Archive
Budget 2013: State Housing and the War on Poor
.
.
Housing NZ Current waiting list
As at 30 April 2013 there were 4,568 people on the waiting list. Of this:
-
1,172 were Priority Eligible – A
-
2,207 were Priority Eligible – B
-
728 were C (assessed before 30 June 2011)
-
461 were D (assessed before 30 June 2011)
Acknowledgment: Housing NZ – Waiting list
Some facts;
- As at 30 April this year, Housing NZ had 3,379 people on it’s Category A and B waiting lists (Categories C and D are so low priority that their chances of getting into a state house are next to nil). (see: IBID)
- According to Housing NZ, they had 69,400 properties in the 2011/12 financial year (see: HNZ -Addressing housing demand). This has probably reduced significantly as many rental properties – such as in Pomare, Lower Hutt – were demolished in June 2011 (see: Pomare housing demolition begins).
- Child poverty in New Zealand has increased;
In 2006/07 230,000, or 22 percent, of New Zealand children were still living in poverty. That is, in households with incomes below the 60 percent median income poverty line, after taking housing costs into account. This is more than the entire population of North Shore City (205,605) or the Manawatu-Wanganui region (222,423) and means one adult and one child were living on $430 a week before housing costs. (see: Brief Statistics on Child Poverty in New Zealand 2004-2008)By 2011/12, approximately 270,000, or 25%, of New Zealand children were living in poverty. (see: Solutions to Child Poverty) - A recent UNICEF report placed New Zealand amongst the worst in developed countries for child wellbeing, ranking us 25th out of 34 developed countries. We are now behind Australia and Britain also for homicide rates, child health, and safety. (See: NZ ranked poorly on child welfare)
In the past, one of the principle means by which New Zealand has attempted to ameliorate the destructive effects of poverty is for the provision of State housing, where tenants pay 25% of their household’s net income (See: HNZ -Income-related rent)
For thousand of low-income New Zealanders, this has meant the difference between this,
.
Acknowledgment: NZ History Online – Inside a state house
.
Or this,
.
.
Unfortunately, too many New Zealanders have a narrow view of life and society in general, and cannot accept that in a civilised society there is a dire need for the State to provide housing for those who cannot manage, or, have fallen on hard times – especially during the Global Financial Crisis. But that need exists, and it is the price we pay for living in a decent society where beggars do not line the streets.
Even those who grudingly admit that social housing is a necessity still hold to the belief that State housing is for “short term emergencies”, and not for any longer period.
This writer thoroughly disagrees and disputes that notion.
The principle of housing is not just to provide a roof over people’s heads and give them warm shelter from cold and rain.
Social housing – as the name ‘social‘ implies – is where those on the lower socio-economic scale (ie, the poor) can create communities; offer mutual support; perhaps grow food for themselves in their backyards; and where children can put down roots and attend their local school on a steady, uninterupted basis.
The last thing we need now is those on low incomes (or vulnerable in other ways) being evicted from their state homes and forced into a life of transience – or trapped in high-cost rental accomodation, leaving little aside for food, medicines, clothing, etc.
This is precisely what National appears to be planning;
.
Acknowledgment: State tenants face ‘high need’ review
.
National’s 2013 Budget proposes;
Reviews of state housing tenants will be phased in from next year. Housing New Zealand estimates the reviews will lead to 1000 tenants moving out of state houses in 2015-16 and a further 2000 in 2016-17. About 10,000 tenants are already subject to reviews, if they signed an agreement after July 2011.
Assessment for housing will also be carried out by the Ministry of Social Development and integrated with other services.
Acknowledgment: IBID
Bill English described it with words that belied the misery that such a policy could create,
“It can become a trap for those whose circumstances could improve. We want to ensure people are in the most appropriate houses for them.
We will be looking at when tenants’ circumstances change and when they no longer have higher needs and will help to move them into other housing.”
Acknowledgment: Budget 2013: All state house tenancies to be reviewed
Only a Tory who has never know deprivation, hunger, and hopelessness could call a decent chance for a warm home as a “trap”.
It’s the same weasel words that National uses for welfare payments that can put food in unemployed person’s belly.
It’s not a “trap” – it’s a lifeline for survival.
English refers to “moving tenants into other housing“.
What housing? There is a critical shortage of low-cost rental housing in this country.
