key, and a failure by National to meet it’s own committments.
Key and National will be held to account at the next election. Broken promises are not a sound basis on which to base an election campaign.
Addendum
.
.
National’s media release is headed, “New Zealand Commits to UN Framework Convention” – as if National was undertaking meaningful committments to environmental protection.
It is a laughable attempt to ‘spin’ National’s broken committments in a positive light.
The truly offensive thing here is not that John Key’s credibility is now shot to hell; nor that National has shown itself to be utterly untrustworthy – but that the Nat’s Party (taxpayer funded) spin-doctors thought that the public was so stupid that we wouldn’t notice.
All they’ve done is drawn more attention to their lies, broken promises, and secret agendas.
Tossers.
.
*
.
Sources
Government shuns second Kyoto committment
New Zealand Commits to UN Framework Convention
Additional
Fairfax Media: AgResearch stalls ‘damaging’ report
Radiolive: Nats are sacrificing our environment… for what?
Other blogs
Tumeke: John Key’s invisible New Zealand
Truthdig: The Fallacy Behind Environmental Protection and Economic Growth
.
.
= fs =
National ditches environmental policies
.
.
Continued from: ETS – National continues to fart around
.
Continuing an analysis of National’s track record on environmental concerns…
“Green Key”
From a speech given by John Key in September, 2008 – about three months prior to being elected Prime Minister,
” What global Leaders know, and what the National Party knows, is that environmentalism and a commitment to economic growth must go hand in hand. We should be wary of anyone who claims that one can or should come without the other. And we should always measure a Government’s environmental rhetoric against its environmental record.
In the years ahead it will be increasingly important that New Zealand marries its economic and environmental policies. Global climate change awareness, resource shortages, and increasing intolerance of environmental degradation will give environmental policy renewed relevance on the world stage…
… And, in seeking the balance between environmental and economic goals, National will never forget that New Zealand’s outstanding physical environment is a key part of what makes our country special. Kiwis proudly value our forests, mountains, rivers, lakes, and oceans. They are part of our history and they must continue to define our future.
Our environment isn’t just a bonus. It’s part of being a Kiwi. It underpins our enviable quality of life. It gives us an in-built edge over many of our economic rivals. I’m thinking, for example, of what Australia would do for our abundant water resources. And, increasingly, New Zealand’s environmental credentials will underpin our prosperity and our trade profile…
… One of National’s key goals, should we lead the next Government, will be to stem the flow of New Zealanders choosing to live and work overseas. We want to make New Zealand an attractive place for our children and grandchildren to live – including those who are currently living in Australia, the UK, or elsewhere…
… Labour has talked big talk on the environment but all too often it has failed to deliver.
• Labour promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% – but instead they have gone up by 20%.
• Labour promised a target of 90% renewable electricity by 2021 – but the actual proportion of renewables has sunk to an all-time low.
• Labour promised 250,000 hectares of additional trees by 2020 – but the past three years has seen the worst deforestation since records began… “
Source: John Key, Speech: Environment Policy Launch
Key went on to say,
” I urge you to read our environment policy in full. But let me pick out some highlights.
First, this policy underlines National’s commitment to addressing global climate change. We view this as the most serious environmental challenge of our time.
National believes that New Zealand, as a responsible international citizen, and as a country that values our clean, green environment, must act to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This policy sets out our commitment to that goal.
National will set an achievable emissions reduction target for New Zealand. We seek a 50% reduction in New Zealand’s carbon-equivalent net emissions, as compared to 1990 levels, by 2050. 50 by 50. We will write the target into law.
National will also ensure New Zealand works on the world stage to support international efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. We are committed to honouring our Kyoto Protocol obligations and we will work to achieve further global alliances that build on the goals agreed to at Kyoto.
Our approach to future international negotiations will be to work with fellow countries on finding a pragmatic way to include large emitters like China, the United States, India, and Brazil. It’s clear that the absence of these large emitters from any post-Kyoto agreement would severely compromise global progress on this issue.
In order to achieve domestic emission reduction, National will pursue sound, practical environmental policies. We want to reduce emissions in ways that result in least cost to society and the economy.
To that end, we consider a well-designed, carefully balanced emissions trading scheme (ETS) to be the best tool available for efficiently reducing emissions across the economy. “
National’s pledge to “consider a well-designed, carefully balanced emissions trading scheme (ETS) to be the best tool available for efficiently reducing emissions across the economy” has turned into a farce.
Up until April/May 2010, Key maintained National’s position on the ETS,
“I’d say it’s unlikely it would be amended.”
“Greenish-grey Key”
But by November 2011 Environment Minister Nick Smith announced,
“ … It is not in New Zealand’s interests to include agricultural emissions in the ETS yet.
On August of this year, National introduced legislation to remove agriculture and the egg industry from the ETS, entirely,
“…remove a specified entry date for surrender obligations on biological emissions from agriculture”.
See previous blogpost for full timeline: ETS – National continues to fart around
.
.
So there we have it. From noble promises made in 2008 – to the abandonment of agriculture being included in the Emissions Trading Scheme.
Another broken promise from a broken “government”.
Did John Key ever really intend to include agriculture in the Emissions Trading Scheme? I suspect not. As with so many of National’s fine-sounding promises, it was all electioneering. They told us what we wanted to hear.
“Coal-black Key”
As if the gradual, covert, watering down the ETS was not enough – there are now indications that National intends to abandon New Zealand’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol,
.
.
Key seemed more supportive of the Kyoto Protocols in 2008,
” National will also ensure New Zealand works on the world stage to support international efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. We are committed to honouring our Kyoto Protocol obligations and we will work to achieve further global alliances that build on the goals agreed to at Kyoto…
… So let me be very clear today: National is serious about reducing New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. We will ensure that a New Zealand ETS is introduced on 1 January 2010. “
As usual, John Key and the National Party have been big on rhetoric and promises – but poor on action. Sadly for New Zealand, the reality of their policies has been a sustained undermining of environmental protections.
From La La Land…
To really highlight what National thinks of environmental concerns, one need only consider their plans to scrap the vital State of the Environment Report.
There is an element of absurdity to this issue that is difficult to fathom,
.
.
From the same speech John Key gave in September 2008,
” Environmental management has been further compromised by the poor performance of the Environment Ministry and the lack of independent monitoring of New Zealand’s progress towards environmental goals.
National believes Kiwis are ready to do things differently. We want to strengthen the incentives for co-operation in the pursuit of shared environmental goals.
So, National will invite stakeholders to work with us to reach agreement on up to 20 national environment goals to be achieved by specific dates, at the latest by 2030. To give those goals some real resonance we will introduce a new Environmental Reporting Act. This will require the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to conduct independent five-yearly State of the Environment Reports. “
This is the same pledge, to demand independent five-yearly State of the Environment Reports, that the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams, now dismisses,
“Waiting five years to measure the state of our environment might be good enough for the opposition parties but not this Government.”
See: National scraps crucial environmental report
The absurd irony is that a National Minister is dismissing a policy that her boss – the Prime Minister – advocated four years ago! The five-yearly State of the Environment Reports was not Opposition policy – it was John Key’s idea!!!
This is Orwellian re-writing of history at it’s most ludicrous and laughable: dismissing National Party initiatives by blaming them on opposition parties!
Folks, New Zealand politics doesn’t get more Monty Pythonesque than this!
100% 48% Pure!
As a result of National’s covert disregard for our environment, ongoing poor environmental policies and actions have become manifest in ways that are becoming harder and harder to hide from public attention,
.
.
What New Zealanders fail to comprehend is that the degration of our environment doesn’t just mean we’ll be able to swim less and less in our once-clean rivers – but that the rest of the world will soon begin to realise that our “100% Pure” and “Clean & Green” image” is bogus.
That’s when our reputation for environmental protection will be revealed as a sham and our exports for primary produce will begin to be affected.
How long will it be before international media turn their gaze upon our slowly degrading environment?
How long before our rivers are as polluted as China’s?
And how long before international markets turn away from our products, or pay us less for our produce?
If we’re going to treat our rivers as toilets, why should tourists come here to New Zealand?
If anything has demonstrated Dear Leader’s change-of-heart from 2008, it is his ‘sudden’ conversion from Environmental Champion to backer of the minining lobby.
Green Key is gone.
Coal-black Key has arrived.
.
.
Track records, broken records
In 2008, John Key encouraged,
“I urge you to read our environment policy in full.”
So do I - Speech: Environment Policy Launch
In doing so you, the reader, will find out for yourself just how dishonest Key and National have been, and how badly our environment – which forms the economic backbone of this country – is now being systematically degraded for narrow, short-term gain.
True to form, even as John Key smiled benignly upon the country – he has let New Zealanders down.
“And we should always measure a Government’s environmental rhetoric against its environmental record.” – John Key, 6 September 2008
.
*
.
Additional
Fairfax Media: AgResearch stalls ‘damaging’ report
Radiolive: Nats are sacrificing our environment… for what?
Other blogs
Tumeke: John Key’s invisible New Zealand
Truthdig: The Fallacy Behind Environmental Protection and Economic Growth
.
.
= fs =
As predictable as the rising sun
.
.
As previously posted on 6 September,
“With low polling and redundancies dominating the headlines, National has cast about for another dog-whistle to distract the easily-led Middle class.
They’ve done the unemployed and solo-mums (but never solo dads) “to death”.
Next minority on the List; Maori.
Cue: John Key’s derisory response to the upcoming nationwide hui on water rights,
“The Government does not believe there should be a national hui; does not believe there should be a national settlement and it probably would not recognise all of the rights and interests that some Maori groups believe they have.
If the Crown was to be represented at the hui, and it wont be, because we’ve said were not having a national hui, we don’t support that…if you are an MP in the government you represent the Crown and any representation by my MPs at such an event would be interpreted as representation by the Crown.
I’ve made that position absolutely crystal clear..I do not accept the view that there needs to be a national hui, because I do not accept there will be a national settlement, because I do not accept it’s a national issue.”
See: Key – Government won’t go to water hui
Maori-bashing.
Almost as good as bene-bashing.
Or “get tough on crime/crush cars” rhetoric.
“Standing tough” with Maori “demands” for water rights will probably work a treat with racist rednecks and low-information voters. With the former, their racism is deeply ingrained and such ignorance can be written of like the forty-plus financial companies that sucked billions out of mums and dads investors.
With the latter, it is a matter of education and dispelling myths and prejudice, before people’s eyes eventually open and they connect-the-dots.
National will probably rebound in the polls on this strategy.
See blogpost: National in trouble? Time to dog-whistle the Middle Class!
It appears that my prediction has come true and the latest Herald-Digipoll shows a slight “burp” in National’s poll rating.
Support for National has risen marginally by 0.4% – a barely discernible rise for the Party,
.
.
The slight rise in support for National is due in no small part to their redneck dog-whistling; opposition to Maori water-rights claims; beneficiary bashing; and suchlike.
This kind of support is a kneejerk reaction and can be comfortably ignored. People eventually look for a government that offers positive messages – not constant negatives.
By contrast, Labour has dropped in the polls by 2%. But it can take heart that the move has gone to NZ First (1.1%)and predominantly the Greens (1.6%). (This poll was taken before Shearer announced Labour’s Food in Schools policy.)
The increased support for the Greens should reinforce Labour’s move to the centre-Left, and confidently abandon all pretenses of adopting a “National-lite” mirror-image.
For Labour to rise in the polls, they need only stay true to their roots and raison d’être – as the conscience and humane face of New Zealand society.
Likewise there is room for only one hard-arsed, neo-liberal obsessed, bene-bashing Party in this country, and that segment of the political spectrum is firmly inhabited by the National Party.
Labour’s path is clear; reassert it’s moral leadership on the political spectrum and reach out to every sector of New Zealand society.
Offer New Zealanders a clear path; more of the same of National’s unworkable policies; or something better. Something that encapsulates New Zealanders’ sense of fairness.
.
.
= fs =
Dear Leader – fibbing again?!
.
In the 1960s TV science fiction series, ‘Star Trek‘, a sub-theme of humour ran through some of the episodes. The young ‘Mr Chekov’ – a proud Russian character played by American actor, Walter Koenig – would often claim several inventions, cultural icons, famous historical figures, as being of Russian provenance,
.
“Perhaps you have heard Russian epic of Cinderella?”
.
