Archive
The Fletcher Affair – a warning for Labour
.
.
The current mess surrounding the appointment of Ian Fletcher as the Government Communications Security Bureau’s (GCSB) Director should serve as a clear warning to any future Labour-Green government: Don’t Do It.
To be precise; don’t do what Key (and his ministerial cronies) has done. Circumventing the State Services Commission to “facilitate” appointments – even if done for decent motives – is simply;
(A) Not a good look
(B) Not worth the hassle when the media, bloggers, and Opposition get hold of it
(C) A slippery-slope toward cronyism and inevitable corruption.
The appointment of John Key’s Electorate Chairperson, Stephen McElrea (who is also the National Party’s Regional Deputy Chair, National Party Northern Region) to the Board of NZ On Air raised numerous charges of cronyism and an agenda of political interference in public funding for television programming. (See: Call for McElrea to resign from NZ On Air; See: PM has questions to answer over NZ on Air link )
Concerns over political appointees to highly sensitive positions, vulnerable to political interference, was quickly borne out when McElrea began to flex his “political muscles” even before being appointed to NZ on Air’s Board,
.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – National man eyes NZ On Air chair
.
Key’s background in deal-making; cutting corners to achieve set goals; and getting results fatally blinds him to the realities that politics and government is a whole different kettle of fish to ‘high finance’. (Which would be a good thing, considering the almighty crash of ‘high finance’ four years ago.)
The State Services Commission was set up precisely to keep politician’s greasy hands of appointments. At the beginning of out nascent civil service, ministerial cronyism was rampant,
The departments that grew up over the next few decades operated under the direct control of their Ministers, in arrangements that were practical in pioneering times. Ministers approved appointments, determined pay and conditions, and oversaw administration and financial management, with varying degrees of diligence.
[...]
Understandably, Ministers were inclined to see that the people appointed were sympathetic to their own political outlook and priorities – and inevitably, in a small population, these were sometimes friends or acquaintances. The Public Service was run on somewhat ad hoc ‘frontier’ lines, and seems not to have been much different from its parent institution, the British civil service. In their report on the British civil service Sir Stafford North and Sir Charles Trevelyan described a bureaucracy that was, in the 1850s, rife with patronage, fragmented and inefficient.
Acknowledgement: State Services Commission - Origins of the Public Service and Office of State Services Commissioner
Accordingly, after 1912, reforms were enacted to clean up this unholy mess,
The Hunt Commission in due course recommended, as ‘the most important matter of all’, establishment of a Board of Management under Cabinet, to have ‘absolute and undisputed power’ in ‘all matters relating to the control and management of the Service – … appointments, salaries, promotion, suspensions, dismissals, and indeed everything affecting officers – ‘ It suggested the Board’s first duties should include blocking all ‘back doors’ of entrance to the Public Service, and arranging for all promotions be made from within the Service.
The outcome was the Public Service Act 1912 – based on Herdman’s Bill already before the house – which set up a non-political and unified career Public Service; non-political through powers of appointment, promotion and dismissal being entrusted to an independent body – the Public Service Commissioner.
Acknowledgement: IBID
It is abundantly clear that John Key doesn’t ‘get’ any of this, when he said,
“I didn’t do anything wrong whatsoever. Labour have done very similar things.”
Again, blaming Labour.
Is everything he says or does predicated on what the previous government did?
Does Key not have standards of his own? (Rhetorical question. Don’t answer.)
Because Key’s memory lapses cannot be blamed on anyone but himself. Especially when, on 3 April he openly contradicted himself as to who-phoned-who, as Andrea Vance reported,
…he appears to be confused about who first suggested Fletcher for the job.
Asked why he didn’t tell the full story last week, Key said: “I’d forgotten that at that particular time.”
In Porirua this afternoon, Key was grilled about the sequence of events that saw Fletcher appointed as director of the GCSB in September 2011.
At first Key said: “Iain Rennie, state services commissioner recommended him to me… I rang [Fletcher] and said ‘look, you know, you might be interested.”
Asked again who first brought up Fletcher’s name, Key replied: “Iain Rennie put it to me.”
Later on, he was asked again who first mentioned Fletcher. “I would have mentioned it to him, I’m sure.”
When pressed to clarify if he first suggested the name to Rennie, he said: “I’m sure I probably would have.”
Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – Fletcher’s appointment defended by SSC boss
Key lied. He was caught out lying.
On 4 April, Scoop.co.nz wrote about the rationale behind Ian Fletcher’s appointmentr as GCSB director. Fletcher had no prior military of Intelligence experience. But he did have an extensive background in intellectual property, commerce and “free” trade (see: The CV of a Spy Boss ) .
Fletcher’s appointment was announced in September 2011, and was due to take up his new job in early 2012.
At the same time, police were planning their raid on Kim Dotcom’s mansion, scheduled to take place on January 20 2012.
Scoop wrote,
Suppose Dotcom’s arrest and extradition was the clincher in the deal that secured Warner Bros’ agreement to produce The Hobbit in New Zealand. But any link to John Key, who led the negotiations with Warner Bros, would tend to confirm Dotcom’s claim, supported by the strong connection between Hollywood and US vice-president Joe Biden, of political persecution. So the prime minister had to be protected by having total deniability, leading to the completely implausible claim of not knowing about the most prominent resident in his own electorate until the day before the raid.
Acknowledgement: Kim Dotcom Part Two
Conspiracy fantasy?
Remember that Key has had several top level meetings with Warner Bros executives,
October 2010
.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – No decision yet in Hobbit talks – Key
.
July 2011
.
Acknowledgement: Fairfax – PM’s ‘special’ movie studio meeting
.
October 2012
.
Acknowledgement: TV3 – Key: Dotcom won’t be discussed during Hollywood visit
.
And those are only the meetings which we, The Masses, are aware of.
It’s interesting to note Chris Dodd, the CEO of the Motion Picture Assiciation of America (MPAA) referred to the Trans Pacific Partnership Aggreement (TPPA) in the 5 October NZ Herald article above.
The TPPA has more to do with intellectual property rights than with “free” trade. (See: “Global Research - The “Trans-Pacific Partnership”: Obama’s Secret Trade Deal; See: MFAT -Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations – Intellectual Property Stakeholder Update)
It’s also worthwhile noting that Ian Fletcher’s appointment coincided to the month with the raid on Kim Dotcom’s mansion.
- Ian Fletcher appointed in January 2012. (See: GCSB – Mastery of Cyberspce for the security of New Zealand)
- Raid on Kim Dotcom’s mansion: 20 January 2012.
And both men were involved in intellectual property rights – though from different angles,
- Kim Dotcom – the man who Hollywood executives wanted brought down because of alleged copyright violations on his ‘megaupload’ website. (see: The MPAA on Dotcom)
- Ian Fletcher – the man who had worked in the UK to protect oroporate interests in intellectual property rights. (see below)
When Ian Fletcher’s appointment was announced on 8 September 2011, Key himself proudly boasted of the new Director’s career,
Announcing the appointment Prime Minister John Key said he has ” policy and operational experience particularly in relation to international economic and trade matters.”
Acknowledgement: New Zealand’s new top spy boss revealed
Fletcher’s ” policy and operational experience particularly in relation to international economic and trade matters” seemed to matter for John Key for some reason?
Kim Dotcom was very high on the list of issues relating to “international economic and trade matters“; namely intellectual property rights. Indeed, in March 2007, Fletcher was appointed as Chief Executive of the UK Office of Intellectual Property.
On 20 March 2007, Ian Fletcher said,
“I am delighted to be joining the Patent Office. It already plays a vital role in the UK’s economic prosperity, its scientific excellence and its innovation system. As the Office moves on to tackle to challenges set out in Andrew Gowers’ review, the Office’s role will become even more central to the UK’s response to the challenges of globalisation.”
Acknowledgement: Intellectual Property Office – New Chief Executive for the Patent Office
(Hat-tip; Karol, on The Standard)
It has been widely commented that Ian Fletcher has no background in the military, nor Intelligence – yet was considered the one candidate who was eminently suitable for the role of Director of the GCSB. Perhaps now we are starting to understand why Ian Fletcher’s appointment seemingly related to,
- the Crown’s case against Kim Dotcom
- Illegal downloads/Intellectual Property rights
- MPAA concerns
- Hollywood big business
- Trans Pacific Partnership
And as Key himself admitted, the issue of Kim Dotcom had been raised by Hollywood executive. Just what does our Prime Minister have to discuss with said executives? Who knows – it’s all done in secret, behind closed doors. We’re just expected to pay our taxes and shut up.
Conspiracy theory?
Conspiracy theories remain the subjects of idle parlour chit-chat and somewhat kooky websites… well, until charges are laid. Then a conspiracy theory becomes a conspiracy case in a Court of Law.
This affair should serve as a warning for the next in-coming Labour-Green government. National’s administration is a text-book case of how not to do things.
Every minister in the next Labour-Green government should be appointed a “minder” to ensure that they do things By The Book, and not to cut one single corner. Or at the very least, periodically re-read press reports and blogposts detailing every f**k-up by National over the last four years.
New Zealand is a small country. Secrets are notoriously difficult to keep. And even if the whole story behind the Fletcher-Dotcom-GCSB-TPPA thing has not been fully revealed – I think we’ve had a glimpse into the murky shadows of political perfidity to smell something rotten.
The issue has not only further dented Key’s credibility, but is starting to wear down his public persona of good natured, ‘blokeyness’,
.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – John Key calls media ‘Knuckleheads’
.
Abusing the media? Not a good look for Dear Leader. It appears that the stress of the job is getting to him. And he can’t handle it very well.
Key’s “blokeyness” morphes into bratty petulance when he further dictates the terms under which he will talk to the media and in Parliament,
.
‘What I should have done, and what I will be doing in the future, is saying, well, the member needs to put that down to me in writing, and I’ll be doing that to the journalists as well.
‘Cos if you want perfection of everything I have done, two, three, four, five years ago, I will get you all that information for you, but I’ll get you the whole lot and give it to you.”
Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – John Key changes tack over questioning
.
This is “seige mentality” stuff.
Key’s teflon coating wore away over a year ago. With no defensive cloak, the media recognise a government and it’s leader who are in dire trouble and on the defensive.
As Martyn ‘Bomber’ Bradbury wrote on “The Daily Blog”,
“John Key’s extraordinary appointment of his school-hood chum to be the new Director of our spy network could well be his ‘speeding in the Prime Ministerial Limo’ moment.”
Acknowledgement: The Daily Blog – John Key’s ‘speeding in the Prime Ministerial Limo’ moment
And as Bryce Edwards noted in the NZ Herald on 4 April,
“As a barometer of the political media, John Armstrong is always useful, and it appears that he too ‘smells blood’.”
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Political round-up: John Key’s precarious credibility
There are more headlines to come out of Key and National. It’s only a matter of time.
.
*
.
Related blogposts
References
Fairfax Media: New Zealand’s new top spy boss revealed (8 Sept 2011)
The Listener: Kim Dotcom and Megaupload: a timeline (20 March 2013)
Scoop: Kim Dotcom Illegal Surveillance And Response: Timeline (28 March 2013)
Fairfax Media: Fletcher’s appointment defended by SSC boss (3 April 2013)
Radio NZ: State Services boss ‘surprised’ at PM’s phone call (4 April 2013)
NZ Herald: PM paints himself into another corner (4 April 2013)
NBR: Honesty bigger issue than cronyism (4 April 2013)
NZ Herald: PM put mate’s case for job in 2009 (5 April 2013)
Radio NZ: PM has no regrets about calling Fletcher (5 April 2013)
Fairfax Media: John Key changes tack over questioning (5 April 2013)
Scoop: Kim Dotcom Part Two (4 April 2013)
NZ Herald: PM put mate’s case for job in 2009 (5 April 2013)
Radiolive: Former GCSB boss intrigued by Ian Fletcher appointment – Audio (5 April 2013)
NZ Herald: Ian Fletcher appointment a ‘totally ethical process’ (5 April 2013)
NZ Herald: John Key calls media ‘Knuckleheads’ (6 April 2013)
Other blogs
The Standard: The CV of a spy-boss
The Standard: Fletcher GCSB Change manager – and QLD
The Daily Blog: John Key’s ‘speeding in the Prime Ministerial Limo’ moment
.
.
= fs =
The unmitigated audacity of John Key and John Banks
.
This is how a politician owns up to a mistake,
.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ
.
Then there are politicians who continually blames others or claim to “forget”, when it’s obvious they are lying.
John Key’s talent for blaming others for his own stuff-ups is fast becoming becoming legendary,
.
.
Key’s habitual finger-pointing currently extends to blaming Solid Energy’s debt crisis on it’s Board; management; coal prices; global financial crisis, and uncle Tom Cobbly. He takes no responsibility for his own Ministers demanding higher debt gearing levels and dividend payouts which helped plunge Solid Energy into a financial hole,
He’s [John Key] blaming the previous Labour Government, including former state owned enterprises minister Trevor Mallard who encouraged the company to expand in 2007, and citing a Cabinet paper supporting that stance.
“They can’t wash their hands of the fact that from 2003 on, they were intimately involved with the plans that that company had,” Mr Key said.
Acknowledgement: TV3
It was put to the PM that Solid Energy seemed to have been working with a “pretty high-risk” strategy. He responded by saying that all of these things were operational matters — he added that “if National’s to blame, then so’s Labour”. He said that the management and the board are responsible for the balance-sheet.
Acknowledgement: Scoop.co.nz
Board at fault for Solid Energy debt, not Govt – Key
Mr Key denied the Government was responsible for the company’s woes, despite encouraging the board to take on debt in 2009 and expecting it to pay a dividend.