Moving a tenant on a low or fixed income into a $300-$400/week rental will achieve nothing except push the poor further into poverty.
It will also inevitably increase transience, as tenants fall behind in market rents and have to move on a regular basis. This uproots children from their school.
And it eventually leads to shocking incidents like this;
.
Acknowledgment: CYF lost track of neglected children
.
Welfare minister, Paula Bennett acknowledged the obvious,
“Because of the family’s transience, living in a number of regions, I am unable to give detailed information and an actual number [of social worker visits] at this time.
What I can say is there has been previous Child, Youth and Family involvement and notifications over many years, but Child, Youth and Family was unaware that they were at that [Lower Hutt] residence until January 4, when the police were involved.”
Acknowledgment: IBID
So, let’s be clear about this: forcing low income people from their homes is a pointless excercise in futility that achieves nothing except exacerbate poverty.
It creates unnecessary stress in already stressed families.
We will see ghastly consequences of families pushed further into poverty and unable to cope with financial pressures.
And, as usual, it will be the children who suffer the most.
All for what? What possible purpose or benefit is there in pushing people out of their homes and out of their local community?
Remember the stats above?
As at 30 April 2013 there were 4,568 people on the waiting list. Of this:
-
1,172 were Priority Eligible – A
-
2,207 were Priority Eligible – B
National has never been a Party to promote socially proactive programmes. At best they tolerate what Labour governments have built up over decades (like social housing).
The waiting list – 3,379 people on it’s Category A and B waiting lists – is obviously an embarressment to National ministers.
But instead of building an extra 3,400 houses or flats (which is doable), National has tackled the waiting list in a novel way; displace existing tenants into private accomodation, and re-tenant with those 3,379 in Caregories A and B.
It is a cynical manipulation of people’s lives so National ministers can, at next year’s election, claim that they have “eliminated” the state housing waiting list.
A “revolving door” of poor tenants is National’s cunning plan to solve the state housing shortage.
In the meantime, we will see more and more stories like this in our media,
The parents, a 25-year-old man and a 23-year-old woman, have pleaded guilty to failing to provide medical care, food and nutrition to the children, aged 4, 3, 2, and 7 months.
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said in Parliament yesterday that her staff had been aware of the family for many years, but the agency lost track of them when they moved from Whanganui towards the end of last year.
Acknowledgment: CYF lost track of neglected children
A Message to John Key & other National clowns
In an op-ed piece in the Dominion Post on 17 May, former-Labour President, Mike Williams wrote that National policies – especially relating to poverty and housing – would hand “the Labour Party a golden opportunity to win the general election next year“. (see Budget: Stirring state house voters)
Williams further stated,
Budget 2013 gives a very large group who don’t turn out to vote on a regular basis a very good reason to cast their ballots next year. These are state house tenants.
What we all know is that there are just under 70,000 state rental houses in this country. What Labour discovered in 2004 was that there are between three and four enrolled voters per household and that a large majority of these potential electors do not bother to cast a ballot on a regular basis.
The threat to state house tenants planned for election year by National is a gift to Labour in a tight contest. Nearly everyone in a state house will have their tenancy reviewed and 10 per cent of these people will be moved on. That nice Mr Key has grown teeth.
On September 17, 2005, Don Brash was denied victory at the last moment by increased participation in South and West Auckland, north Wellington and east Christchurch – just where you find lots of state houses.
Acknowledgment: IBID
A bit of simple arithmetic: nearly 70,000 state homes times three or four enrolled voters per household equals 210,000 voters (conservative estimate).
Considering that the 2011 election yielded the following voting results,
National: 1,058,638
Labour: 614,936
Greens: 247,370
Add 200,000 votes to Labour and the Greens – and National will be out of office. And Key is out of a job.
Make no mistake, Mr Key; Labour, the Greens, and Mana will work in concert to target every single state house and flat at the next election. Every person will be made aware of National’s intentions. Every single state house tenant will be warned that their continuing tenancy will depend on National being voted out of office.
National has just made 200,000 new enemies.
Nicely done, Mr English – a political suicide note dressed up as a “budget”.
.
*
.