It was a comic sub-text that ran through the series and we smiled at the subtle mocking of nationalistic fervour.
Not quite so funny, though, when our own Dear Leader John Key does it,
.
.
“By any measure, the National Government’s home insulation scheme launched in 2009 has been a success…
… We set up the scheme as a four-year programme to insulate 188,500 homes – but we are now doing an extra 40,000 thereby taking the total to around 230,000.”
See: Ibid
Say whut?!
Who set up the home insulation scheme, Mr Key?
If I may jog peoples’ memories,
.
.
Why yes – it was a Green Party initiative! John Key is claiming credit for another Party’s policy initiative!?
National did refer to home insulation in their Policy 2008: Environment document. The sum total their “policy” on home insulation consisted of twenty words,
” National will:
… Work with councils to provide financial assistance to help low income households change to clean heating and improve their insulation.”
See: Policy 2008: Environment – Environmental Standards
The same document that stated, that National would,
• “Honour New Zealand’s Kyoto Protocol obligations.
• Support international efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, including working to achieve further global alliances that build on the goals agreed at Kyoto.
• Legislate for a well-considered, carefully balanced emissions trading scheme (ETS) for efficiently reducing emissions across the economy”
None of which it has achieved. Our ETS is certainly not “carefully balanced” as farming and other industries are exempt until 2015, with taxpayers having to foot the bill for those exemptions.
See: Slow economy puts ETS plans on hold
By the 2011 General Election, National had appropriated the Green Party’s home insulation initiative entirely,
” Key facts
• Over 130,000 homes so far are warmer, drier, and healthier thanks to our Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart scheme.”
See: Policy 2011 ENERGY & RESOURCES
And the tobacco companies complain of their intellectual property rights being ripped of?!?!
When Key writes,
“We’ve also worked with the Green Party on the insulation programme as part of our Memorandum of Understanding.”
… he is taking credit where none is deserved.
Following Key’s piece in the Herald, a reader posted this comment,
“ Ennill (Beach Haven)
01:13 PM Sunday, 26 Aug 2012Are you also proud of other government progress?
A “Best of.” list might include:
1. Making more people redundant than any other employer
2. Growing the exodus to Australia of our best and brightest
3. Maintaining zero growth for New Zealand
4. Making 90% of New Zealand poorer by restricting wages and raising GST
5. Selling off New Zealand’s laws to the highest bidder
6. Taking away basic rights and protections for workers
7. Supporting John Banks
8. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on consultants
9. Not sacking Paula Bennett and Judith Collins for leaks of private information
10. Pushing ahead with asset sales when 85% of the country are against them
11. Charter Schools – a failed experiment elsewhere that have been introduced for ideology and not for the benefit of our kids
12. Ignoring the advice of experts when it doesn’t suit policy such as National Standards
13. Cutting Health spending to such an extent that they are struggling to deliver on anything except government-imposed targets
14. Making dodgy deals that are described by legal experts as ‘riding rough-shod over New Zealand’s laws’ such as the Sky City pokie deal
15. Encouraging mining on National Parks “
Ennill’s criticism of Key and National is damning. It is also accurate.
S/he points out one salutary fact; National has failed to achieve anything except tax cuts in 2009 and 2010. And even those are now being paid for by increased borrowing and asset sales.
National’s failure in managing the economy is so dire that it has taken to resorting to stealing policy successes from other political Parties it has worked with.
Why not?
They are about to steal our billion-dollar state assets and flog them of to already wealthy buyers and corporate investors.
I wonder if the Greens could sue for theft of intellectual property?
.
.
= fs =
What’s up with the Nats? (Part rua)
.
Continued from: What’s up with the Nats? (Part tahi)
.
.
If there’s somethin’ strange in your neighborhood
Who ya gonna call?
Natbusters!
If it’s somethin’ weird an it won’t look good
Who ya gonna call?
Natbusters!
Intro
Ever since the National Party conference at the end of July, the National Party has been strutting the political stage like a bunch of patched gang-members, strutting about the main street of some small town in the back-blocks.
Key, Bennett, Joyce, Collins, Parata, Banks – even lowly backbenchers like Maggie Barry – have been obnoxiously aggressive in policy announcements and dealing with the media and critics.
The Nats have been unrelentingly in our faces ever since John Key uttered the threat,
.
.
This is not just about confidence.
This is something new. This is about a new, hyped-up, aggressive style of taking criticisms and failings, and turning it back on the critic.
Steven Joyce was on-style on TV3′s “The Nation” (19 August), when he belittled and badgered two journalists (John Hartevelt and Alex Tarrant) who asked him pointedly about National’s short-comings. Joyce’s response was typical Muldoon-style pugnacity.
This interview with Joyce is charachteristic of how National Ministers have been belligerent in their responses. It is singularly instructive,
.
.
Interestingly, Joyce has a “go” at Labour; then the Greens; and even Hone Harawira throughout the course of the interview. He even blames the global financial crisis and throws that in the face of Alex Tarrant, as he responds to a point.
Everyone gets a dose of blame – except the one party that is currently in power. So much for National’s creed that we should all take personal responsibility for our actions.
It appears that National’s back-room Party strategists have been analysing the first few months of this year and have realised that when things go horribly wrong, or the latest string of economic indicators reveal more bad news, the relevant Minister(s) responds with aggression and with defiance.
If the old say “explaining-is-losing” is a truism, then any explanation offered automatically puts a Minister on the back-foot.
The best way out of such a sticky moment; take a page out of Rob Muldoon’s book, ‘How To Win Friends/Enemies and Influence the Media‘.
And National’s Ministers have been playing this ‘new’ game perfectly…
.
Paula Bennett
.
Of all National ministers, Bennett’s behaviour has become most irrational, offensive, and just downright bizarre.
Not content with “offering” sterilisation to solo-mums (but never solo-dads) and their daughters, her views on poverty are so breathtakingly, woefully ignorant that this blogger has come to the conclusion that her tax-payer funded tertiary education was a complete waste of time and money.
See: Hypocrisy – thy name be National
Bennett’s latest weird comments raised eyebrows and and a few hackles,
” Get in the real world.
One week they can be in poverty, then their parent can get a job or increase their income and they are no longer in poverty … This is the real world, and actually children move in and out of poverty at times on a weekly basis.”
See: Bennett slammed over child poverty claim
Bennet then lashed out, saying she “wasn’t interested in measuring child poverty“, and instead her government was more focused on addressing the problems,
“Of course there is poverty in New Zealand. This has been acknowledged by the Government but it’s not a priority to have another measure on it.”
See: scoop.co.nz – Combating poverty more important than measuring it
How can National “combat poverty” if they are not aware of the scale of it? How can a government budget appropriately, without knowing the numbers involved?
Are they just going to guess?
Which then brings us to the issue of Bennett’s instance that the unemployed be drug-tested,
“There is certainly a line between recreational use and addiction and that is challenging in itself and it’s something we’ll have to work through.
“At the end of the day you’ve potentially got thousands of New Zealanders who are unable to work because of recreational use and this paper also identifies that as a real problem, so we need to keep working our way through a solution“.”
See: Bennett ignored advice from Health Ministry – Logie
Again, the question needs to be asked – how many unemployed are on drugs?
Is it 99%?
Is it 50%?
Is it 10%?
Is it 2%?
Is it 0.00001%?
We need to know this, because National may be about to throw $14 million of our tax dollars at this “problem”,
“The plan to cut benefits for job seekers who fail drug tests has been met with criticism by the Ministry of Health, saying it could cost up to $14 million a year.
[abridged]
Ms Bennett told Radio New Zealand she would not reconsider sanctioning only drug users based on the Ministry of Health’s concerns and said she was going ahead with the policy.”
See: Bennett ignored advice from Health Ministry – Logie
Bennett’s response?
“I just don’t feel that we need to trawl through evidence and give that much kind of evidence to something that is just so obvious.“
And added, that she was acting on information from,
“…the visits, from face to face meetings, I don’t know, from some of the international research I’ve seen.”
See: Paula Bennett so sure she’s right
Never let facts get in the way of some damned good prejudice, eh, Ms Bennett?
National’s intention to throw millions of our tax dollars at a problem that may or may not exist, and has not been quantified, beggars belief. It also makes a hollow mockery of John Key’s 2008 pledge to spend our money wisely,
” We will be more careful with how we spend the cash in the public purse, monitoring not just the quantity but also the quality of government spending.”
See: John Key – A Fresh Start for New Zealand
National was in opposition when Dear Leader made that pledge. Things change, I guess, when a Party becomes government and has access to our taxes.
The ‘bullishness’ of a cornered National Minister is clearly coming through on this issue.
So if Paula Bennett is ignoring Health Ministry advice,
- Where is she getting her advice and data from?
- Does she know the number of unemployed who are using recreational drugs?
- How much has National budgetted for this programme?
- If National has budgetted for drug testing – they must have an idea how many unemployed will be affected?
- In which case, we’re back to #1; Where is she getting her advice and data from?
Would Bennett know, for example, how many of these recently-made redundant workers are on drugs;
- Hakes Marine; 15 redundancies
- Telecom; 400 redundancies
- Brightwater Engineering; 40 redundancies
- Pernod Ricard New Zealand; 13 redundancies
- Depart of Corrections; 130 redundancies
- Summit Wool Spinners; 80 redundancies
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; 80 redundancies
- Norman Ellison Carpets; 70 redundancies
- IRD; 51 redundancies
- Flotech; 70 redundancies
- NZ Police; 125 redundancies
- CRI Plant and Food; 25 redundancies
- Te Papa; 16 redundancies (?)
- PrimePort Timaru; 50 redundancies (?)
- Kiwirail; 220 redundancies
- Fisher & Paykel; 29 redundancies
- Goulds Fine Foods; 60 redundancies
- Canterbury University; 150 redundancies (over three years)
See previous blogpost: Jobs, jobs, everywhere – but not a one for me? (Part Toru)
The answer, my friends, is not blown in the wind – it’s blown out her —- !
Let’s dispense with the bovine excrement and stop the tip-toeing on this issue.
National was elected in 2008 on a pledge to raise our wages to parity with Australia.
See: John Key – A Fresh Start for New Zealand
Not only have they failed, but our wage-gap with our Aussie cuzzies is actually widening.
See: Wage gap grows $1 a month – Labour
National was elected in 2011 on a pledge to create 170,000 new jobs.
See: Budget 2011: Govt predicts 170,000 new jobs
Instead, our unemployment has risen to 6.8%.
See: Unemployment rises: 6.8pc
In almost every respect, National’s policies – which are heavily reliant on the free market to deliver desired outcomes like growth and jobs – have failed.
John Key is presiding over,
- a stagnant economy
- rising unemployment
- a low wage economy
- wide gap with Australia
- rising government debt
- more New Zealanders escaping to Australia
- and no plans to fix this mess except cuts to the state sector, asset sales, charter schools, crushing cars, and “reforming” the welfare system
That’s it. The “Grand Plan”. That’s as good as it get’s folks.
With more and more redundancies (see above) and unemployment continuing to creep upward, Bennett’s plans to drug test the jobless is a deflection – an attempt to blame the victims of National’s (lack of) policies.
Drug testing the unemployed is a ploy.
The unemployed are victims of the global financial crisis. Just as National likes to make out that that it’s economic policies are also impacted by the recent GFC and resultant recession. It’s obscene that National uses the GFC as an excuse for their failings – and yet deny the unemployed the very same rationale for having lost their jobs.
By demanding drug testing, Bennett is sending a clear message to National’s redneck constituency, and to low information voters, that all unemployed are drug-addled, lazy, ne’er-do-wells.
Because as we all know, being on the dole on $204.96 (nett, weekly) is a “lifestyle choice”, rather than working and earning the average wage; $800.
National has no idea how many unemployed are on drugs.
But they are still prepared to waste millions of dollars on pursuing a policy of drug testing.
All because they have failed to create the jobs they promised.
All because they need a scapegoat to show their dim-witted constituents that it’s the welfare beneficiaries at fault.
The Nazis used the scapegoating technique well well in the 1930s, when they blamed Jews, communists, gypsies, trade unionists, etc, for Germany’s economic problems.
National’s strategy here should be crystal-clear to us all; they are dangling the unemployed as scapegoats to the ill-informed; the prejudiced; and low-information voters, for whom unemployment is a vague concept; the Global Financial Crisis happened “somewhere else“; and the dole is some unimaginably generous payment.