They made some investments in core assets and those didn’t work out either, and the coal price collapsed.
Acknowledgement: MSN News
So everyone was to blame for Solid Energy’s collapse – except National which has been in power for four years and bled the company dry with demands for high dividends.
Then there are times in politics that politicians make utterances that are breath-taking in unmitigated audacity,
.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ
.
This is one such instance – John Banks, whose memory was so “bad” that he forgot his close relationship with a rather large German multi-millionaire; a helicopter flight to one of the biggest mansions in New Zealand; and who forgot $50,000 cheques for donations for his electoral campaign.
.
John Banks says he never lied about internet billionaire Kim Dotcom’s $50,000 donation to his 2010 mayoral campaign but says he erred in not answering questions about the affair more openly.
But Mr Banks denied misleading the public about the donations and events around them, including a helicopter ride to Dotcom’s mansion which he has said he cannot remember.
“I didn’t lie. There’s no reason to believe that I lied. I simply couldn’t recall.”
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald
.
For someone with “nothing to hide” ACT leader and former Auckland mayor John Banks is doing an awfully good job of creating the impression there are some things he would rather keep to himself.
He has refused to confirm he solicited a donation from internet billionaire Kim Dotcom for his 2010 mayoral campaign and refused to confirm he asked that the $50,000 donation be split into two $25,000 payments.
He has also said he does not remember who donated money to his mayoral campaign, does not remember discussing money with Dotcom and his staff and, till yesterday, could not remember flying to Dotcom’s Coatesville mansion in Dotcom’s helicopter.
Either Mr Banks is suffering from the early onset of Alzheimer’s or he thinks honest answers to the questions raised by the revelation that Dotcom was an undisclosed donor to his campaign will reflect poorly on him.
Acknowledgement: Dominion Post – Editorial: Bad memory or poor judgment?
John Key and John Banks are now attempting to compare David Shearer’s omission for declaring his New York-based bank account.
Key said,
“People make mistakes. I make mistakes and when I do, I try and tell people I’ve made them. It’s just that you don’t get cut any slack from the Labour Party when you say you’ve made a mistake, but when they make one they don’t want anyone to have a look at it.”
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Key weighs in on Shearer’s $50,000 ‘oversight’
And John “I-can’t-recall” Banks added his own 2 cents worth,
“Shearer is on record as saying those who suffer from a memory lapse aren’t fit to hold office. Shearer’s hypocrisy is staggering.”
Acknowledgement: IBID
Except for one thing – and here’s the rub:
David Shearer himself disclosed and admitted his own mistake,
“Frankly I was horrified that I’d overlooked it and I moved straight away to correct it. When I myself found that (bank account) error I made the move to correct it, I didn’t wait for anybody else to find it.”
Acknowledgement: IBID
It is one thing to stuff up; come clean; apologise; and not try to blame others.
It is entirely another matter when one continually blames others for his mistakes or has such problems recalling events that they become a laughing stock.
Perhaps Mr Key and Mr Banks should take a lesson from David Shearer’s book; own your mistakes; don’t blame others; and don’t make facile excuses.
It’s not politicians who make mistakes, that the public loathes. It’s when they try to avoid responsibility for their errors.
Especially when Key and Banks demand responsibility from the rest of us,
.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Food parcel families made poor choices, says Key
.
.
.
= fs =
David Shearer – New Solutions or Time-Honoured Answers?
.
.
Wainuiomata, Sunday, 27 January 2013 - It was a scorcher of a day throughout most of the country – and the Wellington region was no exception. The Met Office was predicting 23 degrees – this blogger scoffs at that and thought it nudged closer to 30. Not for the first time, I thanked the Human Race for the invention of air-conditioning inside a car.
This was not the first time I had heard Party leaders speak. My very first occassion was Bill Rowling, in the 1975 election campaign. According to my memory, he seemed a nice enough guy and had some good things to say.
Unfortunately forLabour – and for the nation – Muldoon made “mince meat” out of Rowling; won the ’75 election; trashed Labour’s compulsory super-savings scheme; and set the country on a course for future dependency on foreign bankers. Nice one, Rob.
My most recent encounter with a Party leader had been John Key, in Lower Hutt and then in Upper Hutt, in 2011 in the lead-up to the general election.
Impressions? I understood why many people likened politicians to used-car salesmen. There was something about Key that instinctively made me feel uneasy and doubt every word he uttered. At any moment, I expected him to offer the audience shares in the Wellington harbour bridge. (Soon, he’ll be offering us shares in companies we already own. So I wasn’t far off.)
Back to the present…
At first, I thought the Wainuiomata Rugby Club – at a far-flung corner of this little village – was an odd place for a public meeting. But maybe not. In some ways, Wainui represents New Zealand in the wider world; tiny, isolated, out-of-sight of the rest of the country and mostly forgotten. As a microcosm of New Zealand, surrounded by verdant green-covered hills, it was a perfect setting.
The Rugby Club car-park was jam-packed. Decided to park across the road. Smiled nicely at the Wainui Bowling Club folk who must’ve been wondering what was going on across the road, and legged it. Bloody traffic had been slow all the way through the Hutt Valley and through Wainui and the ” star attraction” was due to start his speech within minutes.
The host’s introductory speech was just finishing, and David Shearer walked – strided confidently – from a rear annex where he had been waiting with one of his staff.
There was good applause from the audience, perhaps a third or half of whom were Labour party members or supporters.
.
.
Shearer was in good form as he opened his speech,
.
Tena koutou katoa.
Greetings everyone and thank you for being here together on a Sunday.
It’s great to see so many friendly faces.
It’s wonderful to see so many of you prepared to give up some of your summer break to talk about the future of our country.
There is nothing more important. And nothing more urgent.
I can tell you that today I’m refreshed, I’m fired up, and I’m raring to go.
.
.
This year will be a big year for Labour – a year where we not only hold the government to account, but also show there’s a better way.
A way of hope, where there is a place for everyone and where we fight for a world class NZ that we can all be proud of.
Today I want to lay out the challenges before us, the need for change and our focus for the year.
.
Shearer started off well – and for the most part, maintained a vigorous energy as he gave his twenty to thirty minute long speech.
.
.
NEW ZEALANDERS WHO INSPIRE US ALL
A book I was given for Christmas tells the stories of 50 inspiring New Zealanders – artists, scientists, musicians, business people, some well-known, some less so.
Reading about their lives, they share the same passion and pride in their work and in their country. The ambition to be world class.
As scientist Ray Avery says: ‘we have no respect for the status quo’.
These people never say it’s too hard – we’re not big enough, we’re too isolated, we don’t have enough money.
Instead they say, “To hell with it, I’m going to do it anyway”.
New Zealanders have always achieved what wasn’t supposed to be possible.
Sir Edmund Hillary’s idea of what was possible took him to the very top of the world.
Kate Sheppard’s idea of what was possible made New Zealand the first country to give women the vote.
Alan MacDiarmid’s idea of what was possible took him from Masterton to winning the Nobel Prize.
We’ve always dreamed big and succeeded.
.
Interestingly, this is the same book that Alliance leader, Jim Anderton, referred to on numerous occassions during the 1996 general election campaign. He often mentioned it in his speeches, highlighting how New Zealanders had struggled to overcome adversity during their lives.
.
I see that same attitude in families and schools, businesses and sports teams as I travel up and down the country.
People overcoming adversity, dreaming of something better.
When I see a single mum put herself through polytech to build a better future for her kids, I’m inspired.
When I meet New Zealanders well into their retirement, who after a lifetime of service are the first to volunteer come Daffodil Day, I’m inspired.
When a kid, who the stats say should fail, becomes the first member of their family to graduate from university, I’m inspired.
It’s inspiring because Kiwis don’t lie down.
From the most famous to the most humble, courage and determination is the common bond.
They deserve a Government that backs their hopes and inspires them to succeed.
A Government that says: you do your bit, we’ll do ours.
.
Shearer used the phrase “you do your bit, we’ll do ours” several times throughout his speech. It’s a phrase that can mean different things to different people.
In a centre-left context, it can suggest an interventionist hands-on government. Though it harks back to the famous Marxist expression, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs“, I doubt if 21st Century Labour’s speech writer had Karl Marx in mind.
.
That’s what a Labour Government will do.
That’s what a government I lead will do.
NATIONAL’S EXCUSES ARE HOLDING US BACK
But this Government’s low expectations are holding us back.
For 4 years we’ve been fed skilfully spun excuses for why we can’t get ahead.
It’s the Global Financial Crisis, the Canterbury earthquakes, the global outlook that is the problem.
We are told we have to accept second best.
There is always an excuse for why we can’t get ahead. For why we can’t be a leader in this field or that.
For example, the National government aspires to being a fast follower when it comes to climate change.
Hold that thought. What is a fast follower exactly?
Does it mean that if we follow too fast we become … what…an accidental leader?
.
Good point; “Does it mean that if we follow too fast we become … what…an accidental leader?“
Writing his speech, I would have referred to New Zealand’s leadership during the French anti-nuclear tests at Muroroa, and our opposition to apartheid in South Africa. Whilst our Aussie cuzzies were lukewarm in their support of Norman Kirk’s decision to send a frigate to the test site, we went ahead and did it anyway.
We were The Mouse that Roared. And this would have tied in beautifully with his references above to “ 50 inspiring New Zealanders”.
.
But a leader with no clue about where they’re going.
That’s not good enough with an issue that is so important to our planet, and our country.
We deserve better than that.
I refuse to accept that for New Zealand.
And so do the Kiwis I meet.
.
Strangely, this seems reminiscent of Key’s January2008 speech, “A Fresh Start for New Zealand“,
“We know this isn’t as good as it gets. We know Kiwis deserve better than they are getting. We are focused on the issues that matter and we have the ideas and the ability to bring this country forward.
National is ambitious for New Zealand and we want New Zealanders to be ambitious for themselves. “
The reason I point this out is that Shearer’s speech writer(s) should be wary of using too much generalised rhetoric. In many cases New Zealanders have heard it all before.
If rhetoric is used, make it original and make it something unique to social democratic precepts. There has to be a different language; different words – a different brand – to that of the Nats.
Otherwise Labour’s message will be diluted and lost within the political-media maelstrom.
.
.
FORGOTTEN NEW ZEALANDERS
But this Government has forgotten the hard-working and inspiring people I come across every day.
In a pub in Napier, a guy came up and said to me “I’m working harder than ever, I pay my taxes, we’re trying to bring up our kids the best we can, but we simply can’t seem to get ahead”.
He went on to say: “I just feel nobody is standing up for me”.
So many others I have met feel the same.
They’re busy helping organise school galas, donating their time to charities, running the sausage sizzle to fundraise for local sports clubs.
They are at the heart of our communities helping make our country the great one it is.
I’ve run into that spirit amongst many small business owners.
They’re the kind of people who pay themselves for 40 hours but work 80 just to keep the doors open.
They’re not asking for an easy ride or a hand-out.
But like thousands of others across this country, they’ve been taken for granted.
They feel the Government has forgotten them.
Kiwis across the country are working harder than ever.
They’re doing their fair share. Playing their part.
We all have that responsibility.
But they feel let down.
My promise to you as Prime Minister is that I will always stand up for the hardworking, forgotten New Zealanders.
You’re doing your bit, it’s time you had a Government that did its bit too.
NEW ERA – HANDS ON GOVERNMENT
We desperately need real leadership now more than ever.
The Global Financial Crisis has exposed the frailties of the old economic wisdom.
.
Now we’re getting to the knitty-gritty. Recent history backs up Shearer’s statement 100% that the “Global Financial Crisis has exposed the frailties of the old economic wisdom“. This is reality and only the most hard-line rightwing National/ACT Party devotee would attempt the futility of arguing to the contrary.
This is where National is vulnerable (amongst a truckload of other vulnerabilities).
In point of fact, whilst Key may not have been personally responsible for the 2007/08 Global Financial Crisis – his profession certainly had a hand in it’s making. Key has admitted as such, two weeks after the 2008 general election (notice not before the election),
.
.
In turn, despite the lies from National MPs (more on that in an upcoming blogpost), Labour left the New Zealand economy in a fairly positrive state,
- unemployment was low at 4.6% (source)
- sovereign net debt mostly paid down from 20% to 5.6% of GDP (source)
- and Labour was posting surpluses, as even Key had to admit, with open derision (source)
These are all positives that Labour shouldn’t be afraid to remind New Zealanders – many of whom suffer from long-term memory-fade at the best of times.
.
The National Party believes the financial crisis is just a blip to get over. Their solution is to apply their failed ideas of the past over and over.
They are wrong.
The hands-off, simply leave it to the market approach has failed all over the world.
We are on the cusp of a new era – when new thinking and leadership is needed to build wealth we can all share in.
The world has changed…
.
Why not offer a few examples?
- Examples of hands-on State intervention.
- Examples of governments re-taking control of their currencies.
- Examples of people throwing out right wing governments and replacing them with centre-left administrations.
.
…National hasn’t. It’s stuck in the past.
We need a government that recognises times have changed.
We need a Government that finds the courage to act, not better excuses for why we can’t.
We need a government prepared to stand up for hardworking forgotten Kiwis.
We need a smart, hands-on Government.
A government that is prepared to be a player, not a spectator.
That will be a Labour Government, and the Government I will lead.
It’s about getting our priorities right, being thrifty about our economy.
Bringing our debt under control.
But being smart about how we tackle the massive challenges ahead.
Above all, this country needs a government that chooses to act. Let me tell you what I mean.