Very few low-information voters understand that the dole for a single person is only $204.96 (nett, weekly).
Very few National supporters understand that unemployment was 3.7% in 2007 and is now 6.8% because of an event that was sparked thousands of kilometres away in Wall St, USA.
And very few low-information and National voters want to understand this. Because to understand the realities of unemployment means that the next step is; what are they going to do about it?!
Like, this gentleman, posting on Facebook, who had no interest in anything except spouting his own narrow, ill-informed, prejudice. I thought I’d share his “considered opinion” with the reader,
.
.
These are the people that Paula Bennett, and National, are pandering to.
Prejudice is easier.
It means they can blame someone else.
It means not having to think about the issues involved.
Because it’s always someone elses’ fault.
Like Steven Joyce, who blamed Labour, the Greens, and Hone Harawira on TV3′s ‘The Nation‘, on 19 August. It’s always “someone elses’ fault”.
Unfortunately for Bennett, though, her repugnant behaviour has become so entrenched that she is unable to behave appropriately even to her own colleagues,
.
Listen: Listen to more on Checkpoint
The more that National fails to deliver results, the more they will blame others.
Why should National take responsibility for a lack of jobs and rising unemployment? After all…
… they’re only the government.
.
Continued at: What’s up with the Nats? (Part toru: John Banks)
.
.
= fs =
ACC – A Complete Cock-up
.
.
Revelations unearthed and made public by the Green Party, that ACC paid bonuses to their staff to ‘bump’ long-term clients from their books comes as no surprise. Only the most naive would still believe that everything was hunky-dory at ACC.
See: ACC bonus pay for claimant cull
Faced with the revelations, ACC Minister, Judith “Hugs’n'Crushes” Collins belatedly admitted that ACC staff are paid bonuses, and tried to justify the payments as “a good thing” because ‘it gets the clients back to work’.
Yeah, right.
Nice spin, Minister.
Then ACC’s departing chief executive Ralph Stewart chipped in, rejecting accusations that bonuses were made to bump clients of ACC’s books,
“No one can leave ACC until they are rehabilitated. There are two clear steps. The rehabilitation step’s first, leaving the scheme second – it’s not the other way around.”
See: ACC claimants removal motive denied
Let me put this as delicately as I can: bullshit.
This blogger is aware of at least one person in the late 1990s, who was bumped from ACC’s books and onto a WINZ invalids benefit, after a work-related back-injury. ACC actually paid for the client to be flown from Dunedin to Auckland, to be “assessed” by one of ACC’s “independent” consultants.
Result; she was taken off ACC’s books and made a WINZ “client”.
If anyone wonders why the numbers of invalids and sickness beneficiaries have risen in past decade – whilst ACC’s long-term clients have reduced – wonder no more. This is where invalids/sickness beneficiaries have come from.
This is backed up by a 2007 report on ACC clients removed from ACC’s books, showing 46% were out of work, with nearly 25% on the unemployment benefit.
See: Long-term ACC client list pruned
.
WINZ Beneficiaries
.
.
ACC long-term clients
.
.
The woman in question received no rehabilitation and her back injury persists to this day. “No one can leave ACC until they are rehabilitated” – therefore rings hollow in this blogger’s mind.
It is a bit rich for Ralph Stewart to be rejecting that bonuses were made to reduce long-term ACC clients – whilst at the same time admitting,
“Mr Stewart said long-term claimants have dropped by about 1200 since November, to about 10,400-10,500, but denied he was put in the job to move on claimants.
He said only 20 percent of staff incentives relate to rehabilitation.”
This is the same man who,
- oversaw ACC’s accusations of extortion levelled against Ms Pullar and laid a complaint with the Police;
- during the police investigation had listened to Bronwyn Pullar’s taped conversation of a meeting held between ACC staff; Michelle Boag; and herself;
- and yet stayed silent at a subsequent media conference that the taped conversation actually proved Pullars innocence!
.
ACC Chief Executive Ralph Stewart and Chairperson John Judge
.
Aside from the very real possibility that ACC’s executives may be guilty of the crime of wasting Police time (see: The Jackal: ACC’s false police complaint against Bronwyn Pullar), why on Earth should we believe anything that escapes Ralph Stewart’s mouth?
Ralph Stewart is not averse to mis-representing facts when his suits his agenda. He has already demonstrated that his word cannot be taken at face-value.
The evidence is compelling: ACC is mis-using Corporation funds to pay it’s staff bonuses to push long-term clients off its books.
Next question: what is Judith Collins going to do about it?
.
*
.
Additional
ACC minister put pressure on bosses to make complaint – Labour
TV3 Sixty Minutes: The Eye of the Storm
Gordon Campbell on the incentive payments at ACC
.
.
= fs =
Getting to the Heart of Politics – Metiria Turei 2012 Green Party AGM Speech
.
Getting to the Heart of Politics
.
![[Metiria Turei]](http://fmacskasy.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/metiria-turei.jpg "Metiria Turei")
Metiria Turei, MP & Green Party Co-Leader
Sunday, 03 Jun 2012 | Speech
The future of the Green Party is to be at the heart of New Zealand politics – its pivot and its conscience.
The Greens are a modern, progressive political movement. What do I mean by progressive? The past has lessons but it does not provide a road map.
Progressive means we are in the business of creating the future, of genuine transformation.
Our challenge lies in how we ready ourselves for that future.
Our challenge lies in how we transform our country where the values of compassion and justice are at the heart of all the decisions we make, as a country, as a community, as a family.
Today I want to start with the family, who are at the centre of all things. And especially children, who must be at the heart of everything we do.
But first let’s talk about their mums.
Heart of Politics: Women and Children
In 1896, the Suffragists passed this resolution at their National Conference:
“That in all cases where a woman elects to superintend her own household and to be the mother of children, there shall be a law attaching a just share of her husband’s earnings or income for her separate use, payable if she so desire it, into her separate account.”
The Suffragists were clear – women have the right to economic independence whether she chooses to stay home to care for her children or chooses to work, whether she has a partner or not.
She has autonomy. She exercises her self-determination.
New Zealand women are rightly proud to have won the right to vote, a first in the world.
That’s good, we like it when women vote. And we especially like it when women stand for parliament.
In fact the Greens like it more than any political party. While other parties lose women MPs, the Greens build women’s political power.
But discrimination doesn’t end when women win the ability to vote, to choose our own careers, the right to decide when to start a family, or the right to earn the same pay as men.
Many women in Aotearoa are still living in the shadow of discrimination, exclusion, racism. If we shine a light in their direction we find:
- New Zealand women are still paid 13% less than men doing a similar job
- 1 in 3 New Zealand women will have a violent partner in her lifetime
- 1 in 5 women will experience sexual violence
- 232,000 New Zealand women live in poverty
- 70 percent of women’s work is unpaid
And for Māori, Pacific and disabled women the numbers are much worse.
For all the very real gains women have made in the last century, there are glaring gaps – gaps that fuel inequality, injustice and poverty.
Do we think the women who took to the streets for equal pay would have thought we’d settle for a 13% pay gap?
Would the women who campaigned to provide contraception in New Zealand, receiving death threats for doing so, be satisfied that the Government now wants to “help” but only to stop women on the benefit from having babies?
Political and economic attacks against women and their children may look different these days, but they’re no less dangerous.
And for all the modern feminist advances we have made, the solo mum remains the primary target for society’s most vitriolic personal attacks – led these days by Paula Bennett who knows only too well how much it hurts, but plunges the knife in anyway.
This is a minister who:
- exposed two solo mums and their children to public vitriol by releasing their private financial details in retaliation for their daring to criticise the slashing of the training incentive allowance
- attacks women, battered and bruised, as failures and pariahs
- is linking contraception to income support in an effort to control the reproductive decisions of economically vulnerable women
- is forcing mothers into work and their babies into day-care as punishment for getting pregnant while on the benefit
- berates a woman, however culpable she, knows the woman is herself beaten and bruised, ignoring the fact that a safe mum means a safe child.
The principle behind these attacks on women has been summed up by Colin Craig, reportedly saying:
“Why should say a 70 year old who’s had one partner all their life be paying for a young woman to sleep around? We are the country with the most promiscuous young women in the world. This does nothing to help us at all.”
Yes he is an extremist, but his comments are the logical summation of the rhetoric of the National Government.
The National Government tells New Zealanders every day that women, especially mums on their own, are weak, incompetent and incapable.
New Zealand women are not some statistic in a Durex survey.
We are not weak; we are not incapable of making our own choices.
When we are afforded the respect, resources and rights that we deserve, we are the thriving forces behind our families and communities.
Working equitably alongside men in our caucus and our party, the Greens are here for women, young and old, for mothers and for nannies.
Holly is touring Aotearoa showing the Inside Child Poverty documentary in a town near you so we confront and deal with the realities of poverty on women and their children.
Jan and Denise are working with women from unions and community networks to expose the impact of National’s low wage obsession on women and children.
Mojo is blazing a trail through the veil of discrimination for all women with disabilities and for the mothers of children with disabilities.
Eugenie is working with women who are standing up for our rivers so our kids can swim in clean water, women who want our rivers wild and free, where tuna can grow old and wise like our kuia.
Julie Anne has taken the government to task over failed transport plans and is championing smart green transport to make it safe for our kids to walk and cycle to school.
And Catherine is challenging the vicious cuts in education, exposing the ‘class warfare’ waged by Hekia Parata and presenting families with education solutions that respect their children’s learning.
Women are fierce. Our transformation is in our hands.
Child Poverty and solutions
Nelson Mandela once said: “There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.”
Twenty five years ago, New Zealand children lived in one of the most equal countries in the OECD.
Since then, the gap between those who have the most and those who have the least has grown faster here than anywhere else.
Our children now live in one of the most unequal countries in the developed world.
We are staring, not into a gap but a chasm – one driven deeper and wider by a Government hell bent on making those who can least afford it pay.
Ours is a country where, for many kids, a pair of new school shoes is a pipe dream.
- Where, just last month, a Northland doctor wrote of children in his neighbourhood seen scrabbling through a pig slop bucket for something to eat
- Where Maori kids are 23 times as likely as non Maori to suffer acute rheumatic fever – a third world disease
- Where poor kids are one-and-a-half times as likely to die in childhood than other children
- Where four out of five families have struggled at some time to have enough food.
For hundreds of thousands of our littlest people, Aotearoa is empty of the hope that the rest of us base our dreams on.
But this is not a place where people are poor because they make bad choices, as Key has said.
We refuse to blame our children for being vulnerable and hungry.
We will shine the light into corners where they’ve been swept and confront the choices we can make to change their lives.
Let’s close the chasm between those who have, and those who have nothing, and fight to make this country equal again.
Let’s get fierce for our children.
I believe in a New Zealand that looks after all its children, regardless of the family they’re born into.
I believe in a New Zealand that sees its vulnerable children as the potential Hone Kouka’s, Pauline Harris’ and Jeanette Fitzsimons’ that they are.
I believe in a New Zealand which refuses to tolerate the waste of that potential.
So I’m issuing us all with a challenge.
Children should be at the heart of everything we do. When we are truly child focussed, and make all decisions with the child’s well-being as the starting point, how can we ever go wrong?
First we must put aside our political differences.
We must work to devise a cross party consensus to raise our children out of poverty – in a similar way we all reached an accord over superannuation.
The super accord has worked for older people. They have had some of the best outcomes in the OECD, while our children have nearly the worst.
All the NGOs and organisations who work for and advocate for children are clear. Children are to be the priority, the heart of politics.
So we must put our money where our heart is.
The Service and Food Workers Union have launched a campaign for a Living Wage. This is a wage set at what a family needs to provide for their kids, to live with dignity and to participate in their community on an equal footing.
What does that mean in practice for our kids?
- Going to school every day with a full lunch box, good shoes and a raincoat when it’s wet
- Having the right sports gear to play soccer, netball, hockey or rugby. Having the money to get to music lessons, art class, for supporting their natural talents.
- Having a warm, dry home so sickness is not a barrier to education and just having some good old fashioned fun.
A living wage is the way that we all contribute to and share in the benefits of families who are well, healthy and respected.
We have promised to give the kids of beneficiaries the same low income top up – the in-work tax credit – that children whose parents have jobs get. That will make a real difference to alleviating poverty.
If the child is at the heart of everything we do, how can we not extend paid parental leave to six months, so all babies can have the best chance of a great life by breastfeeding – if that’s possible – and bonding with their mum.
Keeping 200,000 kids in poverty costs us $2 to $4 billion a year in crime, ill health and lack of opportunity.
We must invest cleverly, and strategically, in the early years of a child’s life.
Having a high quality public education system is one of the best investments we can make in our children.
The recent budget saw an unprecedented attack on our public schools. The Government is pumping millions into private schools and their charter school trial while increasing class sizes for the rest of our kids.
The Green Party will defend public schools.
Mums and Dads need to know that when the Greens are in Government in 2014 we will unwind National’s education changes.
We will restore public schools to their rightful position as places of opportunity and human transformation, not the second tier institutions National want’s to make them.
We will strengthen our school system, not cut it.
We will unwind the cuts and protect smaller classes
We will not force teachers to compete with each other.
We will make sure our school system moved from being the least equal in the OECD to the most equal again.
We will improve access to education at all levels and reinstate the training incentive allowance at tertiary level study to provide a real ladder out of welfare like the one that helped me, and Paula Bennett, when we were young mums.
We see public education as the backbone of a fair and equal society and we will defend it to the hilt.
We will build more warm, dry homes and insulate the cold damp ones. Our home insulation scheme, negotiated with both Labour and more recently National, has been extraordinarily successful. For the cost of 370 million dollars, the benefit to New Zealand has been 1.5 billion dollars and counting. For every dollar spent, 4 dollars is returned.
Not only that but 18 deaths have been prevented. This is the Green economy in action.
We have saved money, saved power and saved lives.
And we would fund effective and affordable primary health care to rid our families of the third world diseases that plague our children.
How can we afford all of this? The truth is we can’t afford not to.
As John Key is fond of saying, it all comes down to choice.
He chose to:
- give tax cuts to the wealthy, which costs us $729 million a year
- lose $200 million because Treasury failed to monitor the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee scheme
- subsidise the agriculture sector through the emissions trading scheme at $1.1 billion
- spend $12 billion on unnecessary roads
- gift $34 million to massive, wealthy American film companies.
Yet the Government says that taking real steps to eradicating child poverty are not on its priority list.
Well, I say it should take heed of the wise words of Dr Seuss: “A person’s a person no matter how small.”
John Key needs to remember who he is actually working for.
A government makes choices about what it values. It demonstrates what it values, above all else, in how it spends public money.
The 2012 Budget made stark choices. Public money went to pay for the hole created by tax cuts for the wealthy, 100 million to promote the sale of your energy companies, 400 million for irrigation subsidies.
Millions have been given to private schools, so private school classes can be kept small while other kids in ordinary schools are squeezed in and ultimately squeezed out.
And it is all paid for by money from ill people needing medicines, families needing early childhood education or seeking higher education. It’s paid for by families, by women and ultimately by our children.
But New Zealanders make choices too. We all choose the values on which political decisions are made.
We can choose to shift the values of politics from the corporate and the individual to the community and to the family. To the heart.
We know the costs of failure, the costs of the wrong choice.
To make this shift we need a political and community transformation.
To be a society that looks after all our people and values the diversity and beauty in all our communities. It’s a choice we make together.
The Green Party will be the pivot, the heart of New Zealand politics, a modern, progressive political movement that voices our national conscience.
And by progressive I mean we are in the business of creating the future.
Our challenge lies in how we ready ourselves, ready ourselves for the challenge of government, for the challenge of implementation.
This is new territory for the country and for us. We will have to carve out new political relationships with our communities and other political players.
What will guide us, as it always has, is our commitment to our planet, to our charter, to our people and to our country’s children.
Because that’s our reality check.
We’ll know we’ve succeeded when Aotearoa can look into its heart and see a warm, happy child smiling back.
One with a full belly and a nice, shiny, new pair of shoes.
.
.
*
.
Acknowledgement
Reprinted by kind permission from the Green Party website
.
.
= fs =
NZ’s 21st Century Growth Industries – Drugs, Gambling, & Prostitution
|
|
Further to my Blogpiece – Drugs & Gambling – NZ’s 21st Century Growth Industries? – we can now add prostitution to tobacco and gambling as New Zealand’s new growth industry,
|
|
According to the Herald story, the 15-story brothel will consist of the following,
- The owners want to build 15-storey tower building on the site of the Palace Hotel.
- It would be used for a mix of activities including a brothel, Penthouse Club, hotel and offices.
- The first two levels of the black-toned glass building will be blank and layered by a LED screen mesh facing Victoria St.
Which should give “work” to a few dozen women as sex-workers? Let’s make an estimated guess; fifty women working at this ‘Mega Brothel’.
Plus 50 new jobs at the expanded cigarette plant in Petone.
Plus an estimated 1,000 jobs building Skycity’s convention centre.
Plus 900 estimated jobs staffing the new convention centre.
50
+ 50
+1,000
+900
_______
= 2,000
_______
Excellent! Two thousand new jobs. All we have to do is,
- Train up 50 of our daughters, sisters, wives, girlfriends to be prostitutes
- Manufacture and export a lethal product that kills people
- Expand a casino so we can have more problem gamblers
Two thousand new jobs. That should go some way to creating the 170,000 new jobs that John Key promised us last year,
|
|
I guess we can look forward to Dear Leader’s promise of ‘ A Brighter Future “?
Though maybe not. The 2,000 jobs above are more than cancelled out by the 2,500 state sector workers sacked through this government’s fanatical cost-cutting exercise. So no gain there.
National will have to oversee more casino expansions; more Mega Brothels built; and maybe a few dozen more cigarette manufacturers, breweries, and distilleries. We’ll have those 170,000 new jobs,quick-smart!
I wonder though - will WINZ be sending unemployed women to apply for jobs at brothels, or risk losing their benefits?
|
*
|
Postscript: This blogpiece is not meant as criticism of the Prostitution Law Reform Act 2002, nor of those men and women who work in the sex industry. This blogger is critical of an economic policy that results in few job opportunities except in ‘vices’, and which seems to be this country’s only current growth industry.
|
* * *
|
Other Blog’s Posts
Does it sicken anyone else listening to our Prime Minister defend gambling?
Additional
Green Party: Gambling Policy Summary
Tumeke: Sky City to gain $25 million from 350 more pokies in dirty deal with Government
NZ Herald: Axe tobacco, ban cigarette exports – health professor
NZ Herald: ‘Big Tobacco’ on trial – Canada’s biggest-ever lawsuit
NZ Herald: Government gets big bucks for bad habits
NZ Herald: Public urged to give input on Auckland high-rise brothel
Scoop.co.nz: Tourists Come to See Country & Culture – Not Casinos
Dominion Post: Will Key become Johnny-no-friends?
NZ Herald: Sky casino wants more cashless gambling
|
|
= fs =
Inside Child Poverty – Bryan Bruce asks…
|
Fathers in Sweden enjoying 9 months parental leave to look after their daughters.
|
“… Here’s my challenge I will be sending to Housing New Zealand this week .
They own 70,000 properties. Why don’t they bulk buy electricity for those 70,000 properties so that the occupants can get cheaper power? It’s a win win situation.
Drier homes means better health for young kids. Means people won’t huddle together in one room to keep warm.. but it also means a dry house won’t rot and HNZ won’t have such a huge maintenance bill cause by mould and dampness.
I’ll let you know what CEO Lesley Mc Turk and the Minister for Housing Phil Heatley have to say.” – Bryan Bruce, Inside Child Poverty, 3 April 2012
Why not, indeed? If Comalco at Bluff could negotiate an absurdly low tariff for the power that they use to make aluminium, why can’t we – as a nation – do the same for low-income families?
|
Bluff aluminium smelter and Meridian in secret deal
“ The highly profitable Bluff aluminium smelter and Meridian Energy have signed the country’s biggest power contract, in a secret deal thought to be worth more than $5 billion over almost 20 years…
… Latest Companies Office reports show smelter company Rio Tinto Aluminium New Zealand made a $277 million profit last year, more than double the previous year’s gain.
… The new contract – understood to be about 4.7c a unit, about a quarter of the cost to the average home – covers the price New Zealand Aluminium Smelters will pay Meridian from the start of 2013 to the end of 2030, and will involve about 15 per cent of New Zealand’s power. ” – Source
|
It is not unusual for many other companies to negotiate bulk-buying deals. From Meridian Energy,
|
Rural co-operatives
“ We’re proud to be associated with New Zealand’s leading rural co-operatives.
We work closely with these groups to establish pricing, services and terms that specifically suit their members. If you belong to one of these co-operatives, you really need to be with us.
CRT
CRT Co-operative exists for one simple reason – to use the collective power of its shareholders to negotiate better deals and improve their individual profitability across all forms of agriculture.
The co-operative has a significant presence in the rural market with more than 25,000 shareholders who transact over $1 billion worth of business through the co-operative annually.
Meridian Mates Rates Pack
If you’re a member of CRT, you’re eligible for our Mates Rates Pack. This special deal includes an increased prompt payment discount of 12 percent (our standard discount is 10 percent) and a choice of variable or fixed term plans. We’ll also work with you to help find ways to reduce your electricity overheads. “ – Source
|
As Bryan states, we’d be saving money in the long run, both in house maintenance, and fewer people with cold/damp-related diseases.
Considering how much profit powercos extract from every household and business in the country, we have no excuse not to do this.
|
|
Making vast profits on the backs of society’s poorest is obscene. This will have to be an issue for the incoming Labour-led government, post2014 (if not earlier). It will be a ‘litmus test’ as to how much Labour is really in touch with the under-class of New Zealand,
|
|
If not, the Greens and Mana Party are waiting in the wings to assume that role. One way or another, this must be done. Damp homes and sick children cannot be the face of New Zealand in the 21st Century. Not unless our long-term goal is to be the newest addition to the world’s Third World Club.
|
Child with respiratory illness in Wellington Hospital. More than 25,000 NZ Kids are hospitalized year for chest infections spread by overcrowding and damp unhealthy housing.
|
|
* * *
|
Additional
|
|
= fs =
Drugs & Gambling – NZ’s 21st Century Growth Industries?
|
|
National’s constant mantra has been that any economic recovery and job creation will be a matter best left to the market to achieve. As a neo-liberal, free-market focused Party, National believes that the State’s role in economic growth is minimal. National’s job boosting policies have been half-hearted at best.
Despite National’s best attempts to paint our poor economic performance in a positive light, there is a continuing pessimism regarding any possible recovery, growth, and job creation,
|
|
An economic growth of 1.4% is not something that instills confidence in National’s governance,
|
|
Minister of Finance, Bill English tried to “talk up” the gloomy state of our economy,
“The economy has now grown in 10 of the past 11 quarters, since emerging from the recession which started in New Zealand in early 2008,” said English said.
The December quarter was challenging, as the economy continued to rebalance, with households saving a bit more and being careful with their spending. In addition, conditions were tough around the world, particularly in Europe
The rebuilding of Christchurch will help drive domestic activity and our two largest trading partners, Australia and China, are forecast to maintain relatively high growth rates. In addition, our terms of trade will remain elevated on the back of demand for our major export commodities from emerging markets.”
Reliance on “the rebuilding of Christchurch [to] help drive domestic activity” sounds familiar. Where else have we heard such unbounded, vacant optimism,
“ “From a New Zealand government point of view, we are hugely supportive of the tournament because we know it will be hugely successful,” Key told dignitaries from local government, the International Rugby Board (IRB), and the business community.
“A rough estimate has estimated the economic impact is worth about $1.25 billion to New Zealand. This is a big event for New Zealand and a big boost for our economy.” “
National’s “hands-off” ideology eventually has consequences.
What we got, in reality, was this,
|
|
Which then raises the questions as to what else National is doing to grow the economy and create jobs. The answer is depressing.
It appears that National’s plans for boosting job growth involves he promotion of what many would describe as “vices”,
|
|
|
Promoting gambling and a lethal drug – is this National’s Grand Plan for growing our economy?!
This isn’t just tragic, with the consequential social and health side-effects - it’s downright vile and sickening. In effect, National is reliant on social vices that cause untold damage to families; impact on mental health; and harming peoples’ health.