When a young couple is putting off having kids until they buy a house, and yet despite saving hard, prices always slip beyond their reach, it’s time to act.
That’s why I’m committed to putting 100,000 families into new homes.
It’s ambitious, but New Zealanders can see right through the Government’s hands off approach that leaves it to the market.
.
Ambitious? Of course – but also doable. This is not beyond our means and it’s laughable that those right wingers who poo-poo the idea as “too hard” or “too costly” are always – always – the same ones who defend against similar criticisms levelled at National’s “pet projects” for their business mates.
Evidently subsidising Warner Bros (a multi-billion dollar corporation) or a rugby tournament with our taxes is “not hard” and “not costly”. It’s called an ‘investment’.
So why is building homes for our own people “too hard” or “too costly”?!
Right wingers have a blinkered view of the world and a narrow idea of what is an ‘investment’.
Housing for our citizens is a human right and something we’ve always taken pride in. This is Labour’s core strength; ensuring a roof over peoples’ heads.
.
They see through the tinkering with the RMA.
They see through the latest excuse – to blame the local Council.
.
Well sussed.
Key has been blaming everyone and everything for the poor state of our economy; rising unemployment; growing poverty, etc.
- In 2008 he blamed his money-trader mates
- He’s blamed the Global Financial Crisis
- He’s blamed people receiving welfare payments
- He’s blamed “dodgy statistics”
- He’s blamed the Labour Party
- He’s blamed the Greens
- He’s blamed Winston Peters
And now, recently, Key and his National cronies have taken to blaming local body councils,
“ We need more houses built in New Zealand, at a lower cost. That means we need more land available for building, more streamlined processes and less costly red tape…
… It’s ridiculous that we allow councils to demand almost anything as a condition for the consent.
And it’s ridiculous that we allow them to charge whatever fees they want.”
See: John Key’s State of the Nation speech – post mortem
I’m waiting for him to next blame aliens, Illuminatii, et al.
.
It’s just not credible.
.
Damn right it’s not.
.
It’s also why Labour will introduce a Capital Gains Tax to move investment into business and away from property speculation that is pushing house prices through the roof.
.
Problem, solution.
Good.
.
When a student graduating from university faces 7.3% unemployment and little chance of getting a job, it’s time to act.
They’ve done their bit, we need to do ours.
It’s heart-breaking watching parents waving goodbye to their kids at our airports.
People want to work – they just need the jobs.
Two days ago, John Key had an epiphany: We have a youth unemployment problem – we need apprentices.
Good on him. I thank the focus group that brought that to his attention.
.
There was thunderous applause from the audience at this point. The remark referring to “government by focus group” is a quip that National constantly tossed at the Clark government.
It applies equally well to National’s term. Let’s keep using it.
.
There are now 20 per cent fewer apprentices today than when he took office. We are now importing foreign labour to meet skills shortages in the biggest rebuild in our history in Christchurch.
Is he just waking up to this now? Is this government asleep at the wheel, completely out of touch?
You don’t need to answer that. The answer is obvious.
.
.
There was a touch of humour as Shearer said, “you don’t need to answer that. The answer is obvious.” The audience loved the wry touch and laughed. The laughter was at National’s expense.
.
I have been serious about youth unemployment from the day I was elected leader.
Labour’s plans are out there. I’d be delighted if this government picked them up and ran with them.
For example:
We’ll pay employers the equivalent of the dole to take on apprentices.
.
More loud applause. Everyone welcomes the idea of apprentices – what’s not to like? Taking young folk from our 85,000 Unemployed or Not in Education or Training(NEET); training them into a trade; adding to the skills base of our country – this is real investment.
.
We’ll back Kiwi businesses to get their slice of the $30 billion dollars the Government contracts out every year – but we will require them to take on apprentices and trainees in return.
.
This is the kind of social contract that only a centre-left government can enact. National’s neo-liberal dogma could not allow such a hands-on, visibly interventionist, policy. It flies in the face of everything they hold dear; that only the “Market” can create jobs.
Labour (or any other centre-left and left Party) has no such constraints. They can be utterly pragmatic and do whatever it takes to generate jobs.
.
We’ll give tax breaks to companies doing world-leading research and development, so the innovations – and the jobs – they create stay right here in New Zealand.
Another thing.
When I see talented people forced to leave their home town because there’s nothing on offer for them, it’s time to act.
That’s why we’ll work with councils on projects that support their provinces. Projects like the Gisborne to Napier rail link to boost economic development and create jobs.
.
This was well received by the audience, with good applause and rowdy cheering. The audience seemed to understand perfectly well the long-term value of rail.
.
When I hear of high value manufacturers shedding jobs because our high dollar cuts them off at the knees, it’s time to act.
We’ll make changes to monetary policy so that our job-creating businesses aren’t undermined by our exchange rate.
.
Problem, solution.
Excellent.
.
When a 5 year old girl falls asleep in class because she had no breakfast before she left home, it’s time to act.
Labour will put food in schools, to make sure all our kids get the same chance to learn.
.
Problem, solution.
On a roll…
.
When a mum and dad work long hours but still can’t afford healthy food for their kids, it’s time to act.
We’ll lift the minimum wage and champion a living wage to make sure hard work can provide a decent living.
This is what I mean when I say we need a smart Government prepared to act.
.
Problem, solution.
Good stuff!
Plenty of applause at these statements. And plenty of material for the electronic media,
.
.
And print media,
.
.
This is where National will continue to be on the back-foot. Come 2014, (if the Nat-led Coalition lasts that long – by no means a foregone conclusion) Key and his administration will have been in office for six years. Aside from balancing the books (oh f****n hooray), what will be their legacy? What practical achievements can they present to the voting public after two terms in office.
Bugger all, I would suggest.
.
A Government that says we will back you if you’re prepared to do your best.
Yes, we face huge challenges, but by being hands on we can turn our biggest challenges into opportunities for the future.
Since we announced KiwiBuild last year, excitement is growing. Architects, construction companies and designers around NZ have been in touch.
They see an opportunity to build affordable, energy-efficient – even energy generating – houses.
Houses that use home grown sustainable materials.
Houses that families will be proud to call home.
This is an idea the country is embracing.
.
And it’s also 100% feasible. There is no reason why any of Shearer’s suggestions cannot be implemented. It is, after all, part of our innovative, “number 8 fencing wire” mentality that we love to espouse as a Kiwi characteristic.
Ok, well let’s put that into operation. Not just to make money for overseas corporates like Warner Bros – but for our own young people.
This is the kind of talk that cuts through the free market, neo-liberal BS. This is what will encourage New Zealanders to call this country home – and not just a launching pad for overseas destinations.
.
More than 70 per cent of Kiwis support our KiwiBuild programme to build 100,000 first homes.
New Zealanders are also behind our other new ideas and those numbers are growing.
Most people see the need for a Capital Gains Tax on investment properties.
Nearly six in every ten New Zealanders support our idea to make KiwiSaver universal.
And nearly two-thirds of you back our pledge to protect universal superannuation for future generations by gradually lifting the age of eligibility.
The forces of conservatism said that reforming Super wasn’t the right thing to do.
It wouldn’t be popular – so we shouldn’t do it. They were wrong.
New Zealanders are forward thinking and are prepared to do what it takes to create a better future.
.
When New Zealanders understand the long-term implications of their decisions, and vote accordingly for sensible policies on Election Day, we can achieve great things.
But when we vote through sheer stupidity for selfish reasons – as many did on 29 November 1975 for Robert Muldoon – we inevitably achieve short term gain. But loose out Big Time on long term benefits (see related blogpost: Regret at dumping compulsory super – only 37 years too late).
.
National has a big idea of course – it’s to sell our best assets.
And, with them, goes another chunk of our future.
That is their plan.
Most Kiwis hate it. And we are behind them fighting that idea all the way.
HANDS ON – A GLOBAL TREND
Labour isn’t alone in knowing the time has come for active government.
A movement of leaders and people across the world have realised the old hands-off solutions take us nowhere.
It’s a new way of thinking and it’s evolving.
New Zealanders are looking to a government that will roll up its sleeves and back them.
You do your part, and we the government will do ours.
In 2014 that’s the Government I will lead.
.
And that it pretty much what persuaded voters to support Labour and it’s coalition partners in 1999. The do-nothing, slash-and-burn mentality of Bolger and Shipley was driving New Zealand to a yawning chasm. Neo-liberalism was creating a nightmarish society of high unemployment, degraded social services, missed opportunities, and widening gap between the rich and poor.
Sound familiar?
.
AGENDA FOR 2013
Kiwis won’t have to wait until the election to find out what I stand for and what I’ll do about the issues that matter to them.
I’ve already put clear stakes in the ground on housing affordability, quality education, growing jobs and the economy.
There’s more to come.
For Labour, this year is about preparing for Government.
We want New Zealanders to know that we’re ready to govern.
.
It’s simple: appear confident and act like a government-in-waiting – and they will flock to you.
Note, this applies also to NZ First, Mana, and the Greens. The public want to see Opposition Parties working together for the good of the country as a whole. By all means offer your own policies for public debate – but take note that there’s a very fine demarcation between debate and squabbling.
Any hint of squabbling and the voters will turn of.
There have to be positive reasons for voters to take a punt on voting for the Opposition.
Work together, in a cool, calm, methodical, professional manner – and they will flock to you.
.
That’s why today I’m setting out my agenda for the year.
Number one is jobs.
It is our most urgent priority and cuts across everything we do.
.
Damn straight.
.
Labour’s plan to build new affordable homes will create thousands of new jobs and apprenticeships.
A job is more than a weekly wage, it’s gives people a purpose and pride in themselves. That’s why I’m focussed on jobs.
Our housing proposals are at the cutting edge of urban design and energy efficiency.
This year we will bring together the best ideas of architects, designers, urban planners and others to a housing conference.
I want KiwiBuild ready to roll on Day 1 when we take office.
First-home buyers shouldn’t have to wait.
Jacinda Ardern, my Social Development spokesperson, will produce an alternative white paper this year, setting out our direction to help lift kids out of poverty.
There are 270,000 children in hardship in this country, and the government is failing them.
Kids deserve the best chance in life regardless of their parents’ wealth, and with Labour they will get that.
.
And those of us on the Left will be supporting, encouraging, and where necessary, nudging, a Labour-led government to maintain the focus of these problems (I refuse to call them “issues”) .
It is simply unacceptable to have poverty in this country and tackling this cancer in our society must rank at the top, along with job creation and caring for our children.
On this note, I would suggest that David Shearer demonstrate his total commitment to addressing child poverty in this country by taking on the role of Minister for Children.
There is nothing more important to the future of our nation than our children. (Some rightwingers don’t get this simple fact – but then, they do suffer from a brain-deficit in comprehension of social problems.)
John Key made himself Minister of Tourism – and spent his holidays in Hawaii. I guess he’s Minister of Tourism for Hawaii, and we just didn’t hear that part of the announcement.
An incoming Labour Prime Minister’s portfolio must be Minister for Children.
No ifs, buts, or maybes – that will set the tone of an incoming Labour-led government.
.
Their best opportunity is from a world-class education system.
We’ve already set out our plan to put food in schools and extend reading recovery so our kids aren’t destined to be drop outs from their first day at school.
This year I’m asking my education team to look at ways to improve transitions from school to further training and high-skill jobs.
.
Suggestions;
1. Can Charter Schools. These are parasitic neo-liberal constructs which add nothing to our education system.
2. Look at Finland. They’re at the top of OECD PISA tables for achievement. I suggest they have a wealth of knowledge we can gain from them. (Finland does not use the “Charter schools” model.)
3. Whether of not NZ First joins the Coalition on an official basis, I would strongly suggest that MP Tracey Martin be given an education or health or Associate Minister of Children’s portfolio. This woman has talent and should not be over-looked. (Disclaimer: I’m not a member, supporter, or even fan of NZ First. But I recognise talent when I see it.)
.
85,000 young New Zealanders are not in work, education or training.
It’s a flaw in our system.
I want to see our schools seamlessly connect to further training opportunities.
I want every child to go through school with a purpose and plan of where they’ll end up.
Because every young Kiwi deserves a shot at a career that excites and motivates them.
Without this we’ll continue to see kids, without the right skills to get a job, falling through the cracks.
And our employers will continue to struggle to find the skills they need.
That’s not a future I want for my kids or yours.
.
Pretty damned obvious, eh?
I mean, really, it’s so fricken insanely straight forward.
In fact, it’s so patently obvious that voters have a clear choice,
A. Vote National and more of the same – 85,000 not in work, education or training.
B. Vote for a centre-left Coalition and get these kids into apprenticeships.
Is there anyone out there who doesn’t get this?
.
I’ve spoken of a clean, green, clever economy many times.
We need our environment to drive our economic success and our economy to keep our environment clean.
.
Despite warnings from the likes of Dr Mike Joy that our environment was hardly the fiction of being “100% Pure” or “Clean & Green”, right wing spin doctors (see: When spin doctors go bad) and our Dear Leader don’t seem to understand the simple fact that much of our economy is predicated on our marketing brand (see: John Key’s “pinch of salt” style of telling the truth).
Dr Joy was lambasted by Mark Unsworth – a rabid right-wing lobbyist for a professional “government relations consultancy” company, Saunders Unsworth – who condemned the scientist as an economic “saboteur” on 21 November, last year.
Now, as our environmental mishaps begin to compound, the chooks are coming home to roost – and crap all over everything,
.
.
The reality is we will not create more better paying jobs by simply exporting more milk powder.
We’ve been talking about it since Mike Moore invented lamb burgers.