National’s “negotiations” with Sky City, to boost gaming machines (“pokies”), like it’s dirty little deal with Warner Bros, is selling Societal Good for short term economic gain. As Green MP Kevin Hague said bluntly,
“John Key is setting up people with gambling addictions, and their families and communities, to foot the bill for the new Auckland Convention Centre, said the Green Party today.
I predict that the ‘behind closed doors’ negotiations between the Government and Sky City will find ways of allowing Sky City to extract more profit from the New Zealand public without needing to change the law, thereby entirely shutting the public out from having a say.
The extraordinary hardship and suffering caused by the gambling industry in New Zealand should see the Government trying to find ways of reducing the size and reach of the industry, not cosying up to it and making the regulatory framework looser.”
Personally, I would describe it even more bluntly; National is prostituting this country for economic activity that they have no other way of achieving. Their unflinching adherence to free market dogma blinds them to alternatives and to more productive options for economic growth and job creation.
What next – encouraging huge mega-complexes for brothels?
Tax breaks for liquor companies to build more breweries/distilleries?
Is this the “Bright Future” that John Key promised us, last year? Is this where the “More Real Jobs” that he pledged are coming from; gambling and cigarettes?
|
|
God help us if our future and economic wellbeing is reliant on other peoples’ misery.
|
* * *
|
Additional
Green Party: Gambling Policy Summary
Tumeke: Sky City to gain $25 million from 350 more pokies in dirty deal with Government
NZ Herald: Axe tobacco, ban cigarette exports – health professor
NZ Herald: ‘Big Tobacco’ on trial – Canada’s biggest-ever lawsuit
NZ Herald: Government gets big bucks for bad habits
Scoop.co.nz: Tourists Come to See Country & Culture – Not Casinos
|
|
= fs =
Lies, Boards, and Aucklandports (#rima)
|
Last night…
|
|
In the NZ Herald, Port chairman Richard Pearson said,
“Judge Travis had encouraged the company to return to mediation and it would do so in good faith. The only thing that has changed is that the judge has encouraged the parties to have one more crack at mediation. That is it.”
One could practically hear a collective sigh of relief from the citizens of Auckland; port workers would be back at work; and POAL would return to mediation.
Brilliant!
Common sense prevails!
People were practically dancing in the streets!!
But then, by this morning, an industrial “atomic bomb” was detonated,
|
|
It should be noted that, as in the case of a Union required by law to give two weeks notice of a strike, an employer must also give two weeks notice of any intention to lock-out workers. No ifs, no buts, no maybes; that’s the law.
It is one thing for POAL to issue a two weeks notice to port workers. That is lawful (though not terribly wise).
It is also another thing for an employer to lock-out workers immediatly, as seems to be happening. That is illegal. It is just as illegal as a strike without notice, as happened recently in Wellington.
It is also hardly a sign of good faith bargaining, as Labour Party employment issues spokeswoman Darien Fenton said today,
“Any good faith bargaining was impossible with a lockout notice looming. That action is in defiance of an agreement reached just yesterday with the Employment Court that good faith negotiations would resume with the Maritime Union.”
On this issue, it appears that POAL management have mis-calculated. The Union has every right to seek legal remedies through the Courts, and indications are, that the Maritime Union will do so.
This incident should give considerable cause for concern to the Auckland Council. It has been more and more apparent recently that POAL management are practically out of control, and are pursuing an agenda of their own.
That agenda became more apparent with the shock revelations uncovered by the NZ Herald that a POAL manager is also a director of another company – and has been recruiting non-union contract-labour to work on the ports,
|
|
This is no longer an industrial dispute – this has the odour of conflict of interests at best, or corruption at worst.
The Auckland Council has every right to be concerned.
Someone may be planning to personally profit from the dispute and de-unionisation of Ports of Auckland.
*
The Green Party’s media statement on this issue sums matters up perfectly,
“Auckland Mayor Len Brown must step into the ports dispute now that workers have been locked out, the Green Party says.
The Maritime Union says Ports of Auckland has illegally issued striking workers a lockout notice, a day after the parties were convinced by a judge to head back to mediation.
“The Ports of Auckland’s decision to lock out the union workers is in direct defiance of the settlement reached between Ports of Auckland and the Maritime Union in the Employment Court,” Greens industrial relations spokeswoman Denise Roche said.
This lockout notice is yet another example of the bad faith bargaining by the Ports of Auckland management.”” – Source
*
The Employment Relations Act 2000 is quite specific in stating that an employer cannot replace striking workers,
“ 97. Performance of duties of striking or locked out employees
(1) This section applies if there is a lockout or lawful strike.
(2) An employer may employ or engage another person to perform the work of a striking or locked out employee only in accordance with subsection (3) or subsection (4).
(3) An employer may employ another person to perform the work of a striking or locked out employee if the person—
(a) is already employed by the employer at the time the strike or lockout commences; and
(b) is not employed principally for the purpose of performing the work of a striking or locked out employee; and
(c) agrees to perform the work.
(4) An employer may employ or engage another person to perform the work of a striking or locked out employee if—
(a) there are reasonable grounds for believing it is necessary for the work to be performed for reasons of safety or health; and
(b) the person is employed or engaged to perform the work only to the extent necessary for reasons of safety or health.
(5) A person who performs the work of a striking or locked out employee in accordance with subsection (3) or subsection (4) must not perform that work for any longer than the duration of the strike or lockout.
(6) An employer who fails to comply with this section is liable to a penalty imposed by the Authority under this Act in respect of each person who performs the work concerned.”
It would appear that by hiring new port workers, the POAL are clearly breaking the law. It remains to be seen if management can flout the law with impunity. If so, why shouldn’t Unions?
Perhaps the previous Labour Government did not go far enough, when they enacted the Employment Relations Act to replace the odious and largely discredited Employment Contracts Act.
Perhaps it it time to remove the law preventing other Unions from supporting those who are on strike.
After all, the right to strike – to withdraw one’s labour - is a fundamental human right. The West openly supported the Polish Solidarity Free Trade Union movement in the 1980s – especially the right to strike.
If employers such as AFFCO, POAL, et al, are prepared to lock-out workers in a methodical agenda to smash unionisation of their workers – then obviously the law is ineffectual.
When a new Labour-led government takes office, this blogger will be making representations on the following issues;
- That the Employment Relations Act be strengthened,
- That Unions be free to give industrial support to fellow striking Unions,
- That representatives from the Labour Department and other Third Parties be permitted to attend industrial negotiations, as impartial observers,
- And that City Councils and other local bodies are given more direct control over Council Controlled Organisations CCOs) than they do at present
This will be a matter of urgency for a new incoming Labour-led Government. Union-busting cannot be allowed in this country.
Anyone in doubt as to POAL’s duplicity may wish to listen to this interview earlier today,
Radio NZ: Listen to more from Richard Pearson on Checkpoint
*
Additional
Ports negotiator alleged to have sought workers
Other Blog Posts
Chris Trotter: Only People Power Can Save Our Ports
Tumeke: PoA u-turn over manufactured crisis
No Right Turn: Psychopathic management in action
Socialist Aotearoa: There is Blood in the water
|
|
= fs =
1 March – No Rest for Striking Workers!
.
.
.
Contrary to the Radio NZ report this morning, the numbers attending the striker’s picket in Upper Hutt would have numbered at least double what was reported.
Despite on-off heavy rain, between 75 – 100 people stood on the side of Fergusson Drive, putting their case for a liveable wage,
.
.
.
.
.
Only last year, John Key promised New Zealanders that the “driving goal of my Government is to build a more competitive and internationally-focused economy with less debt, more jobs and higher incomes” and we took him at his word.
Ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders who want nothing more than a decent wage so they can put food on their tables, and provide the best possible home for their children,
.
.
.
Some of the striking workers stood on the opposite side of the road,
.
.
.
Judging by the constant tooting of horns from passing vehicles, the picketing workers had considerable public support. On occassion, the car-tooting was non-stop, making talking almost impossible.
A wage of $13.61 an hour is simply not a credible income to live on. Should the government be worried? I’d say, “yes – definitely”.
.
.
Green MPs Catherine Delahunty (L) and Denise Roche (R), addressing workers. They voiced their Party’s support for workers to be paid a reasonable, liveable wage,
.
.
Labour MP, Kris Faafoi, voicing Labour’s support for striking workers,
.
.
Service & Food Workers Union sector-secretary, Alastair Duncan, telling workers that they were dedicated to their profession and deserved to be adequately remunerated,
.
.
Despite the sporadic heavy rain, the picket numbers swelled as more people joined in,
.
.
.
Rimutaka Labour MP, Chris Hipkins, joining the picket in solidarity with workers,
.
.
The signs said it all,
.
.
A “Fair Deal” – what could be more reasonable than that?
.
.
An indication of the heavy rain that picketers put up with. It did not deter them, and more joined the protest-line to support workers,
.
.
This sign, I believe, summed it up very well,
.
.
TV1 news camera covered the workers’ protest,
.
.
More media,
.
.
Interviewing one of the striking workers,
.
.
Interviewing another striking worker,
.
.
Striking for a better wage, to to put on the table for families, and to ensure that their children get the best possible start in life,
.
.
The Mana Party showed it’s presence and support,
.
.
Green MP, Denise Roche (L) and Green activist, Conor (R),
.
.
The overall feeling of the workers was upbeat and positive. Public support was noisy, with constant car-horn tooting. The message to employers and to the National government was crystal clear: ” pay us a decent, liveable wage“!
.
***
.
Media reporting
.
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 Russell School Breakfast Club is requested.
- For non-commercial use, images may be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
Additional
.
.
February 7 (Part Toru)
.
Continued from February 7 (Part Rua).
.
With the main Party speakers finished, others from the rally had an opportunity to make their views known. It was open, transparent and democratic (take note, National Government),
.
.
Madd Hatter spoke of the danger to the environment caused by fracking – including contamination of underground water-tables which has caused extensive pollution in the United States,
.
.
And the thing is? She’s 100% right. Fracking uses toxic chemicals which contaminates water tables – water which people use for drinking, cooking, feeding to farm stock, etc. Doesn’t it strike governments as somewhat daft that we’re poisoning ourselves?
Hell, why not just cut out the middle-men (oil drilling companies) and issue every citizen with a litre of disulphides, benzene, xylenes, methane, and naphthalene to drink?
Meanwhile, the crowd listened, continuing to hold signs that expressed our collective disgust at what this shabby government was intending to foist upon us,
.
.
.
And the media continued to record the event,
.
.
.
The protest continued, making their point peacefully,
.
.
.
.
.
.
A sentiment 99% of us would whole-heartedly agree with,
.
.
Mana’s flag flew proudly in the chill breeze,
.
.
.
.
.
The red and black Tino Rangatiratanga flag flew proudly as well. This flag is quickly becoming the de facto syymbol for the poor, the dis-possesed, and the alienated in our society. It is the flag of resistance that corporate interests and their political cronies do not want to see,
.
.
Dawn Shapira came from Huntly specifically to join the Rally. She rode all the way on the back of a motorbike – and says that she felt it. (Her return trip will be done in better comfort, in a bus.) That’s dedication. That’s committment. And 80% of New Zealanders share her anger at John Key’s planned asset sales,
.
(L) Dawn Shapira and (R) Tania Tewiata
.
Finally, the most important folk at this protest were not the politicians; nor the media; nor the organisers. Instead, the VIPs were the children – they are the ones who will inherit the society that we build (or sell off) for them. Will we leave them a mess, or success?
.
.
***
.
Media reporting
- Radio NZ reported 30 to 40 people in their audio report, but increasing the number to 60 on their website. This is a somewhat conservative estimate, and I put the number somewhere around 100 to 150.
- TV3′s news item, though, was deplorable – with Dunan Garner referring to the protest rally as “rent a mob”. This description was not only offensive to those folk who attended – but contrasted sharply with a later news story on another protest rally in Kapiti, which was more respectful. The Kapiti protesters were not referred to as “rent a mob”. Not very professional, TV3. Lift your game, please.
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 Russell School Breakfast Club is requested.
- For non-commercial use, images may be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
February 7 (Part Rua)
.
Continued from February 7 (Part Tahi).
A security guard from a private security firm had attempted to stop me from photographing the protest rally from a vantage point that was near other media personnel. I explained I was a blogger; was merely taking photos to record the event; and that I had a right to be standing where I was.
The guard refused to step out of my way, and blocked me from the rally. I became vocal, and insisted that he step out of my way; let me do my job; and then I would return to the crowd.
The media took an immediate interest in what seemed to be an escalating fracas, and started filming us.
At that point, the security guard’s superviser intervened. He demanded I leave. I insisted on my right to stand peacefully in a spot shared by other media. I gestured at the cameras pointed at us and reiterated; “let me take my photos, and I will leave peacefully. You do not want to make a ‘scene’ in front of all these cameras“.
Some in the crowd began shouting, “Leave him alone!” and “Let him take his photos!“
Obviously I was not carrying weapons of mass destruction (or even light destruction)(maybe an unbent paper-clip in my pocket), and he agreed to allow me to proceed. I thanked him, and the security guard (who was only doing his job).
It seems a sign of the times that here in New Zealand, a small crowd of (mostly) middle-aged protestors required the presence of security guards; barriers; and half a dozen police to contain the situation.
What are our elected representatives so afraid of?
With the situation de-fused, the media returned their attention to the actual protest rally,
.
.
Some of the signs held aloft by ordinary folk who have no desire to see our public assets sold off. This one has an “air of truth” about it,
.
.
Possibly because it reminds me of this, from the late 1990s,
.
The Promise of cheaper power...
.
Back to the rally, and one of our best known activists and expert on our energy industry, attended the protest,
.
Molly Melhuish, Energy Campaigner
.
This gentleman insisted he was not a member or supporter of NZ First – but still shared the sentiment expressed on the placard,
.
.
This photo, to me, speaks volumes. These two elderly gentlemen represent an age from when New Zealanders worked hard to build the state assets which we now enjoy. It must grieve them to see their foolish children auction them off, so casually, without considering the true worth of what is being given away.
To me, it feels akin to a betrayal of what our parents and grandparents left us,
.
.
.
Amazing isn’t it – that ordinary kiwis understand the true ramifications of asset sales. Our elected representatives (or rather, some of them) seem to take us for fools. But we understand economic realities only too well,
.
.
This image alone, should wipe the smirk of John Key’s face. Contrary to his little “teapot chat” with John Banks, elderly voters are not “dying off”. In fact, I think they’ve postponed any impending “coach-tour to the Pearly Gates”, so as to vote in 2014. They have a “date” with the ballot box in three years hence, and have no intention on missing it.
Take note, Mr Key; you are annoying the voters,
.
.
Perhaps one of the guttsiest people at the rally had to be ” Madd Hatter “, who convened the Rally. Make no mistake about the weather – it was wet and cold. Yet, covered in “oil” (a mixture of mollasses and other stuff ) she braved the Wellington weather to make a point about fracking and deep-sea oil drilling of our coastline.
With the cost of the ‘Rena‘ clean-up now estimated at $130 million, it seems that some of our elected representatives are still entertaining lunatic notions that could result in the polluting of our underground water-table (“fracking“) or endanger our coastline with deep-sea drilling. (See previous blog-piece here, on this issue.)
Cheers, “Madd Hatter” – you deserve to be in Parliament. (And I say that in a nice way.)
.
"Madd Hatter"
.
.
And addressing the rally,
.
.
Jonathan then advised us that various Party leaders would address the Rally,
.
.
From the Labour Party, Charles Chauvel (L) and Deputy Leader, Grant Robertson (R). Note the media-scrum around them, and successive Parliamentary speakers,
.
.
Green Party co-leader, Russell Norman. For some unfathomable reason, Norman attracted derisory calls from one (possibly two?) individuals in the crowd. Like, who can possibly dislike the Greens? (As our mums kept reminding us; Greens are good for us! Very wise, our mums!)
.
.
Hone Harawira recieved the loudest applause – and not without good reason. Leaving the Maori Party – that is now so closely wedded to National – has cemented his credentials as an opponant of Right Wing ideology. In these times of myriad shades of gray and ambiguity, I think it fair to say that we know where Hone stands,
.
.
When it came Winston Peter’s turn to speak, there was a briref, two-minute vocal exchange between him And Jonathan Elliott. Regardless of who was in the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, we need to remember that the media will report on such ‘exchanges’ rather than the full message of the protest rally,
.
.
Sometimes, we just need to bite our collective tongues, and on message. Otherwise, certain folk on the Ninth Floor will simply rub their hands with glee at our dis-unity. When Peters spoke, it was… vintage Winston,
.
.
(Damn, I wish I had his hair.)
Following the main political speakers, came Katherine Raue, from Transparency nz. It is unfortunate that as Katherine took the microphone, the media pack melted away,
.
.
Despite losing the interest of the media (who can be seen in the background, interviewing one of the politicians – Winston Peters, I believe), Katherine spoke eloquently on John Key’s broken promises – especially the impact broken promises has had on the families of the Pike River miner’s families.
Katherine made a strong, impassioned plea for Key to honour his promises to recover the bodies of the 29 dead miners. As we can all recall, John Key was highly prominent on the West Coast soon after the disaster. He made reassuring noises, promises, and committments – saying all the things that the dead miners’ families wanted to hear.
None of which came to pass.
In case anyone thinks that this protest-rally was “side lined by irrelevent issues” – think again. The committments that our elected representatives make – whether to recover dead miners, or create jobs, or to make government transparent – is something that impacts on us all.
Even if we believe that something that government does doesn’t affect us – it does. Well done, Katherine – we need more Kiwis like you,
.
.
Katherine was followed by Green MPs Catherine Delahunty and Gareth Huges. Both spoke well, though again, the media pack had deserted the area,
.
.
Then it was Molly’s turn. Molly Melhuish is a long-time energy campaigner. She has seen decades of change, from the Muldoon era of the Electricity Department – to post-Rogernomics electricity corporatidsation. What she doesn’t know about the industry probably isn’t worth knowing,
.
From L to R; Peter Redfern, Molly Melhuish, and Betty Redfern
.
Greypower, more than any other group of New Zealanders understand only too well the severe impact that privatisation of our electricity will have on our elderly. For many, the price of electricity is a matter of life and death.
Note the policemen in the background. They were posted to guard the steps of Parliament in case Greypower decided to storm the House of Representatives. Good show, chaps – democracy is safe.
.
.
.
February 7 (Part Tahi)
.
- the beginning of public reaction and action against the planned partial state-asset sales…
A small group assembled at the front of the Art Gallery in Wellington’s Civic Square. Though raining, the group was in high spirits, and it was pointed out – quite rightly – that we were representing 80% of the country who opposed state asset sales,
.
.
.
.
“Occupy Wellington” co-ordinator, Jonathan Elliot (in yellow t-shirt), helping to focus the assembly,
.
.
The media were present, to report on the event,
.
.
.
… including Radio New Zealand,
.
.
And we were off, with Jonathan being interviewed by the Radio NZ journo,
.
.
.
A simple message, to respect and honour the Treaty, via Section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986. Section 9 is not a particularly complicated or onerous piece of legislation,
.
.
In fact, the Treaty may save our state assets from being flogged of.
“Ordinary” New Zealanders, marching along Mercer St, Willis St, and along Lambton Quay. The slogans were simple; “No asset sales!”. As the rally moved along the streets, more people joined us,
.
.
Kay Gubbins was quite clear in pushing the message,
.
.
Did Wellington’s most ardent and well-recognised street evangelist, exhort John Key to repent and cancel the planned asset sales?
.
.
The media, recording the march,
.
.
Past Bowen House – good kiwi folk making their way to Parliament. Whilst Wellingtonians looked-on , there were no hecklers. Those watching understood what we were on about,
.
.
.
.
.
.
And through the gates of Parliament – the People’s House of Representatives. (Ok, just kidding. Currently occupied by National, ACT, United Future, and various moneyed vested-interests, and assorted right wing ‘groupies’.)
.
.
.
… and joining another group already in the grounds,
.
.
Note “Mad Hatter” – who convened the rally – covered in mock-oil. on the far left of the pic below. More on her later,
.
.
I moved away, past the barriers; around a low-stone wall; onto the higher part of the grounds, to take better pictures of the assembled protesters,
.
.
Where I encountered a somewhat over-zealous security guard who tried to remove me from the higher ground,
.
.
He was persistant. I was insistant. We had a “frank exchange of views“. All of which attracted (predictably enough) the attention of the media,
.
.
.
.
What happened next?
To be continued Part Rua (so as not to overload this page with too many images).
.
.
Guest Author: Why I Won’t Be Voting National
- Tim Jones
.
.
.
I won’t be voting National at this year’s General Election.
Now, this won’t come as a great surprise to those who know me. My opposition to the National Party started in the Muldoon years and hasn’t wavered since – so a government which is Muldoon 2.0, but with a friendlier smile, isn’t likely to appeal to me. I live in Wellington Central, and for the record, I will be giving the Green Party my party vote and Labour MP Grant Robertson my electorate vote.
But I think I have got some particularly good reasons for not voting National this time – and ironically, perhaps, they date from before the 2008 General Election. At that time, I was the Convenor (and I’m still a member) of the Sustainable Energy Forum, and, much to my surprise, I was invited to a lunch with National Energy spokesperson Gerry Brownlee and a whole lot of energy company heads.
I felt like a fish out of water, but more to the point, Gerry felt he was among friends, and he told those energy company heads, in no uncertain terms, that when National came to power the shackles would be off. They could forget any concerns the Labour Government might have had about climate change or the environment. You dig it or drill it or mine it, Gerry said, and we’ll back you up.
You could say many things about Gerry Brownlee, and I’d be happy to join you, but you couldn’t say that he hasn’t been true to his word. From the moment National came to power, they have shown a complete disregard for New Zealand’s and the world’s environment. While cynically promenading a “clean and green New Zealand” brand in international tourism markets, they have thrown the doors open at home to:
.
- Mining in National Parks – yes, they lost the first round on that issue, but they haven’t given up
- Offshore oil drilling in waters even deeper and riskier than the Gulf of Mexico
- The mining of massive quantities of lignite in Southland which would release billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere
- Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) to extract more oil and gas – a dangerous technique which has already been shown to lead to both groundwater contamination and localised earthquakes when used overseas, and which has been banned by France, a country not known for its environmental credentials
- A massive and vastly expensive programme of motorway building to serve the interests of the trucking industry, which is also being served by National’s downgrading of our rail system.
.
In other words, National are taking our economy back to the 1950s and massively increasing our dependence on fossil fuels.
And how do National propose to reconcile all this with New Zealand’s international commitments to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? They don’t, perhaps because the Cabinet is full of climate change sceptics – as recently as 2005, John Key professed himself among them. They simply hope that the international audiences to whom they promise action on climate change won’t notice what the Government is doing at home.
Now, there are lots of other excellent reasons not to vote for National. But New Zealand’s environment is the foundation of New Zealand’s wealth, and in turn, the liveability of New Zealand depends on the world having a liveable climate. John Key’s Government has shown utter disregard for any meaningful action on climate change, either with New Zealand or internationally, and complete contempt for the New Zealand environment. That’s why I won’t be voting National.
.
(Tim Jones writes novels, short stories and poetry. He was awarded the NZSA Janet Frame Memorial Award for Literature in 2010. You can contact Tim at senjmito@gmail.com. On Twitter: http://twitter.com/timjonesbooks.)
.
.
Unfortunate Outrage?
.
.
It seems that practically any criticism of our Dear Leader, these days, elicits a critical response from certain quarters. Robyn Malcolm’s remarks at the opening of the Greens’ campaign have been described by the NZ Herald, as “vitriolic”,
.
.
The NZ Herald article carries on with similar comments,
“But fronting the campaign opening in Wellington, Malcolm savaged Mr Key’s performance.” – Ibid
Robyn Malcolm’s comments consisted of the following,
“”We have a leader who seems to be more interested in talking about his cats on the radio, being seen at the rugby and getting on the cover of the Woman’s Weekly. I thought that was my job…”
“We ended up voting in a Government who’ve revealed their total lack of interest in leading us into the 21st century with any innovation, courage, or social integrity, despite what a nice guy he [Mr Key] seems to be…”
“An unshakeable and abiding love of fossil fuels … and an inability to follow through on promises of any kind, but will make anything up for a Hollywood mogul should they happen to come down this way…” ” – Ibid
Ms Malcolm’s comments are critical, certainly. Hard-hitting, probably.
But “vitriolic“? And “savaging“?