Our future prosperity will be carved out by backing the talent of businesses working in high tech, or the innovations of those adding value to our natural resources.
It will be built by those that see the promise and opportunity of a clean, green future.
Great ideas are emerging from organisations like Pure Advantage, and from thousands of innovative can-do Kiwis.
A thriving manufacturing sector is at the heart of my vision. That’s why our manufacturing inquiry that starts tomorrow is an important first step.
But the commitment is lacking from government.
Well I am committed to this future.
There is simply no other option.
That is why I have asked my colleagues to develop a clear plan to diversify our economy.
A plan we can put in front of New Zealanders, not airy fairy concepts.
.
There was more applause to this…
.
All of these areas – jobs, education, housing and building a new economy – are critical to rebuilding our second largest city.
I am committed to rebuilding Christchurch from the grassroots up, not the Beehive down.
.
A part of me thinks that “rebuilding Christchurch from the grassroots up, not the Beehive down” may be the toughest, most demanding of Labour’s promises. 300,000 Cantabrians may have 300,000 opinions as to what should be done.
At the very least, a Labour-led government must put an end to school closures and the prospect of the Charter Schools experiment. Christchurch has enough stresses without central government adding to the woes of an already vulnerable community.
.
That’s why I’ll be talking to Cantabrians about how they see their future.
To ensure their voices are heard.
That’s what we’ll work on in the coming months.
These ideas will make a difference.
These are ideas National simply can’t see.
CONCLUSION
The difference between the forces of conservatism and the need for change has never been wider.
.
Indeed. On almost every level, there is a world of difference between the expectations of National Party supporters and those who support Labour, the Greens, Mana, and NZ First.
The differences are best epitomised by the issue of child poverty.
National/ACT supporters play the blame-game and deride parents for making “bad choices”. Key himself validated this belief in February 2011, when he said,
“But it is also true that anyone on a benefit actually has a lifestyle choice. If one budgets properly, one can pay one’s bills.
“And that is true because the bulk of New Zealanders on a benefit do actually pay for food, their rent and other things. Now some make poor choices and they don’t have money left.”
See: Food parcel families made poor choices, says Key
This attitude of selfishness can become vicious and downright psychopathic in cruelty. Perhaps the nastiest I’ve seen was Damien Grant’s piece in the NZ Herald yesterday – see: Damien Grant: I’d rather a better phone than feed a hungry child.
People like Grant – and those who posted vile messages in support of his comments – are the mean spirited, self-centered, dark side of humanity. Their vision of society would not be too dis-similar to to Dickens’ Victorian-era world.
Though strangely enough, Rightwingers/National Party supporters are never quite able to explain how a child can choose to be born into a family ridden by unemployment, poverty, dysfunction, addiction, abuse. Strange, eh?
Labour/Green/Mana and probably NZ first supporters see problems such as child poverty as a societal problem that affects us all. They understand there are many reason why a family may be living in poverty.
With 175,000 New Zealanders now unemployed, it’s hardly surprising that poverty is increasing. Contrary to the bizarre fantasies of right wingers and low-information voters, the dole is not very generous. No one in their right mind would give up a job earning $600 a week, to go on the dole for $204.96 a week, net (see: WINZ Unemployment Benefit – current).
A priority of an incoming Labour-led government should be to un-do the benefit cuts of Ruth Richardson in 1991. It is an indictment on Labour that it never carried out this positive reform during it’s tenure in office.
Aside from being the right thing to do, Labour should ask itself; why should the poorest in our society vote for them if they don’t un-do the policies of previous right-wing governments?
What’s in it for them?
.
Come 2014, New Zealanders will face a choice more stark than any in a generation.
A choice in the direction of their country.
A choice between staying as we are and managing our decline, or being part of a hands-on
Government that’s backing hardworking New Zealanders.
.
“Government that’s backing hardworking New Zealanders“.
Code for the fickle middle classes?
.
A government that chooses action over excuses.
A government that understands the world is entering a new era and we need to change with it.
One that shares the determination and passion of those Kiwis who inspire us most.
.
There was more loud applause at this point. Despite not giving specifics, the audience seemed to like what they were hearing; the direction that Shearer was moving the Party.
.
That’s the Labour Government I will lead.
But I can’t do it alone.
Today, I am asking for your help.
I want you to be part of my team and play a part in the next government.
I want to hear your hopes for this country and your ideas of how we get there.
I want each of you to take the Labour message out to your neighbours, your co-workers, your congregation, and your friends.
Tell them yes, we in the Labour Party are committed to making a real difference in people’s lives.
We will not accept the status quo.
A tide for change is building.
.
Indeed. And that tide for change is not just the poor; the unemployed; or the low-paid. Even businesspeople seem to be getting mightily pissed of at National’s arrogant hands-off, do-nothing, Leave-It-To-The-Marketplace attitude,
.
The managing director of a company that makes and exports a device that protects crops from hail stones said comments from the Government that his sector needs to get smarter are “insulting and unnecessary”.
Mike Eggers said he is sick of hearing politicians telling him he has to up his game if he wants to survive – when the high dollar makes it more and more difficult to operate.
“We’re told to get smarter and I find that irritating and insulting. I’m about as smart as they get in my little field. How the hell do these people get smarter? For a politician to tell somebody else to get smarter – he’s risking his life.”
A scrap-copper manufacturer told the inquiry the Government can’t continue to do nothing about the exchange rate.
A W Fraser managing director Gordon Sutherland said the over-inflated dollar is crippling exporters and it was disappointing when the Government told them to keep making efficiencies to remain viable.
“We know that – we’ve known that for a very, very long time. Of course we get efficient, of course we try and work as hard as we can to be efficient – it’s the only way we can exist. It drives me insane when people say, ‘Get efficient’. What do you think we are – idiots? We’re not.”
Joyce’s immediate response?
“Nobody’s arguing that being a manufacturer isn’t challenging. In fact, in my history in business, every time you’re in business it’s challenging.
“But going around and trying to talk down the New Zealand economy and talk about a crisis in manufacturing, I don’t think is particularly helpful.”
Mr Joyce said there was no simple answer to the problems the sector are facing, except to keep working hard to further improve their businesses.
See: Radio NZ – Exporters tell inquiry of threat from high NZ dollar
.
If Joyce and his little National buddies think that kind of response will win them the next election – they must be more deluded than I thought imaginable.
Joyce might as well have saved time and simply told exporters and manufacturers, “Go vote Labour”. The effect will be the same.
.
Change that guarantees everyone gets ahead, not just those at the top.
Change so we once again stand tall as a country.
A country where we strive to be a leader – not a follower.
A country where the Government is hands-on and backs its people.
A country we can be proud of.
Friends, join with me to build that future.
Because, together, that’s what we will do in 2014.
Thank you.
.
With that, Shearer concluded his speech. As the audience rose to their feet, cheering enthusiastically, he left the stage,
.
.
So, what to make of Shearer’s performance?
Shearer spoke from a pre-prepared speech (hard-copy provided to this blogger) which he more or less followed. He spoke convincingly and passionately and though perhaps not as charismatic as a Jim Anderton or younger Winston Peters or late Rod Donald, it was sufficient to present his message to people in the Hall.
Reading a pre-prepared speech, this Blogger scores Shearer a 6/7 (where 10 is in the league of Lange/Kirk/Savage and 1 is one-dimensional to the point of being robotic.)
The speech scores a 5/6. It was adequate – but perhaps something was missing. Something that would make a listener sit up, with the proverbial lighbulb switching on.
After Shearer left the stage, Hutt South MP, Trevor Mallard, invited the gathering outside to enjoy the beautiful hot day in an adjacent park, as well as a free sausage sizzle for all,
.
.
A traditional Kiwi sausage sizzle provided free snacks – though there were suggestions that NZ Herald journo, Audrey Young (not pictured) pay for hers in the spirit of Market User Pays,
.
.
It also gave Shearer an opportrunity to meet the press outside, to answer questions. Most questions seemed focused on Labour’s recently released Housing policy,
.
.
Patrick Gower (at left, with pink tie) was the main questioner,
.
.
At times the questions were so intent on detailed house pricing; number of bedrooms; location; location; location, that they seemed more suitable for a real estate agent than a Party leader. But they were fair questions and this blogger has no quibble with them,
.
.
I stood with the group throughout the Q + A session, listening and recording the exchange between Shearer and msm journos.
My impression? He has improved significantly since his earlier days as Labour’s mumbling, incoherent, leader. Occassionally there is still hesitation, and that requires further training to make his speech patterns more fluid, natural, and assertive.
In any case, except for an occassional moment or two, he answered journo’s questions reasonably well.
The question is – is he ready to go head-to-head with The Great Car Salesmen, aka, our Prime Minister John Key? Currently, I’m not sure. By 2014, with more practice and experience, and as his confidence grows, he has a fair chance.
What the Labour Party needs to do is ensure that not only does Shearer get the training and experience, but that he is 100% well-versed in every aspect of Labour policy and funding mechanism.
National is vulnerable right now, and this blogger believes things are about to get a whole lot messier for the Tories. 2012 was only the beginning of their eventual demise as government.
There’s still a lot of work ahead of us, and every critic and opponant of National must do their bit; Party activists; MPs (which means side-lining hopeless non-performers and elevating those who are taking it to the Nats); bloggers; and disaffected ordinary New Zealanders who’ve had a gutsful.
2014 is ours to seize.
Other moments and faces of the day
Rimutaka MP, Chris Hipkins, (“Kennedy for President” t-shirt) and friends,
.
.
Hutt Mp, Trevor Mallard, chatting with two members of the public,
.
.
Te Atatu MP, Phil Twyford, and supporters,
.
.
And Labour leader, David Shearer, listening intently to a fellow New Zealander,
.
.
Other blogs
The Jackal: Anti Shearer faction loses traction
The Standard: For a February leadership vote
Disclaimer
This blogger has no links or preference to either “Team Shearer” or “Team Cunliffe”, and is mostly neutral in the leadership stakes.
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
* Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
* Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
* At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
* Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
= fs =
Guest Author: David Shearer, Leader of the Labour Party
- David Shearer, Leader of the Labour Party
.
.
Speech: New Zealand – A new direction | Sunday, November 18, 2012
.
Today I want to talk about two paths that lie before us as a country.
Each offers very different directions and different choices.
One path leads to disappointment, decline and constant struggle.
That’s our country’s current path, the one National is taking.
The other path is about change.
It’s about a new direction for Labour and a new direction for New Zealand.
A new direction where we fight back, create opportunity and build a world class New Zealand that we’re proud of.
A new direction that’s about what is best for the long term, not just the short term.
A new direction that’s about all New Zealanders daring to dream and having the opportunity to get there.
Not just accepting second best and managing decline.
We’ve always been a creative, innovative people with a ‘can do’ attitude.
Respected and admired across the globe.
Down to earth. Willing to give it a go.
We need that new direction now more than ever.
It’s about building a smart, new and powerful economy that delivers a fairer society.
That’s what I stand for.
That’s what we can achieve together.
For most of the last 20 years, I lived in parts of the world where life was bleak.
Every time I came home, I counted my blessings.
I counted my good fortune that I had grown up in a country like this.
But we are losing what we once held dear.
Kiwis just want the chance to succeed, to be the best they can be and to build a great life.
It’s not too much to ask.
I got my fair chance growing up in Papatoetoe. My father was a teacher. My mum worked at the local school.
They gave us the kind of Presbyterian upbringing where you saved for what you needed, and made the most of what you had.
I remember Dad wanted a boat to take us kids out sailing but he didn’t have the money to buy it.
So he rolled up his sleeves, went to night classes and learned how to build one.
Over 4 months, he and I built that boat together in the garage.
That was the way things worked. The State backed you so you could realise your dream.
I grew up in a time when there were plenty of part-time jobs for kids and – thanks to penal rates – some of them were quite well-paid.
I had a paper round that earned me the money to pay for my own bike. I pumped gas at the Puhinui petrol station and learned the value of a dollar.
That’s what it was like back then, growing up in New Zealand.
I know it wasn’t perfect for everyone but for most Kiwi families, life gave you a fair go.
And, free, to everyone, was an education that could match any in the world.
A nation flourishes when it gives every person a fair chance.
When it looks after its own.
And when it prizes fairness and humanity.
It was when I went out into world that I discovered just how much that means.
I also learnt something about myself.
That if you’ve grown up with the values this country gave me, you can’t turn away. You just can’t.
So my life has been about making a difference.
Lifting people up when they need it the most. Making their lives better.
Giving them the opportunity to take the next step.
This world can be hugely indifferent to suffering.
For me, that came into stark relief when I went to Somalia. War and famine was overtaking the country.
A small group of us working there realised that unless something changed, thousands would die from hunger.
With daily gun battles being fought in the streets, we were faced with a choice.
Take a risk and make a change. Or shrug our shoulders and say the job’s too big, let’s get out of here.
We stayed. We made a change.
I worked with a dedicated team of Somali doctors and others. We fought to keep supply lines open to bring in food.
We fed around 30,000 children who would have died otherwise.
We evacuated our staff three times. I lost a colleague on that operation.
But I was never in any doubt. Standing up for what was right – what would make a difference – that was the right decision.
Looking back I feel immense satisfaction.
But I can tell you it also makes it very clear to me where my priorities lie.
I am in politics to make lives better.
I’m not here to cross something off my bucket list. Or to indulge in some sense of celebrity.
I went out into the world to help improve people’s lives and I’ve chosen to enter politics for the same reason.
It’s why I want to lead this country and it’s why I need your support to get there.
Together we can make a difference. A big difference.