These are subjective interpretations – opinion – not impartial reporting. To some people, Ms Malcolm’s remarks would be harsh. To others, they would be fair comment. The determination of how we, the public, might feel about her statements should be left up to us to determine – not prompted by a media report.
Gordon McLauchlan, on Jim Mora’s Radio NZ afternoon panel, made precisely the same pertinent observations and criticised the Herald’s slanted reporting of this event.
One wonders how it came to pass in this country, that an ordinary citizen can be vilified in such a manner by the press, for daring to criticise our elected representatives. This sort of thing was more common in my parents’ country-of-birth, prior to the collapse of the Soviet empire.
As an aside; I heard most of Ms Malcolm’s speech on the radio. I was driving at the time, so wasn’t paying much attention. What I can recall is that she was certainly critical of John Key and his love-affair with photo-opportunities – but certainly did not sound anywhere near “vitiriolic”. Quite the opposite, I considered her words and tone to be quite measured and reasonable.
If anyone has been “savaged” – it is Robyn Malcolm by the unreasonable editorialising in the Herald’s article. The tone and wording of that article is truly, vitriolic.
What is just as bad, is the outrageous hypocrisy shown by Auckland City Councillor, Cameron Brewer, who joined in the hysterical condemnation of Ms Malcolm. Brewer was reported in the same newspaper (NZ Herald) as saying,
“Given Robyn Malcolm is clearly so anti the Government and the Prime Minister, she is far too partisan to front this all-important public consultation and plan . Her personal politics will really colour this council and the plan itself. It is just not appropriate in local government to employ someone whose politics are so pointed to be fronting a public consultation campaign.” Source
Brewer has demanded that Ms Malcolm be replaced because of her perceived partisanship, saying,
“The mayor now needs to urgently reconsider whether she is the best ambassador to launch the plan.” – Ibid
Is this the same Cameron Brewer who recently considered seeking the candidacy for the National Party in the Tamaki electorate?
Why yes, I believe it is.
.
.
So, let’s be quite clear about what Cameron Brewer is saying;
- Voicing comments that are anti-government and critical of John Key makes it “inappropriate” for Robyn Malcolm to be connected with an Auckland City Council project because she could be seen as “partisan”, is not acceptable.
- Supporting the current government and intending to stand as one of their candidates, whilst being a member of the same Auckland City Council, is not partisan and is acceptable.
My parents came from an Eastern European country that, prior to 1989, had been ruled by the local Communist Party. The power and influence of the Party reached into all areas of public life.
For example, if, as a teenager, you wanted to go to University then you had to be a member of the youth wing of the Party, the “Young Communists”. If you wanted a good job, you had to be a full member, in good standing, of the Communist Party.
I think we know where I’m coming from on this issue.
In essence, for Brewer to accept Robyn Malcolm as the representative of Auckland’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, she must be a card-carrying, Key-cuddling, member of the National Party.
Thank you, Comrade Brewer, for showing us how little you value political diversity of opinion.
Will you be following up with a One-Party state and Gulag prisons for dissidents such as Ms Malcolm?
And me next, I suppose?
.
.
.
ACT and The Greens – some thoughts
.
.
.
I’ve been thinking…
.
ACT
.
Throughout this election campaign – and even prior to Don Brash’s coup d’état - ACT has been polling well under the 5% MMP threshold, that permits a Party to win seats in Parliament.
With such low voter support, ACT has relied on the electorate seat of Epsom, which Rodney Hide won in the 2008 General Election with a handsome 21,102 electorate votes. National’s Richard Worth came a distant second with 8,220 electorate votes.
Since then, ACT has suffered several set-backs;
- A very public coup, which saw Don Brash seize the leadership of ACT – despite the fact he was not even a member of that Party when he took over.
- A serious mis-calculation in advocating legalisation of marijuana. Whilst this would be reasonable policy for a quasi-libertarian Party – it did not go down well with the conservative folk of Epsom.
- John Banks reportedly “reigning in” his own Party leader on the cannabis issue.
- Deputy leader, John Boscawen, resigning under circumstances that were less than clear.
- Brash attempting to resuscitate anti-Treaty sentiment with a newspaper advert attacking “maori privilege“.
- Brash not focusing on core, economic issues, as he said he would at the time he took over from Rodney Hide.
- Nominating John Banks as the new candidate for Epsom – something that Epsomites seem less than enthusiastic about.
- John Key stating publicly that he was voting for the National candidate in Epsom, Paul Goldsmith.
.
Prime Minister John Key will not vote for ACT's John Banks for the Epsom electorate, instead giving his vote to National's Paul Goldsmith
.
With ACT practically falling apart before our eyes, it seems unsurprising that it barely registers in public opinion polls. It polls usually 1-3%.
Meanwhile, Banks is trailing behind Paul Goldsmith, despite the “unspoken arrangement” between National and ACT, the Epsom National Party supporters give Banks their Electorate Vote, and National their Party Vote. The idea being that if ACT scores over 1.2% of the Party Vote nationwide; and wins Epsom*; then Banks could pull one or two extra MPs into Parliament with him, as a Coalition partner for National.
So far there seems little chance of this happening. If current polling translates into votes on 26 November, then ACT is out of Parliament – another small party “bites the dust” under MMP.
One part of me views this possibility with a shrug and a “meh”. Considering ACT’s harsh right wing policies that most certainly favour the rich and corporate ‘elite’, it is hard to muster any sympathy for such a group.
But another part of me is… uneasy. Uneasy at the prospect of ACT’s demise.
Though I have no truck with that Party and it’s hard-line right-wing, neo-liberal, free market ideology – I cannot help wondering what will happen once it fails to return to Parliament.
What will happen to it’s supporters?
Where will they go, in terms of finding a new political “Home”?
Remember that ACT was founded by Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble – one-time Labour Party MPs. Douglas, Prebble, and other hangers-on had colonised a supposedly social democratic, left-wing party – and between 1984 and 1989, had managed to gain control of Labour. Like some parasitic organism, they had managed to take over the Host, and turned Labour into a precursor of the ACT Party.
A party of me shudders at the imminent demise of ACT.
Where will the ‘parasites’ end up? In which new Host?
The obvious choice would appear to be National.
If ACT supporters colonise National and become a viable, albeit invisible, faction within that Party – it will happen out-of-sight, and without the elecorate’s knowledge.
Voters in 1984 believed they were voting for a traditional Labour Party. They were badly mistaken.
National, with an agitating ACT faction vying for power and influence, could be a re-run of history.
Let’s not be too keen to see the end of ACT. Let’s keep the buggers where we can see them; out in the open.
.
+++ Updates +++
ACT polls at wipeout low in Epsom
.
The Greens
.
There has been some discussion recently about the (extremely remote) possibility of a National-Green Coalition, post-election.
The Green Party leadership seems frosty at the idea, and List candidate, Catherine Delahunty, has stated that she will resign if such a Coalition deal eventuates.
Most recently, this issue was canvassed during an episode of Statos TV’s “iPredict Election Show”, with Green MP, Gareth Hughes.
.
.
Personally, I have no great love for this notion either.
My first preference would be a Labour-Greens-Mana-(Maori Party?) Coalition. (And yes, I think such a notion would work. They all want similar things for their constituents, and despite some asteroid-sized egos at work, their party policies are not as divorced from each other as they like to make out.)
However…
In saying that…
Part of the rationale for MMP is that small parties act as a “brake” on the executive power of governments. Most recently this worked well when ACT voted – along with Labour and the Greens – to seriously amend National’s outrageously draconian, Police Video Surveillance Bill.
MMP is not just an electoral system – it is an extension of the Will of the Voter to prevent any one party from having total control over Parliament. The days of unbridled power by the likes of Muldoon, Douglas, Bolger, and Richardson, are long gone.
If the Greens can act as a “brake” on National – should it win the largest number of seats in Parliament – but not sufficient to govern on their own – then this option should be explored. With all due respect to Ms Delahunty – a principled person who does not appear to brook political shenanigans easily – let us at least look at what the Greens might achieve in Coalition with the Nats…
- No asset sales. Not 49%. Not 25%. Not 1%. End of story.
- No more demonisation and attacks on unemployed and other beneficiaries. Enough of the victim-blaming of this recession.
- Re-focus the next government’s attention on job-creation policies. This has to be a priority. Without jobs, we are sentencing a couple of hundred thousand of our fellow Kiwis to rot on welfare.
- Raise the minimum wage. Yeah, I know this is Labour Party policy – but somehow I dont think they’ll mind if you nick it and use it.
- Begin the re-building of Christchurch, in earnest. Enough with the messing around. As a famous sweatshop-operator-and-maker-of -footwear sez, Just Do It!
A Green-National partnership would be handy to achieve all of the above. But more than that – much more importantly – the Greens could pull National away from the Right, and back to the middle ground in politics.
That, in itself, would be a worthy achievement.
.
.
* Note
If a Party wins an Electorate Seat, then they are not bound by the 5% threshold, and can win as many seats as their Party Vote allows them, regardless of whether or not they are at 5%.
.
.
Country of Origin Food Labelling – A Big Green Tick!
.
.
.
The issue of country-of-origin labelling on food is one of my pet-peeves (along with those horrid little sticky labels on apples,oranges, pears, etc – yes, we know they are apples, oranges, pears, etc!) when I do my grocery shopping.
When I buy food, I look at several factors; fat/salt/sugar content; price-per-kilo; and country-of-origin. All three hold equally high priority for me. Though I will usually always lean toward locally-produced items. At the very least, I prefer to support local manucturers who employ local workers and I can be (reasonably) assured of good quality ingredients and high standards of production.
In short, I am a fussy b*stard when it comes to grocery shopping.
As a consumer, I demand the right to know the source of my food.
So when John Key’s spokesperson sez,
“”The primary reason for not adopting mandatory labelling is that the costs to consumers, industry and government outweigh the benefits…“” Source
… then I highly unimpressed.
I’m sorry, Mr Key, but as an elected representative of the people of this country, it is not up to you to determine that something will be a “cost to consumers, industry and government outweigh the benefits“! You are neither my Nanny nor my Daddy to tell me that.
Your job, Dear Leader, is to ensure that the needs of the public are met on such issues – not to tell us what we do or don’t need.
Jeezus H, it’s not Labour that was a “Nanny State” – it’s this current government that keeps telling us what is/isn’t “beneficial” for us.
Thank god the election is only 25 days away.
Green Party – you get the big Green tick from this blog! It’s refreshing to see politicians looking after the needs of the folk who elected them into office!
.
Addendum
Silliest country-of-origin label seen on a food item: “Made from local and imported ingredients”. Said item was a leg of ham. *facepalm*
.
.
Of Polls, Politics, & Pollution
.
“Do as I say, Not as I Do”, is not a particularly savvy way to relate to an important electorate such as Epsom,
.
.
It beggars belief that a Party leader could ask voters in a given electorate to vote for the candidate of another Party – whilst he himself supports his own Party’s candidate. John Key has stated categorically,
“‘I’m going to vote for Goldsmith. I am the National Party leader and I am going to vote for the National Party candidate and give my party vote to National. ” Source
One wonders how National supporters in Epsom must be feeling.
The leader of their Party hints that they should vote for ACT’s John Banks, whilst Key himself votes for the National candidate, Paul Goldsmith?
And if Paul Goldsmith is the “sacificial lamb” – why is he standing as an electorate candidate anyway? National could just as easily – and more honestly – simply not stand a candidate and mount a publicity campaign for the Party Vote only,
.
.
In effect, National’s electorate candidate is not really campaigning to win. And if he doesn’t want to win, why is he standing? To give Epsom National supporters a “wink and a nod” to Electorate Vote ACT and Party Vote National?
And if such is the case – what possible legitimacy does that give ACT when they can’t attract electorate support on their own merits?
So much for ACT being a Party that encourages success through merit. Especially when they apply the merit-based principle to Maori: Maori Must Earn Auckland Seats On Merit .
As the ACT statement sez; “Let our bright boys and girls EARN their seats.“
.
***
.
.
ACT and National’s machinations in Epsom are, of course, due to ACT’s low poll ratings. Practically every single poll has them around the 1.5-3.5% mark. Under MMPs rules, if they cannot cross the magical 5% Party Vote threshold – or – win an Electorate Seat, they will end up like The Alliance and NZ First: out of Parliament.
(Despite what critics of proportional representation would have us believe, MMP is not a very ‘forgiving’ system to small Parties.)
The latest Horizon Poll makes for very interesting reading. Horizon is the only polling company that prompts Undecideds to state a preference. Under this system, the results appear to give a far more realistic result of Voter’s intentions, rather than the ‘fantasmagorical‘ results that have National at 53-55%-plus,
Horizon is the only polling company publishing results for don’t know voters.
Horizon’s results are for
- Decided voters
- Undecided voters with a preference
who are
- Registered to vote and who
- Intend to vote.
The poll finds
- National has 36.8% of registered voters (down 2.7% since September 22)
- Labour 25.7% (-1.1%)
- Green Party 11.6% (up 0.9%)
- New Zealand First 6.2% (- 1.1%)
- Mana Party 2.3% (+ 0.3%)
- Act 3.4% (down 1.4% from September and down from a high of 5.3% in May shortly after Don Brash became leader)
- Maori Party 1.7% (+0.7%)
- United Future 0.4% ( 0% in September)
- Conservative Party of New Zealand 2.2% (new party, first time measured)
- New Citizens 0%
- Other parties 1.2%
National has highest voter loyalty: 76.2% of its 2008 voters still support it. It has picked up 19.9% of Act voters and 9.1% of Labour voters (while Labour has picked up 7.6% of National’s).
The Greens have 68.7% voter loyalty and are gaining 2008 voters from the Maori Party (23.1%) and Labour (14.6%).
Labour has 63% voter loyalty, losing 14.3% to the Greens, 9.1% to National and 3.7% to New Zealand First.
The Maori Party has 30.8% voter loyalty, losing 23.1% of its 2008 voters to the Greens and 19.1% to Mana.
Assuming John Banks wins the Epsom electorate seat for Act, Peter Dunne retains Ohariu-Belmont, the Maori Party retains its four electorate seats and Hone Harawira retains Te Tai Tokerau, a 122 seat Parliament would result, with a two Maori Party seat overhang, comprising:
National 50
Act 5
Maori party 4
United Future 1
Current governing coalition: 60 seats
Labour 35
Green 16
NZ First 8
Total: 59 seats
Mana 3
Horizon Research says a great deal depends on the support New Zealand First attracts at November 26.
Horizon polls have had the party at 6% or higher since November 2010. (Note the poll’s margin of error is +/- 2.2%).
If correct, National is in trouble. Their chances of a second term are not guaranteed, and judging by the public’s low opinion of National’s performance of the grounding of the m.v. Rena; the double credit-rating downgrades; the questionable veracity of the so-called Standard & Poors “email”; and various promises made that have not been kept, John Key’s “teflon” image is definitely beginning to show signs of wear and tear.
And with the RWC behind us, and the public “partyed-out”, a return to politicking may be a welcomed diversion for many. Especially as people begin to focus on issues such as asset sales and the sales of farmland – both contentious and highly unpopular with the public. In a way, the RWC may even strengthen opposition to asset/farm sales to foreigners.
After all, if we’re good enough to beat the world in rugby, then why the dickens aren’t we good enough to hold on to our taongas?! Explain that, Dear Leader!!
On the other hand, though Labour leader Phil Goff has consistently polled lower than Key, his dogged determination to persevere and not fold under media scrutiny may actually earn him “brownie points” with the public.
Goff can wear the label of “underdog” with real credibility. If Labour can play on this in a subtle manner, and show that Goff does not cave under pressure; that he keeps on like the proverbial ‘Energizer Bunny’ when all seems lost; and that he doesn’t rely on shallow charisma and meaningless smiles and utterances – he is in with a fighting chance.
God knows that lesser mortals would’ve probably chucked it in long before now, and call for a replacement from the “benches”.
.
***
.
Another Horizon Poll has shown what many suspected would be the reaction from New Zealanders over the grounding of the m.v. Rena: that the government was slow of the mark and wasted precious time in delaying action,
.
.
Taken in isolation, the grounding and response from government and statutory bodies would probably have raised no more than slight annoyance from the public.
But the grounding of the Rena is now the third major disaster this country has experienced; on top of the Pike River Mine explosions and the Christchurch earthquakes.
In both instances, central government made promises to locals that – in hindsight – may have been unrealistic at best, and irresponsible at worst. Public patience with the ever-smiling, waving, John Key may be wearing just a bit thin.
Then on top of all that, was the near-disaster of the Rugby World Cup’s opening night. The government had well and truly taken their collective eyes of the ball that night, and it is pure good luck that no one was seriously injured or killed in the mayhem.
Unrealistic promises and slow responses were only the beginning.
We also have the government intending to bring deep-sea oil drilling to our coastal waters. More than half the country by now must be asking themselves,
“Just hang on a mo’, Mr Prime Minister! If we can barely cope with a single stranded freighter, sitting on the surface of the sea – how the heck are we going to cope with a major oil disaster that might be two or three times the depth of the Gulf of Mexico disaster?! Aside from hoping for good luck that nothing goes wrong, we’re not really prepared are we, Mr Key? “
.
***
.
To make things worse, is the disquieting suspicion that our de-regulated safety regime; lax building codes; and continual cutbacks to government workers are contributing to a systematic running-down of essential services. Especially when even emergency services are now starting to feel the blades of National’s savage cuts,
.
.
When the aspirational middle class Baby Boomers start to feel that their comfort zones are threatened, government politicians should take heed. That’s when we throw out governments. We don’t like our “comfort zones” upset. (It upsets our delicate tummies.)
.
***
.
Now let’s really stir the political pot of discontent; our youth seem to have re-discovered their own political power and realised that leaving matters to the Older Generation (us) may not achieve the outcomes they desire. God knows our generation has succeeded in wrecking the global economy; threatening the stability of the Eurozone; and bringing the once great super power that is the United States, to it’s knees.
Young folk have woken up to the world around them – and they are not very happy at what they find,
.
.
The recent government interference in Student Union affairs (forcing voluntary unionism upon people who may not necessarily wish for it) should be a stark wake-up call to young people that National governments – far from being “hands off” and opposed to “nanny statish” behaviour – can be just as controlling as their counterparts allegedly were.
In fact, more so. After all, this “hands off” government did force almalgation on Aucklanders without any democratic referendum being conducted. National had no hesitation in passing legislation to ban cellphone usage whilst driving (but not banning applying makeup or eating whilst driving). Then they lifted the driving age. And have begun liquor law reforms. And John Key is even now contemplating the ungodly “Nanny Statish” policy of making Kiwisaver compulsory!! Oh dear gods – whatever next?!
Oh, that’s right – National wanted to extend Police powers to allow greater video surveillance in the community. (Which even ACT decided was a step too far.)
All in all, the gloss has worn away from this government, and it’s track record of the last three years cannot be dismissed with a smile and a wave, with a hollow promise chucked in for good measure.
And young New Zealanders are starting to flex their political muscle.
Not too bad, on top of winning the rugby world cup, eh?
.
.
State-sponsored voyeurism? No thanks, Mr Key.
The Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill is perhaps one of the shortest pieces of legislation ever brought before Parliament. The text is barely three paragraphs long.
Yet, the implications of this Bill is far-ranging in it’s impact on our society which supposedly values freedom, privacy, and civil rights.
With this Bill, the government is effectively over-riding a Supreme Court decision, and re-writing law to suit itself – and the Police force.
Many New Zealanders who understanding the ramifications of this Bill are not just unhappy – they are scornful of John Key’s government. That scorn was publicly expressed today (Saturday, 1 October), when a protest closed much of Victoria Street in down-town Wellington, opposite the Central Police Station.
The protest was peaceful and made it’s way to the nearby Wellington waterfront.
Mainstream media – except for the Radio NZ website – did not report any of todays’ protest event.
From Radio NZ,
.
.
Meanwhile, the Dominion Post fed this to the Happy Folk of Wellington,
.
.
Now don’t get me wrong – I have nothing against the military. (Even if they have mis-spent $20 million of our tax-dollars on advertising and PR campaigns.) The NZDF generally do a damned good job.
Then, for the media to report on the pomp and ceremony of our Armed Forces – whilst ignoring protest activity opposing a Bill that is both invasive of our privacy and contemptuous of the Courts – is frightening. And lazy. There is a tinge of subtle “stalinism” in this affair; public displays of our clean-cut, brave boys (and girls) in uniform – whilst in the back-rooms of government offices, politicians are doing sneaky things to undermine our civil rights.
Thankfully, there are those who are not prepared to take such an affront to our freedoms lying down, like sheep-in-a-paddock.
***
.
Something of immediate importance that did make it into the Dominion Post,
.
.
Never under-estimate the media’s priorities in presenting critical, news-worthy stories to the public.
.
***
.
+++ Updates +++
.
.
Whilst this is a slight improvement, it still doesn’t resolve serious concerns that are held about this piece of legislation.
New Zealand has become a much-surveilled society in the last 20 years, with cameras everywhere, including your local public library.
If people had seen this coming in 1984, I wonder how they would have reacted? With horror and anger I am guessing.
.
+++ Updates +++
.
As part of the campaign opposing this atrocious piece of “1984ish” piece of legislation, this Blog lobbied several ACT and Labour MPs to encourage them to vote against it. Charles Chauvel (Labour) was one of only two MPs to respond,
.
from: Charles Chauvel Charles.Chauvel@parliament.govt.nz
to: [email]
date: Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:40 AM
subject: RE: Video Camera Surveillance Bill!Good morning
Thank you for your email regarding the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill.
Labour has strongly opposed National’s attempt to push through legislation on this issue under urgency and without giving the public a say. We were instrumental in forcing National to send their original legislation to a Select Committee. We made clear that we could not support the Bill that was introduced by National as it had unacceptable retrospective provisions and appeared to widen the powers available for surveillance.
After hearing evidence from experts and other interested parties the Select Committee has significantly altered the Bill. This has addressed a number of significant issues:
1. In order to allow the Police to resume covert video surveillance from the date of the Bill’s assent, their powers to do so are affirmed, but only on the basis of the law as it was understood prior to the Supreme Court decision, no more broadly than that (as the draft government Bill did), and only on the basis of the most serious offending. Labour would have liked the Bill to go further, and provide a warranting procedure, but the Government left the drafting exercise needed too late to make this happen;
2. The legislation will apply for a maximum of 6 months only, meaning that legislation that can deal with a proper warranting procedure for surveillance will be passed;
3. Cases currently under investigation, whether or not yet before the courts, will not be interfered with by Parliament. The Courts must be left free to determine under existing law whether evidence gathered in support of any such prosecutions is admissible. The overwhelming evidence before the committee was that s30 Evidence Act and s21 NZ Bill of Rights Act give the courts this power, and that there is no justification for Parliament to try to intervene.
With these significant changes, Labour is able to support the Bill. We believe we have struck a balance between allowing the Police and other investigating agencies to use video surveillance where it is needed, but not giving them wider power or interfering with cases that are currently before the courts.
Persons convicted in cases where covert video surveillance was used in the past cannot now seek to overturn their convictions, or seek compensation from the Crown for wrongful conviction or imprisonment, only by reason of the use of covert video surveillance. In other words, the law that applied at the time of conviction must clearly continue to apply, rather than the conviction being measured against a later standard.
I appreciate that this position might not be all that you want. While it would be good to live in a world where video surveillance by the Police was not necessary, sadly we do not live in that world at the moment. Equally, if we are to give powers, we need to ensure they are used only for the most serious cases, and with the appropriate safeguards and procedures.
Labour believes that we have greatly improved this Bill, and a number of the legal academic experts who appeared before the Select Committee have acknowledged that the changes we insisted on have resolved the main issues (though not quite all) they had with the Bill. I am attaching links to two of those blogs for your information.
http://pundit.co.nz/content/some-praise-for-parliament-rare-though-that-may-be
http://www.laws179.co.nz/2011/10/covert-surveillance-labours-bottom-line.html
Many thanks for taking the time to write. I appreciate you voicing your views.Yours sincerely
Charles Chauvel
Labour List MP based in Ohariu
Spokesperson for Justice and the Environment
Lets hope that when the “sunset” clause takes effect, that no government of any hue will attempt to resurrect it. New Zealand is a thoroughly surveilled society without adding more to Big Brother.
.
Additional Reading
1 October: Citizens Marched against the new Police Surveillance Bill
.
.