The values I bring with me are the ones that I was raised with.
They are the ones that I took with me out into the world.
They are Labour values. They’re our values: that everyone should have a fair chance and the opportunity to get ahead.
And if you agree people are not being given that fair chance right now then I’m asking you to join me in making the changes we need.
Change can make people uneasy.
But change has always been what has saved us in times of trouble, and it can save us again.
The first Labour government made the big changes that mattered:
affordable housing,
free schooling,
free health care,
a fair start for every child.
Don’t let anyone tell you a government can’t do big things to change lives.
Those big changes led New Zealand out of the Depression and it was this party that made them.
We are the party that is brave about change.
I think about Norman Kirk’s government establishing the Waitangi Tribunal that has helped reconcile Māori and Pakeha. And his commitment to New Zealand’s independent place in the world.
I think of David Lange standing up for our independence at the Oxford Union debate: “hold your breath for just a moment – I can smell the uranium on it.”
It’s not just a great line, it’s about a great idea. Today we’re still nuclear free and I’m proud of that.
And the thousands of children lifted out of poverty under Helen Clark. The icons of Kiwisaver and KiwiBank were put in place.
Don’t let anyone tell you a government can’t do big things to change lives.
We made big changes and New Zealand flourished.
But where is our country today?
Where is the sense of possibility?
Where, I ask our Prime Minister, are the jobs?
It should never have come to this.
Imagine this scenario, for just a moment.
If we had kept Norman Kirk’s Superannuation Scheme – that Muldoon scrapped – it would be worth more than $240 billion today.
We would probably still own some of our banks and many other major companies.
Our entrepreneurs would be thriving because we’d have so much capital to invest in their ideas.
The Kirk Labour government could see the future. The National government saw political opportunism.
When our opponents say they want to grow our economy, I don’t doubt their sincerity.
But I doubt their method. I doubt it fundamentally.
How have they done in the last 4 years? Measure the results any way you want:
the cost of your groceries,
the money you’re earning,
the affordability of houses
1,000 Kiwis a week give up hope and go to Australia despite John Key promising he’d turn those numbers around.
That’s the population of Hamilton leaving since National was elected. It’s never been higher.
This government simply hasn’t delivered.
Our unemployment rate is 7.3%. Can you remember who was in power the last time it was this bad? Let me remind you it was the last National Government.
Right now there’s 175,000 people looking for work.
Māori and Pasifika unemployment is at 15%. One in four of our young people are unemployed.
And week after week, the losses just keep on coming.
Behind those numbers are real people, real families and real communities.
A couple of weeks ago, I sat down with miners who’ve lost their jobs at Spring Creek.
Darryl Sweetman is a miner. His future should be bright.
He has a lovely family, a partner, a daughter and a new-born son. But Darryl’s been laid off.
He’s worried he’ll lose the home they’ve been renovating and have to leave the town he’s lived in his entire life.
Paris Brady came back from Australia to raise his young family in Greymouth. He’s the kind of guy we need here.
Keen, motivated and used to hard graft. But just 10 weeks into his mining apprenticeship, he’s had the rug pulled out from under him and he’s out of work.
All over the country that’s the human face of losing jobs.
When this Government rests its entire hopes for future economic growth on the rebuild of Christchurch – our biggest natural disaster – you know it has no ideas.
What will it take for National to admit its hands-off policies aren’t working?
They know in their hearts that selling Mighty River Power will not make our power bills cheaper.
That selling Meridian won’t create a single job.
That selling Genesis won’t grow the economy.
Yet they knock us for being a party that can’t deliver growth.
Let me tell you. The evidence tells a different story.
If we compare all National and Labour Governments, back through history, the average GDP growth under National is 2.9%.
Under Labour, it’s 3.7%.
Who are the best economic managers?
But this government takes the prize. It has the worst economic performance in 50 years.
And we should remind ourselves of this:
In 2008, this National government inherited one of the world’s best government books after 9 budget surpluses.
And in 2 years’ time, no doubt, they’ll hand them back to us in bad shape.
The problem is that in order to pull us out of this hole they’re turning to the very ideas that put us there in the first place.
You know and I know: it’s not going to work.
And that’s why we need big change.
VISION
We need a different path.
We need to fight for the future we want.
One where we make a real difference to people’s lives.
We have always been the Party of new ideas.
When it mattered throughout our history, we’ve been willing to use the power of government to give the country what it needs to move ahead.
New Zealand needs to use that power once more. And under my leadership, we will.
Five years ago, that might have been seen as economic heresy in many places.
But not today.
Governments all around the world are intervening in their economies to dig themselves out of a vast Global Financial hole.
And they’ve got it right.
Hugh Fletcher is not what you’d call a radical.
But just a couple of weeks ago he was on the radio saying the laissez-faire status quo position is not acceptable.
He said our exporters were finding it hard to compete and we would have to come up with a new approach.
The Manufacturers and Exporters Association is saying the same thing.
So too is the EPMU.
And so are we.
There is a meeting of minds around a new direction.
The hands-off approach has failed and it’s left the world badly off balance.
Government has at its disposal levers that only it can pull.
Levers to change the settings that stimulate growth and opportunity.
As Prime Minister, I’ll use the power of government to change this country.
Let me be clear, it’s not about big government.
It’s about common sense.
It’s about using government intelligently, so it can transform the economy for everyone.
In a small country like New Zealand competing against the world’s economic giants, we need the government to pitch in together, not step back.
If you are willing to do your bit, the government should do its bit too.
It needs to be a player, not a spectator.
We need to get the country firing on all cylinders again.
I know we need to grow the economic pie – not just be expert in dividing it.
That means prudent financial management. It means balancing our budgets.
It means making the tough decisions to reduce our current account deficit.
This government hopes we can get there by cutting costs, selling assets and driving down the cost of labour.
It won’t work. It never has.
If you want to run the economy like they do, this is what you’ll get:
A few very wealthy people at the top,
No decent jobs in the middle
And a whole lot of low-skill, low wage families barely managing to hold on.
That’s a strategy that is as short sighted as it is heartless.
I have no interest in building an economy where only a few get rich, and everyone else gets left behind.
I lived in too many ruined countries where that happened to want to ever see it happen here.
My vision for New Zealand is fundamentally different from the one National is following.
New Zealand should be a place where people know they can get ahead, a place where the world wants to live and a place we can all be proud of.
A place that rewards talent and hard work, that puts a premium on innovation. Where our environment is a driver of our economic success and our economy keeps our environment clean.
A place which grows skilled, well-paid jobs and keeps our kids in New Zealand.
I want to lead that transformation.
I want a fair society where everyone gets a chance.
Where we look after those who need it, but where everyone has a responsibility to do their bit too.
Rights and responsibilities – a society based on that simple social contract.
I want to lead a country that is independent and confident in the world.
Where our values dictate what we say and do, not the persuasions of other nations.
That’s the kind of country we all want.
A few months ago, I spoke of that vision.
I received an email from Paul Callaghan thanking me. Because of course, his thinking had inspired me.
I phoned him back to thank him. For devoting his life to making New Zealand a better place.
He died 3 days later.
His inspiration is still with me.
He argued New Zealand cannot grow wealthy on agriculture alone. Valuable as it will always be, we must add to it and diversify our economy.
We must get behind our new smart, innovative businesses – that are growing faster than any other sector.
They are doing their bit. The Government should do its bit. Under Labour it will.
To realise that vision I promise that from the day we take office, you will see big change.
Right across the economy we will make fundamental changes.
We will replace a simplistic hands-off approach with a smart hands-on one.
Monetary policy will change.
So when the high dollar is killing our exporters we will give the Reserve Bank tools to act on the exchange rate.
Our manufacturers are our job generators.
If they’re doing their bit, we should do ours with intelligent government.
The R&D policy will change.
Most of what New Zealand exports today was known to the world before the industrial revolution.
This government treats Research & Development as ‘nice to have’.
We will treat it as absolutely vital to grow our smart businesses so they can take their products to the world.
We’ll change our tax system for the better.
We will bring in what this economy desperately needs: a capital gains tax.
We want people to invest in houses because they need a place to live, not because they get a tax free investment.
To shift investment instead into productive businesses to grow jobs.
The savings policy will change.
We’ll enrol everyone into KiwiSaver. That will support our retirement, but also build an investment pool to power our best businesses.
That means companies like F&P Appliances can be owned here, not sold off-shore.
We’ll change the approach to productivity.
Kiwis work longer hours than just about anywhere else in the world. But you wouldn’t know it looking at our pay packets.
That’s because the hands-off approach says: “pay low wages, cut back on conditions and ramp up casualization”.
That has to end. We’ll be hands-on. The Minimum Wage will go up. A Living Wage must be our goal.
And Labour laws will be reformed to restore decency.
We are proud of our unions and our origins. We thank them for what they do in standing up for workers’ rights, but we need to be in government to back you up.
The procurement policy will change.
The government spends $30 billion a year on contracting goods and services.
The simplistic hands-off approach says “forget about Hillside Railway workshops, forget about local jobs. Go for the cheapest offshore price.”
The intelligent hands-on approach says: “we get much more from each government dollar by investing in a Kiwi company”.
So wherever it’s the smart thing to do, we’ll prioritise the local supplier.
The approach to education will change.
I started my working life as a teacher. So I have an appreciation of the valuable job teachers do.
And I know a gimmick when I see one.
Bigger classes, unqualified teachers, charter schools and performance pay will achieve nothing.
The intelligent approach, the one I will follow is the one that asks: what will it take to make this education system the best in the world?
Our teachers are demoralised. Yet we all know they are critical to equipping our kids for the modern world.
We know too that shutting schools in Christchurch destroys communities and causes heartache for already distressed families.
I went to a public meeting there after receiving a moving letter from Christchurch mum Sonya Boyd. She’s devastated that her local school will close and is worried about the impact on her son Ben, his friends and in fact the whole community.
At that meeting a parent told me: Hekia Parata is doing what 10,000 earthquakes couldn’t do – destroying our school.
I say to the people of Christchurch: we are committed to helping you rebuild your city from the grassroots up – not the Beehive down.
You want, more than anything, to get your lives back, and on your own terms.
It’s time you had a government that stood alongside you.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
So those are the big changes we’ve already committed to.
To lift the economy. To grow jobs.
Today we add another important item: housing.
Owning your own home is a Kiwi ambition but for tens of thousands of New Zealanders it’s a dream that’s out of reach.
If there is one thing your newspaper tells you every day about life in New Zealand it’s this:
We have a housing problem. And it’s a deep seated problem.
If you’re a young person today, you look at the cost of houses and you despair.
For the first time, home ownership in Auckland has dropped below 60%.
It’s one of the reasons so many of our young people are giving up and going to Australia.
The National government’s answer fell woefully short of what is needed.
They don’t understand that the market has failed first-home buyers.
The simple fact is we need more affordable houses.
It’s time for Government to step up.
And we will.
Today I’m announcing that we will put 100,000 Kiwi families into their first home.
That’s the sort of big change we need to make a big difference to people’s lives.
We’ll oversee and invest in a large scale 10 year building programme of entry-level houses that Kiwis are crying out for.
Yes, it’s a big commitment and it’ll take a couple of years to ramp up, but we can do it.
I won’t stand by while the dream of home ownership slips away from future generations.
At the peak of last decade, about 30,000 new homes were built a year. Now it’s less than half that.
These are the missing rungs on the housing ladder. And it shows what an active and responsible government can do to help.
The start-up cost of the building programme will be financed through issuing government stock called Home Ownership Bonds.
The money we make from selling the houses will go back into the pot for building more.
The houses will be compact in size. Some will be stand-alone dwellings and others apartments. All of them will be good quality and energy efficient.
The homes will be sold to first home buyers who’ve saved their own deposit, like with KiwiSaver.
We estimate that the maximum needed to be raised for a kick-start will be $1.5 billion.
It will quickly become self-funding though. And because it’s a capital investment, it won’t affect our commitment to balance the books and return to surplus.
I can already hear our opponents complaining that this is too bold. That the problem’s too big and there’s nothing we can do.
I won’t accept that. I won’t give up on the Kiwi dream of an affordable home.
I have spoken to Auckland Mayor Len Brown to take up his offer of a partnership with Auckland council to make land available.
In addition, we will introduce a National Policy Statement under the RMA to ensure that planning rules and consenting decisions support affordable housing.
We want to make a difference.
Building 100,000 new houses will create training opportunities for apprenticeships, more jobs and give a $2 billion dollar a year boost to the economy.
This will make a big difference but alone, it’s not enough.
HEALTHY HOMES GUARANTEE
Too many Kiwi families are living in cold, damp and mouldy homes.
This affects their health and their quality of life.
Because of this, we’re seeing the sort of third world diseases that I was battling in Somalia in our own communities here. That’s not right.
Child poverty is a scourge that robs hundreds of thousands of kids of their future.
This cannot continue.
Let me be clear, we are not prepared to have families, particularly children, living in these conditions.
Eradicating poverty will be a top priority for the next Labour Government.
That’s why we’ll introduce a Healthy Homes Guarantee so landlords have to ensure every rental property is a healthy home that’s insulated and has efficient heating.
It’s time for poor quality houses to be brought up to scratch with minimum standards.
The crucial point is: this is about smart government pulling the levers to make New Zealand a better place.
We will take action where the market has failed for the benefit of thousands of Kiwis.
CONCLUSION
We have done the work we needed to do to change ourselves at this conference.
Now it’s time to lift our sights and to come together to change New Zealand.
Our Labour movement has always relied on the hard work of volunteers.
I thank you for everything that you do to support our cause and to support our country.
And now I ask you to join me.
Norman Kirk once famously said: New Zealanders don’t ask for much: someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work and something to hope for.
As much I’d like to, I can’t provide everyone with someone to love.
But everyone should have a job, a home – and a country we can all have hope in.
But we won’t on National’s track. It’s full of disappointment and is taking us nowhere.
We need to change.
We need a new direction.
One that’s about using our Kiwi ‘can do’ attitude to create new wealth.
One that encourages Kiwis to dream of what can be.
One that offers opportunities to realise that dream.
One where everyone who plays their part shares the rewards.
And, one where the government gets stuck in too.
I promise you this: from the day we take office, we will turn over a new page for this country and continue Labour’s proud tradition of progressive government.
We won’t be taking office to tinker, we’ll be taking office to remake New Zealand.
So I am asking you.
To rise up.
To take a message of hope to New Zealanders.
To fight for our future.
To say loud and clear that there is a better way. There is a Labour way.
We can do it, standing strong together.
We can make the change.
And we’ll do that in 2014.
.
.
= fs =
The betrayal of our young people
.
.
In 2007…
.
“Today, in the suburb where I grew up, I want to talk about what I consider to be an important part of The Kiwi Way. I want to talk about opportunity, and hope, and how we can bring these to some of the most struggling families and communities in New Zealand.
Part of The Kiwi Way is a belief in opportunity and in giving people a fair go.
As New Zealanders, we have grown up to believe in and cherish an egalitarian society. We like to think that our children’s futures will be determined by their abilities, their motivation and their hard work. They will not be dictated by the size of their parent’s bank balance or the suburb they were born in.
We want all kids to have a genuine opportunity to use their talents and to get rewarded for their efforts. That’s The Kiwi Way, and I believe in it. After all, I was one of the many kids who benefited from it…
… You might ask “where will the money come from?”
The fact is we are already spending millions of dollars for Wellington bureaucrats to write strategies and to dream up and run their own schemes. I want more of those dollars spent on programmes that work, regardless of who thinks them up and who runs them.”
.
Unemployment rate December 2007:
77,000 (3.4%)
.
In 2008…
.
“The National Party has an economic plan that will build the foundations for a better future.
- We will focus on lifting medium-term economic performance and managing taxpayers’ money effectively.
- We will be unrelenting in our quest to lift our economic growth rate and raise wage rates.
- We will cut taxes, not just in election year, but in a regular programme of ongoing tax cuts.
- We will invest in the infrastructure this country needs for productivity growth.
- 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.
- We will concentrate on equipping young New Zealanders with the education they need for a 21st century global economy.
- We will reduce the burden of compliance and bureaucracy, and we will say goodbye to the blind ideology that locks the private sector out of too many parts of our economy.
- And we will do all of this while improving the public services that Kiwis have a right to expect. “
.
In 2010…
.
“90-Day Trial Period extended to all employers
The 90-day trial period is to be extended to enable all employers and new employees to have the chance to benefit from it, says Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson.
The extension is among planned changes to the Employment Relations Act 2000 that Prime Minister John Key announced today in a speech to the National Party Conference.
“The Government is focused on growing a stronger economy and creating more jobs for New Zealand families.”
“There are a lot of people looking for work and the changes announced today will help boost employer confidence and encourage them to take on more staff….”
… “Trial periods were introduced to encourage employers to take on new staff and I’m pleased to see this is occurring”.”
- Kate Wilkinson, Minister of Labour, 18 July, 2010
.
In 2012…
.
Household Labour Force Survey: June 2012 quarter
Unemployment: 162,000 (6.8%)
.
“New youth pay rates kicking in
The Government will re-introduce a a youth pay rate which will see 16-to-19-year-olds making a minimum $10.80 per hour.
The new pay rate, to be called the ‘starting-out wage’, will not be compulsory but 40,000 teens will be eligible.
It will kicks in on April 1 next year and the Government estimates it will create up to 2000 youth jobs in the first two years.
The starting-out wage will be set at 80 per cent of the adult minimum wage, which is currently $13.50 per hour.
It will apply for six months after starting with a new employer. The move was National Party policy ahead of the election last November.”
.
The above facts and stats tell a grim story.
The prologue to this story are the high expectations which John Key presented to the people of New Zealand in 2007 and 2008.
In 2007, Key spoke of “opportunity, and hope, and how we can bring these to some of the most struggling families and communities in New Zealand “.
In 2008, Key pledged that “we will be unrelenting in our quest to lift our economic growth rate and raise wage rates.“
Four years later;
- unemployment is on the rise again,
- the 90 Trial Employment Period has failed to generate new jobs,
- National’s promise of 170,000 new jobs – made at the election last year – has failed to kick-start,
- the exodus to Australia is increasing, with a net loss of almost 40,000 people over the past year,
- thousands of redundancies have added to our unemployment
National’s latest ‘offering’? To cut the minimum wage for 16 to 19 year olds.
The logic of this policy – planned to start on 1 April 2013 – defies comprehension. In fact, the only way it can be understood is that National is utterly desperate.
New employment figures are due out on 4 November from Statistics NZ, and this blogger predicts that unemployment will rise from 6.8% (currently) to 6.9% or even 7%.
Quite simply, none of National’s policies have worked.
Even Key’s promise to raise wages has been an abject failure, sending thousands of kiwis to Australia and further afield, in search of jobs.
National’s plan to cut the wages of young New Zealanders is similar to their cynical ploy to depict welfare beneficiaries as lazy, drug-users, criminals, etc.
Instead, they are targetting 16 and 17 year olds – who have no vote – and have no voice in Parliament.
And they are targetting 18 and 19 year olds – who are adult enough to drink, get married, and go to fight in wars overseas – but will not be paid an adult’s wage.
National claims that the new youth rates will create 2,000 new jobs. Aside from mocking this figure as a gigantic step down from the 170,000 “new jobs” promised last year – it is more likely that those 2,000 jobs will simply displace older workers.
In doing so, the employment of young people on lower pay will simply mean,
- Less money spent by young people on services and consumer goods,
- Young people unable to support themselves fully
- A new motivation to send more New Zealanders overseas
- New Zealand becoming a low wage economy of the South Pacific
How can a young New Zealander survive on $432 a week – less tax?!
It wasn’t too long ago that Bill English admitted on TVNZ’s Q+A, on 6 November 2011, that it was almost impossible to live on the full minimum wage ($13.50/hr),
“GUYON: Okay, can we move backwards in people’s working lives from retirement to work and to wages? Mr English, is $13 an hour enough to live on?
BILL: People can live on that for a short time, and that’s why it’s important that they have a sense of opportunity. It’s like being on a benefit.
GUYON: What do you mean for a short time?
BILL: Well, a long time on the minimum wage is pretty damn tough, although our families get Working for Families and guaranteed family income, so families are in a reasonable position.” Source
If it’s “ pretty damn tough ” to live on $13 or $13.50 an hour – what on Earth must it be like to try to survive on $10.80 per hour?
And how does our smile & wave (and forgetful) Dear Leader reconcile slashing the minimum wage by his promises to raise wages?
Specifically, these promises,
“We will be unrelenting in our quest to lift our economic growth rate and raise wage rates.” – John Key, 29 January 2008
“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. To stem that flow so we must ensure Kiwis can receive competitive after-tax wages in New Zealand.” – John Key, 6 September 2008
“We will also continue our work to increase the incomes New Zealanders earn. That is a fundamental objective of our plan to build a stronger economy.” – John Key, 8 February 2011
“The driving goal of my Government is to build a more competitive and internationally-focused economy with less debt, more jobs and higher incomes.” – John Key, 21 December 2011
By now, more and more New Zealanders are waking up to one simple reality; National cannot lead this country to prosperity or anything remotely resembling it. Their policies for growth seem predicated on,
- cutting wages
- asset sales
- bullying and demonising beneficiaries
- planning dangerous and unsound deep-sea drilling of the East Coast of the Nth Island
- mining in conservation lands
It is the height of desperation and bloody-mindedness that National’s major policy of job-creation relies on cutting wages as some kind of “bribe” for employers.
It is the depth of stupidity that will see young people on $10.80 displacing older workers, as employers cut costs in order to maximise their profits – especially as consumer spending is dropping. (See: Electronic card spending drops in September)
It is this sense of sheer miserly selfishness that resulted in,
- tax cuts in 2009 and 2010 which benefitted the richest in this country
- abolishing tax credits for children, so they were now taxed on their megre earnings from jobs such as paper-delivery
Is this, then, an act of desperation from John Key and his inept “government”?
You better believe it is. And things are about to get a whole lot worse as National turns this country into a low-wage economy, making us the ‘Mexico’ of the South Pacific.
My message to New Zealand is two-fold;
1.
Voters: if you want more of this incompetant government that takes money from our young people, whilst cutting taxes for the richest – vote National.
For those foolish people who vote National: enjoy your life here in New Zealand. Do not follow us to Australia.
2.
Labour Party: pull your finger out. It is high time you started firing on all cylinders and presented this country with an alternative vision and road.
Now’s good.
.
.
*
.
Additional
Radio NZ: Listen to report on Checkpoint
Radio NZ: Listen to Checkpoint interview with Phil O’Reilly (Business NZ)
Radio NZ: Listen to Peter Conway on Checkpoint (CTU)
Radio NZ: New teenage workers’ pay rate set
Fairfax media: New youth pay rates kicking in
Fairfax media: Division over ‘starter’ wage
Other Blogs
The Jackal: National determined to increase exodus
No Right Turn: The return of youth rates
.
.
= 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 =
Ministers, Mad Moralists, and Minor Parties
.
.
A previous moral hysteria surrounding welfare beneficiaries and especially solo mums (but never solo dads) took place back in August 2009, when Paula Bennett released the files of two solo-mothers who had dared to criticise the Minister for closing down the Training Incentive Allowance.
Despite having no authorisation or right to do so, Bennett released details of the women’s WINZ files to the media and three years later there is still an outstanding complaint against her. It was a nasty, vindictive abuse of Ministerial power not seen since the autocratic rule of Robert Muldoon.
Attacks on solo mums reached a hysterical crescendo that could only be described as naked misogyny – especially from a sector of the male population that has never had much success in relating to women. There were vile comments on many internet fora that cannot be repeated in polite company.
Fast forward to April 2012, and National is facing so much bad news that the media and bloggers are finding it difficult to choose what to hone in on. Just to remind us about some of the problems confronting National,
- Youth unemployment up from 58,000 last year to 87,000 this year
- Total unemployment up to 160,000 – 6.7% of the workforce
- The government tax-take is down by $1.57 billion in the first nine months of the fiscal year
- Government deficit increases to $6.13 billion, or $800 million more than forecast
- Migration to Australia is increasing, with a net loss of 39,100 to the year ending February 2012
- Wages continue to lag behind Australia
- New Zealand’s sovereign debt is at a massive $13.5 billion dollars
- Student debt is at a record $13 billion – and rising
- Widening wealth/income gap
- Increasing child poverty and poverty-related disease on a massive scale
- Increased repayments demanded from tertiary students – effectively a tax increase
- Ongoing public resistance to state asset sales
- Ongoing public resistance to selling productive farmland to overseas investors
- Ongoing public resistance to mining in conservation lands
- A growing public disquiet over a hydrocarbon-extraction process known as “fracking”
- Selling legislation for a convention centre and 500 extra pokies
- Ministers involved in scandal after scandal
- Key’s ‘teflon coating’ now practically non-existent, and developing a reputation for not being upfront with the public
- A coalition partner whose brand is now so toxic that even right wingers are singing it’s funeral dirges
- and numerous other negative indicators
Time for the government Spin Doctors to swing into action, and deflect attention from National’s apalling track record thus far.
Time to dust of the Manual for Deflection, and flick through to the chapter on blaming solo mums (but never solo dads) for the ills of the country; the Black Plague in the Middle Ages; both World Wars; and most likely the sinking of the Titanic.
Time for John Key to point at some young woman pushing a pram, and shout – “Hey! Look over there!”
It worked in 2009.
See: Benefits of 50 to be scrutinised
Why not try it again, wonder National’s faceless, taxpayer-funded spin-doctors and strategists, to deflect public attention from scandals and poor management of the economy?
See: Bennett increases pursuit of welfare ‘rorts’
See: Drug tests for more beneficiaries mooted
See: New welfare law a ‘war on poor’
See: Big families mean big welfare dollars
New Zealanders (in general) are suckers for this kind of Deflect & Demonise Strategy.
It’s what National does, when their economic policies fail; they blame it on the poor; the unemployed; widows; solo-mums (but never solo-dads), etc. It’s what the right wing do, blaming their failed policies on others. Because as we all know, right wingers are Big on Personal Responsibility… (Except for themselves.)
It happened in the 1990s. It’s repeating again.
.
.
It’s pretty much a given that the ACT is now living on borrowed time, and will end up in the political rubbish bin of history. It was never popular with mainstream New Zealand in the first place – New Zealanders having had a bitter taste of it’s ideology in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s.
Events over the last couple of years; last twelve months; and last few weeks, a cascade of scandals and dirty dealings have left the public wondering if lunatics had, indeed, taken over the asylum called ACT. For a Party that advocated the purity of market-driven efficiency, it was prone to one bizarre gaffe after another. They couldn’t even update their own website several months after last year’s elections.
So ACT will be gone after the next election.
The result has been media, pundit, and public speculation of a new potential Coalition partner for National. There has been recent speculation in the last week or so that Colin Craig’s Conservative Party might make a suitable candidate to shore up National’s numbers in the House.
I doubt that.
For one thing, does National really want a new coalition partner that appears to be every bit as flaky as ACT?
.
.
“We are the country with the most promiscuous young women in the world. This does nothing to help us at all.”
Riiiiight.
Obviously Mr Craig has, um, “researched” this issue in some depth?! Did he go “undercover“, I wonder? And did he go “one-on-one“ with his “subjects“?
On this rare occassion, I find myself in sympathy with the Smiling One,
“… Colin Craig, had suggested New Zealand women were the most promiscuous in the world and therefore should not get taxpayer funded contraception.
Key resisted taking the Lord’s name in van and rolling his eyes.
But he did say “it’s going to be a long two and a half years.”
See: John Key’s problem with partners
Indeed. If the government lasts full term. Which I doubt.
National has a problem in this area. It has no viable coalition partner, and is unlikely to find one in the foreseeable future.
Part of that reality is based on MMP and how it has affected Labour and National.
After MMP was introduced in 1996, Labour splintered into it’s constituent factions; the centrist ‘rump’ Labour Party; the environmentalist/social justice Green Party; the overtly left-wing, worker’s, Newlabour Party ; and the nationalist Maori party, Mana Motuhake. (The Greens, Mana Motuhake, and NLP briefly coalesced into the Alliance Party, along with the Social Credit/Democrat Party and short-lived Liberal Party.)
The Greens, Mana Motuhake, and NLP, had been part of the factional make-up of Labour. MMP simply separated out it’s componants like a laboratory centrifuge. So when coalition talks took place, to form a Labour-led Coalition Government, those same factions simply re-morphed.
Before anyone complains that MMP has created a “mess” – not true. These factions had always existed in Labour, and had constantly ‘jockeyed’ for influence within the greater ‘umbrella’ Labour banner.
Under MMP, these factions and negotiations were simply forced out into the open, for everyone to see. The same had been happening under First Past the Post, but behind closed doors. This was internal party politics exposed to the glare of sunlight and public scrutiny.
National, on the other hand, did not fractionate in such a similar, dramatic, manner. It lost two MPs to the New Zealand Liberal Party (in 1992), Conservative Party (formerly Right-Of-Centre Party), and one to the Christian Democrats. None of those fledgling parties survived the grueling electoral process and quickly vanished into political history.
A third party, New Zealand First, had splintered from National earlier, and like Mana Motuhake became a nationalist party, but mainly from a pakeha perspective.
ACT was another party on the right, and appeared to draw support from both National and, to a lesser degree, Labour. It remained a small grouping, peaking in 1999 with nine MPs – largely at the expense of it’s larger right wing cousin, National.
It’s not that National doesn’t have potential coalition partners. On the whole, National remains intact; a solid bloc of the centre-right. It’s potential coalition partners are already a part of National.
National’s only hope of picking up an extra seat or two is to rort the MMP one-seat threshold system, as it did by supporting John Banks in Epsom (with success now mixed with regret, no doubt). It could give a ‘nod and wink‘ to Colin Craig in the Rodney seat, and if he won that electorate, and if Craig’s Conservative Party polled the same as it did last year (2.65%), then it would gain four seats in total.
That might give National a chance at winning the next election.
But at what cost?
- It would be seen to be once again manipulating the electoral system. The Epsom deal did not end well for National – do they really want to go down that road again?
- The Conservatives are opposed to asset sales – so that policy would be off the agenda.
- How would urban liberal voters view a coalition with a party such as the Conservatives? New Zealanders have always been averse to electing overtly religious parties to Parliament (eg; Christian Heritage, Christian Coalition, Destiny New Zealand) and when some of United Future’s MPs were revealed as having a strong religious bent, they were pretty smartly voted out.
- And would National want a flaky coalition partner with quasi-’Christian’ overtones, and who seemed to view New Zealand women in a casual Talibanesque-sort of way? How would National’s women MPs feel sitting alongside Colin Craig, knowing that he viewed them as the ” most promiscuous… women in the world “?
Craig’s Conservative Party may have a better chance to win seats in Parliament if the Electoral Commission’s review on MMP decides to recommend to Parliament that the Party Vote threshold be reduced from %5 to 4%. Of course, the Commission can only recommend to Parliament, and any decision to reduce the Party Vote threshold will ultimately be up to the National-ACT-Dunne Coalition.
I suspect the Nats will adopt the 4% recommendation. Not because it’s fair (get a grip!), but because anything that assists ACT or the Conservative Party gain seats in Parliament will be welcomed with open arms by the Nats. Self interest rules.
The Greens’ submission to the Electoral Commission supported abolishing the Electoral Seat threshold as inherently unfair, and promote reducing the Party Vote threshold from 5% to 4% to compensate for smaller Parties such as NZ First, ACT, etc.
See: Green Party submission on the MMP Review
Likewise, this blogger suspects that National will probably reject any recommendation to abandon the Electoral-Seat threshold. (The Electoral Seat threshold is where Party X does not cross the current 5% Party Vote threshold, but if one of their candidates wins an electoral seat, they get an exemption from the 5% threshold, and gain as many MPs as their Party Vote allows.)
This may be National’s one and only “electoral lifeline”, as ACT heads for the political guillotine – especially after John Banks’ incredible performance over his fraudulent 2010 Electoral Donations fiasco.
See: John Banks – escaping justice
However, since Craig’s comment nearly three months ago, he has moved on from denigrating women, to gays and lesbians. His latest comment is indicative of a man who has little tolerance for matters outside his narrow worldview, when on 27 July he ‘tweeted’,
“It’s just not intelligent to pretend that homosexual relationships are normal.”
See: Conservative leader says gay marriage ‘not right’
It take a spectacular degree of arrogance to decide that another consenting adult’s relationship is “not normal”.
This blogger feels it only appropriate that Mr Craig’s marriage to his wife should be put under the microscope.
It has been said often enough that those who vociferously oppose homosexuality (especially in males) often have a measure of sexual insecurity themselves. For many men, condemning and reviling homosexuality has been an attempt to reaffirm their own heterosexuality by “proving their straightness” to themselves.
Perhaps, in this instance, Mr Craig may have something he wishes to get of his manly chest,
” He was so sure that homosexuality was a choice, he bet his own sexuality on it.
“Do you think you could choose to be gay if that is the case?,” he was asked.
“Sure. Sure I could,” he responded.
“You could choose to be gay?,” he was asked again.
“Yea, if I wanted to,’ he replied. “
See: Colin Craig: ‘Gay parents not good role models’
Anything you want to share with us, Mr Craig? Don’t worry, we’re all consenting adults here…
Why are all small right wing parties loony-tunes?
Is this the sort of political party that National wants to cosy up to?
And more important – would a possible coalition with a bunch of religious homophobes and misogynists really endear National’s voting-base to keep supporting the Nats?
Happy times for Dear Leader, John Key.
.
.
National does have another potential coalition partner – the New Zealand First Party. Though their first attempt at coalition (in 1996) ended very badly for Winston Peters, that could be explained as “growing pains” after our very first MMP election. I doubt if any small Party would ever repeat such horrendous mistakes again.
But in coalescing with NZ First, National would have to abandon much of it’s right wing, neo-liberal agenda. State asset sales would be gone by lunchtime. The sale of farmland to overseas investors would be restricted (if Peters is to be taken at his word). And the edge might be taken of other policies favoured by National.
On the other hand, NZ First had been punished previously for coalescing with National. As well, NZ First has an active youth-wing that might not appreciate ‘sleeping with the enemy’.
Working with Winston Peters would be one very big rat for John Key to swallow. Considering how adamant he was back in 2008,
“Mr Peters will be unacceptable as a Minister in a government led by me unless he can provide a credible explanation.“
See: Peters unacceptable in a National-led Government
And just last year,
“I don’t see a place for a Winston Peters-led New Zealand First in a government that I lead.”
See: PM rules out any NZ First deal
“If Winston Peters holds the balance of power, it will be a Phil Goff-led government.”
See: Key names election date, rules out Winston Peters
Sealing a coalition deal with someone he has categorically ruled out in the past would damage Key’s credibility even further. Our Dear Leader is already developing something of a reputation for being “untrustworthy, dishonest, arrogant, smarmy and out of touch”.
See: ‘Polarising’ PM losing gloss
Does he want to compound that perception by backtracking on his declaration that he cannot/will not work with the NZ First leader?
So Colin Craig it is.
And yes,
“It’s going to be a long two and a half years.”
.
.
= fs =
Guest Author: David Cunliffe, Get your invisible hand off our assets
- David Cunliffe, MP for New Lynn, Labour Economic Development Spokesperson
.
.
David Cunliffe
Introduction
You know that at the last election, the one that we lost so badly, nearly 1 million people didn’t vote. Over 800,000 people: a fifth of the population didn’t vote.
Now you know, there are lots of reasons that people didn’t vote, and there were even more reasons why people didn’t vote for Labour. Let me give you just a few.
The major reason that voters didn’t vote for Labour, and sometimes didn’t vote at all, is simply that Labour failed to inspire voters that it was a credible alternative to National.
This is the first of a series of speeches on economic development. I am going to start with the basics – why the invisible hand of the market failed us and why we need a clear and distinct Labour view on economics; why you can’t cut and sell your way out of an economic hole; and what a Labour economic development plan should contain. We need to be clear about the context before we can go on the policy journey.
I want to be clear from the outset that this speech represents my own views and does not pretend to represent overall Labour policy. All policies are being reviewed in the post-election period.
The Invisible Hand
The Labour Party was traditionally a left-wing party. Before we debate the future of the Labour Party, we should define what the terms left and right-wing mean.
Left-wing generally means community ownership and or control and/or responsibility.
Right wing means individual ownership and/or control and/or responsibility. By modern standards, even the National party would have been a left-wing party until the 1990s. That’s because most New Zealanders accepted the idea that the government has not just a right, but also a duty to be there for them.
New Zealanders wisely accepted that finance companies needed regulation. New Zealanders wisely accepted that it was the government’s job to ensure that the electricity didn’t go off. They wisely accepted that it was the government’s job to ensure the children didn’t grow up in poverty, that medical care was available for people who needed it, that decent housing was available for the poor and the elderly.
However, by the 1980s, the New Zealand economic system had grown clumsy and slow. Most people agreed that it was in need of reform. That’s what most people wanted, economic reform. That is, they wanted the existing system, but they wanted it to function more smoothly, more efficiently and more fairly. They did not want it replaced with a system that simply handed over most of the wealth and power to rich people.
Yet, that’s what happened, and to our eternal shame, the Labour Party was the party that introduced many of the so-called economic reforms that have proved so disastrous.
The National Government that followed it took the experiment further; with the ‘Mother of All Budgets’ that savaged social services, more privatization and deregulation, and the odious Employment Contracts Act that set us on the path of becoming a low wage economy.
You hear the National government talking about the need to sell assets because we have so little money in this country. Do you know why we have so little money in this country? It’s because a large percentage of our economic assets are overseas-owned. For example, when the Australian-owned banks make billions in profits here (and it’s up a quarter to a third this year alone). That money isn’t returned to New Zealanders. The money goes straight back overseas.
And, as if that were not bad enough, the National government now wants to sell our other major state assets, which is simply going to mean higher prices for ordinary New Zealanders and it’s going to mean still more profits disappearing overseas. It’s madness, and you know it’s madness and most ordinary Kiwis know it’s madness.
But let’s go back a bit.
I know that most of the people in this room think of the 1970s as a period of long-haired hippies and revolution. However, beneath the events that were happening on the surface, there was a much more sinister revolution going on in the background.
While the hippies were out protesting in the streets, a professor at the University of Chicago called Milton Friedman, was selling his students the idea that taxation was evil and that businesses worked best when they were deregulated.
Does this sound familiar? It should be. The Republican Party in the US, the Conservative Party in England and the Labour Party in New Zealand enthusiastically took up Friedman’s philosophy, which is now called neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism has become such a dominant economic philosophy that it is now the only economic philosophy taught in many universities.
Friedman revived a belief in the “invisible hand” of the market. It was a fairy tale that Adam Smith had said a century earlier would automatically deliver the best of all possible economic worlds.
Of course many of the rogues who benefited from it have never believed that – they remember how they got rich. However, neo-liberalism was a convenient way of selling the idea of inequality to the masses.
Hands off our assets!
Let me repeat, none of this happened by accident. The people who were the most enthusiastic supporters of neo-liberalism were the people who stood to make the most money from it. Let me give you just one example:
In the 1980s and 1990s, merchant bankers Michael Fay and David Richwhite were advisors to government.
Michael Fay and David Richwhite recommended that the government sell the state-owned New Zealand Rail.
The government agreed and put the company up for sale. Fay and Richwhite and some partners, then purchased New Zealand Rail at a bargain price.
That’s right: Michael Fay and David Richwhite, the consultants that government hired to advise them on state asset sales, advised the government to sell New Zealand Rail, then Michael Fay and David Richwhite bought a large chunk of New Zealand Rail.
The story gets worse: Fay and Richwhite and their partners then sold many of New Zealand Rail’s most valuable assets, such as land, without improving the company as a true rail operator would.
Then, in 1995, Fay and Richwhite sold their shares in New Zealand Rail, having made hundreds of millions in profits. Because Fay and Richwhite had sold many of New Zealand Rail’s most valuable assets without investing in trains or tracks, New Zealand Rail was virtually bankrupt.
The government was then forced to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to keep the rail service operating. Does this sound crazy? It is.
This sort of madness has been repeated all over the world, and it’s always the ordinary taxpayers like you, who end up paying the bills.
Roll the clock forward to the current National Government and nothing has changed except the packaging.
They can try to soft-soap it by calling it the “mixed ownership model”. But you and I and the 10,000 other New Zealanders who marched up Queen Street yesterday to fight it – know it is still privatization.
We know why privatizing our power companies is nonsense.
Generations of Kiwis worked to build up those assets and we don’t need to be told we have to buy them all over again. That’s assuming we could afford them of course.
The fact is that when sold, they will not be state owned enterprises covered by the SOE Act at all – they will simply be companies like any other – in which the taxpayer has a much reduced shareholding.
We know they make a healthy return for the taxpayer now. In fact, over the last three years the total return was around 16% – far higher than the cost of Crown capital at around 6%.
They pay good dividends –over $300m a year for the last four years. But the Government deliberately failed to show that in the Budget documents when it banked the supposed sale proceeds well before the last election.
To complete the hypocrisy, the government is now saying the loss of dividends is so low that no sane buyer would pay the money they want without driving your power prices through the roof.
National tried to buy iwi support by saying treaty rights would be protected. I doubt this, but even if true it would mean the taxpayer bears 100% of that risk including on behalf of the new private investors.
Yet the biggest porky of them all – that the government would retain majority ownership and control. Yeah right. Not when SOEs like KiwiRail are already busy flogging off major components like Hillside Workshops. Not when SOE bosses told Parliament they are free to sell off 100% of subsidiaries.
In other words, the SOEs are like a horse. The government intends selling the horse off bit by bit, leaving the taxpayer owning nothing more than the saddle.
The fact is, this is old fashioned privatization with new spin and the same old result. The people lose. The ticket clippers win (it costs up to $300 million in banker fees to sell the shares!). And the voter is told to “eat that”.
So how do these rogues get away with it?
The answer is twofold: on one hand, the news media has been a solid supporter of neo-liberalism.
Did you know, for example, that British Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, regularly lunched with Rupert Murdoch, the far-right media boss? Tony, apparently, used to test which policies would be acceptable to Murdoch.
Thus we have a far-right media boss influencing the policies of what was supposed to be the party of the people. It’s shameful.
The second reason these rogues get away with it is because, as the Tony Blair example shows so clearly, the opposition parties, which are supposed to be the solution, too often become part of the problem.
When the right-wing party says that it’s going to cut your leg off, voters want the left-wing party to say that it’s not going to cut your leg off. Voters don’t want to be told that the left-wing party is also going to cut your leg off, but cut it off a bit lower down and give you some anesthetic.
I think that’s a major reason that nearly one million voters deserted us at the last election. It wasn’t because we failed to communicate our policies. Quite the opposite. Those voters saw that our policies – with the exception of asset sales – were mostly the same as National’s. So we can’t really be surprised at the result.
Towards a New Economy
So where to from here? Let’s be absolutely clear – New Zealand cannot cut and sell its way to National’s so-called “brighter future”.
New Zealand cannot simply milk more cows and hope that commodity prices stay up.
Nor can we pretend that mining national parks won’t destroy our precious global brand.
National has no new ideas and no credible plan. It has laundry lists of actions, many of which take us in the wrong direction.
The reason is that they still fundamentally believe that some combination of the “invisible hand” of free markets, and the “sleight of hand’ of dirty deals with casinos, dotcoms, film and media magnates, and telcos, will do the job.
The good news, if you can call it good news, is that the economic myths that drove the world into this current mess are starting to unravel. Let me quote economics writer Bernard Hickey, who regularly contributes to the New Zealand Herald:
“It’s time for me to say what I’ve been thinking for months: the economic god of completely free markets and capital flows is not worth believing in any more.
I think the Global Financial Crisis …has demonstrated the failure of the economic model most New Zealand policymakers have adhered to for nearly 3 decades.
I think we need to rethink the way we run monetary policy, the way we allow foreign ownership of assets, the way we encourage savings, the way our financial institutions are regulated and [to] change the things we are aiming for.”
All around the world, this realization is sinking in: the unregulated marketplace has been a disaster, and the costs have always been borne by ordinary people.
Europe’s current economic crisis was caused by bankers who loaned money on riskier and riskier ventures until the whole structure collapsed.
Were those bankers jailed and their assets seized? Of course not. Instead of the bankers paying the bills for their reckless speculation, the ordinary taxpayers are being screwed, left, right and centre.
And you know what? Despite all the promises that the European economic austerity measures would turn this tragic situation around, the opposite is occurring.
Austerity economics does not work. It did not work in the Great Depression of the 1930s and it will not work in the Great Recession of the current decade.
When you start closing down your government services and firing your workers, those people have no money to spend. Because they have no money to spend, the local businesses suffer. So they start firing staff. And so the economy goes into deep recession, with no easy way out.
Am I the only one who thinks this is complete lunacy?
You know, these problems that we face today stem from a lack of appropriate regulation or a lack of enforcement of existing regulations.
The global financial crisis was caused by unregulated banking. Leaky building syndrome was caused by deregulating the building industry. The Pike River mining disaster has raised numerous questions about deregulation of the mining industry. Does anyone still seriously believe that big business can be safely left to regulate itself?
Yet, regulation has become a dirty word.
Do I favour regulating the lives of ordinary New Zealanders? Certainly not: I have great faith in ordinary New Zealanders.
Do I favour supporting positive businesses? You’re damned right I do. Businesses help create jobs and economic growth. I want to see a future Labour government get stuck in and do more to help the economy grow.
Do I support all businesses? No way. Businesses that let workers die unnecessarily, or abuse and exploit their workers, or steal from old people: all these business need a strong, legal response from the state.
All this requires regulation, and it’s there to protect ordinary people from becoming victims of greed.
Labour is strong on encouraging positive business and positive economic growth. And Labour is also about legislating to control negative businesses and their effects on our people and our environment.
Caught between a naïve belief in free markets and direct pressure from vested interests, National is unwilling to confront the downsides of unregulated markets.
Fortunately we’re not. And an increasing number of journalists and politicians are saying what ordinary people already know: that the economic policies of the last 30 years have mostly been an unmitigated disaster.
But you’d never know this if you listened to John Key. Like a quack doctor whose cure has failed, his response is to double the dose until the patient is dead.
Sorry, John, but let me quote Sir Winston Churchill:
“The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.”
No matter how many politicians and economists still defend the economic policies that led us into this mess, the truth is steadily showing itself.
You know, there’s not much difference between a Wellington school teacher struggling to find an affordable home and a Northland freezing worker who’s just lost his job. Whether we earn our living by our hands or by our words, we’re all working people, whose lives have grown harder and whose world has grown steadily darker. We’re all in this together.
We all resent those who squander our tax dollars by helping out large corporations, while we struggle to pay our mortgages. We all resent those who seek to sell the very state assets that help keep us afloat. We all resent those who claim to represent us in Parliament, but who really represent the rich and the powerful, at our expense
Instead of National’s failed economic model, we need a simple, credible economic development plan that serves the interests of all New Zealanders.
One that keeps more of what we earn here in the country we love.
Conclusion
I believe the Labour Party is now uniquely positioned to take up the reins when this current government’s policies collapse under their own weight.
Labour has a new leader with strong values, who’s focused on reconnecting with the voters and has the courage to stand up to bullies. It’s up to us, as a Party, to share with our leader, our hopes, our fears and our dreams, to reconstruct the Party from within, to reclaim our natural constituency of decent, ordinary New Zealanders who believe in fairness and hard work.
Now it’s up to us to turn this around: a hard task, but not an impossible one.
When Labour proposed a nuclear-free policy, it was seen as an impossible dream. Yet nearly thirty years’ later, this dream is a solid reality, and it’s helped protect us from the sort of nuclear disaster that Japan has just endured.
The New Zealand Labour Party faced enormous pressure, from inside and outside New Zealand, to back down and change its anti-nuclear policy.
But we didn’t. And we don’t have to back away from creating policies that can turn us away from the economic insanity of the last three decades. New Zealanders are decent, fair-minded, hard-working people. We want a government that reflects our own uniquely Kiwi values.
It’s going to be hard, but we’re not afraid of hard work. With your help, and the help of the people of New Zealand, we can win the next election.
We can move forward to a future that rewards hard work and stops rewarding dishonesty. That gives the poorest of our citizens the chance to a decent life. That gives us all a chance to live in a nation that was once called ‘God’s own country.”
We can become God’s own country again. Thank you.
.
*
.
Acknowledgement
Speech by David Cunliffe, MP for New Lynn, given to the New Lynn Women’s’ Branch, New Zealand Labour Party, 29 April 2012. Reprinted with permission.
.
.
= fs =
Oh dear, is it that time again?
A blogpost in four images…
.
#1
.
.
#2
.
.
#3
.
.
#4
.
.
And a short story…
.
Once upon a time, Farmer Joe Bloggs contracted a company to work on his farm. He needed his fields ploughed; a barn painted; several dozen stray sheep to be rounded up; and fences repaired.
The company, ‘Labour R Us Inc‘ turned up on Monday morning and Farmer Bloggs explained what needed to be done.
The foreman agreed to start work immediatly and discussed the tasks with his team. Very soon, the team began to disagree on which task should be done first.
One worker wanted the hardest task to be done first, to get the big job out of the way.
Another worker wanted the team split up to start on all the jobs simultaneously.
A third worker suggested starting on the hardest and easiest job, splitting the team accordingly.
Two other workers wanted a new foreman.
And others agreed, disagreed, or had their own ideas on how to carry out the allocated tasks. Very soon, they were arguing so loudly that Farmer Bloggs looked out the window and saw that no work was being done, and much time was being wasted.
Very unhappy, Farmer Bloggs, picked up his phone and rang the next company in the phone book,
“Hello, is that ‘Green Fingers Inc’? I’d like you to do some work for me.”
As ‘Labour R Us Inc‘ continued arguing between themselves, the second company arrived; pulled out their tools; and set to working.
Moral of the Story? Focus on what needs to be done and argue later, in your own time. Under MMP, you’re not the only show in town.
.
.
= 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).
.
.
The loneliness of Phil Goff
- Gem
.
As a Labour party member, the sadness I feel today is tinged with a sense of resignation. John Key is the coolest, untouchable kid in the unforgiving social strata of high school. Anyone who remembers such cliques will understand feeling hopeless and powerless to change playground politics, let alone our country’s politics at a time when brand Key is pervasively popular. In the interest of gracious defeat, let me congratulate Key and National on their conquest.
Last night wasn’t entirely gloomy. New Zealand First’s gallop to 6.8% was like the class nerd scoring with the hottest girl in school. That Winston Peters and his crew triumphed in spite of concerted media efforts by Duncan Garner, Guyon Espiner, John Campbell, Paul Holmes et al to sideline them makes the victory stunning and sweet.
Another highlight of last night was seeing the New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) interpreter working at the Green party’s celebration. It is progressive and heartening to see a political party actively promoting the validity and importance of NZSL, an official language of this country.
Phil Goff – I implore you not to resign, yet I sense the inevitability of you doing so.
In a hostile, biased media environment, populated by media personnel who are reduced to slobbering stupidity in Key’s presence, you never stood a chance. You knew this, so you presumably thought, “What the hell” and you campaigned hard. You’re not a firebrand. What you are is steady, methodical and quietly determined. You have integrity.
Even while your treacherous colleagues sharpened their knives, you persisted.
While the media fawned over Key’s confident, solo fronting of National’s campaign, yet double standardly cast you in the desolate role of man alone, you trundled along.
Last night, your concession speech was gracious and moving. The journalists who lambasted you with cruel, needling questions as soon as you were off the stage should be ashamed. They wouldn’t let you have even a few minutes of dignity. Someone’s concession speech, like yours this time, Helen Clark’s in 2008, or Bill English’s back in 2002, is not a moment for gloating. It is a time to put political allegiances aside and to respect a fellow human’s intrinsic humanity and dignity, to recognise how hard it is to admit that efforts, based on someone’s strongest convictions, have simply not been enough.
Shame on our hectoring, salivating, unseemly media. Shame on your grasping, backstabbing colleagues.
If you resign, I fear that the Labour will scrabble around for another three years with a new leader who the media will maltreat in the same way that they have abused you, out of dribbling sycophancy to Key. No one else could withstand this abuse. That you have come this far speaks volumes about your durability and tenacity. If you leave, Labour will try to reconfigure but will end up in a confused, unpopular scramble of egos and treachery.
Please stay. You did experience a victory of sorts last night, despite being defeated – you came into your own and shook off the ghosts of the past.
If you resign, I will resign my membership of Labour. Suddenly, New Zealand First is looking good.
.
Acknowledgement
.
.
Labour on farm sales – NOT good enough!
.
.
Labour has stated that,
“A Labour government would ensure sales were declined unless potential foreign buyers of farm or forestry land also invested in new processing or other related jobs. ” Source
Sorry, Mr Goff, but that is totally unacceptable and is merely ‘tinkering’ with the problem.
The sale (or leasing) of our productive farmland means that we lose profits to overseas investors. It means that a foreign owned farm will (a) export their produce (b) make a profit (c) remit much of that profit back to overseas investors, who look for returns on their investment.
It means that New Zealand farmland is priced out of reach of our own people, who cannot hope to compete with Americans, Germans, Chinese, etc. The purchase of the Crafar farms by Shanghai Pengxin’s over a Michael Fay-led local consortium should ring alarm bells in our heads. (More here)
Labour needs to lift it’s game on this issue.
There has to be a total ban on the sale/lease of farmland to anyone who is not a New Zealand citizen. Anything less will ultimately undermine our long term prospects for wealth-generation and prosperity.
We would end up tenants in our own country.
.
.