References
Fairfax Media: Parents accused of neglecting kids (11 Jan 2013)
Fairfax Media: Neglected kids back home in days (15 May 2013)
Fairfax Media: CYF lost track of neglected children (16 May 2013)
NZ Herald: Budget 2013: All state house tenancies to be reviewed (16 May 2013)
Dominion Post: State tenants face ‘high need’ review (17 May 2013)
Dominion Post: Budget: Stirring state house voters (17 May 2013)
Additional
Previous related blogposts
.
.
= fs =
National on Child Poverty?!
.
Acknowledgment: Dominion Post – Poverty among Budget targets
.
At first glance, it appears that National has recognised that a crisis exists in our country; a crisis involving 275,000 children living in poverty.
Without doubt, this problem (I refuse to call it an “issue”) hit the public’s collective consciousness on 22 November 2011, when Bryan Bruce’s sobering documentary,”Inside Child Poverty” hit our television screens (see: Strong reaction to damning TV child poverty doco).
Since then, the problem has become a major concern concern throughout the country.
More and more organisations, schools, political groups, etc, are adding their voice to a growing clamour for action. Most New Zealanders – those with eyes to see; ears to listen; and a mind to understand – want action. They want kids fed, so that they can attend their schools and learn and get a decent chance at life.
This is what Bryan Bruce, the documentary-maker of Inside Child Poverty wrote on his Facebook page;
.
OK, let’s get some things straight about providing free healthy meals in schools.
1. First of all let’s decide on the principle before arguing about the detail.
Let’s admit there is a significant problem of children turning up to school hungry and that a lot of kids are eating low cost foods that contain a lot of sugar and fat , causing obesity , diabetes and long term health problems.
And at least get the Feed The Kids Bill to Parliamentary Select Committee. You can argue all you want about how it should be funded or what’s going to be on the menu there.
If you don’t think we have a community responsibility to feed children and/or educate their palates to healthy eating habits – then read no further it will only make you angry.
2. It doesn’t fill a hungry kids tummy to point at their parents and shout “Your problem is you have bad parents”. This page takes the view that kids don’t get to choose their parents and we have a community responsibility to ALL our kids to make sure they grow up healthy. And if that means feeding them for free- then that’s what we do.
3. No one is going to force feed any child food they don’t want to eat or is culturally inappropriate. If you watch the video below which I filmed in Sweden for the documentary you will see children from multi -cultural backgrounds CHOOSING their food. And Yes children with allergies are catered for and Yes children can still bring their own lunch prepared by the parents .
4.Free healthy school meals can be paid for without raising taxes. We just choose to re-distribute the existing pool of tax payer money and give up on some other things. Here are some suggestions, I’m sure you can think of other ways we could spend smarter.
(a) We could fund school meals out of the Health vote rather than the Education vote. In a document released under the Official Information Act I revealed that children under 14 receive 10% of the money set aside for health care. But children under 14 represent 20% of our population. So we could fund some of it – if not all of it – by giving kids their fair share.
(b )It is a well accepted health statistic that for every $1 we spend on preventing disease we save $4 in expensive hospital cure. So within a few years the scheme will fund itself out of what we save. If we DON’T do it, taxpayers will be spending much more than they are now on the Health budget in the future.
(c) We could make children a spending priority. National plans to spend a billion a year on Roads of National Significance over the next 10 years. What about Children? – aren’t they of National Signifcance? I’d much rather feed our kids than be able to by – pass small towns while driving to Auckland .
(d) We could pay the pension to people when they actually stop working and not just because they reach 65.
(e) We could spend more energy making sure people paid their taxes . Last year the IRD detected about a Billion dollars worth of tax evasion mostly by businesses. It’s estimated that the real tax evasion in NZ is between 4 and 5 Billion.
If you pay PAYE you can’t cheat your taxes. So we could easily pay for free school meals if more adults played fair.Let’s impose greater penalties for tax evasion, and let’s stop thinking of tax as a bad thing. Tax is a good thing – it’s giving to ourselves. That’s how we can have schools and hospitals and yes even Roads Of National significance. Tax is the price of civilisation. Get over it.
Now whether you agree with some of the above, all of the above or none of the above , let’s at least agree that The Feed The Kids Bill should at least go to Select Committee after its First Reading so the issue can be properly debated.
Please contact your local MP today and urge them to support the Feed The Kids Bill.
You can find their contact details here, just click on their name :
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/MPs/MPs
Thank you
Bryan
.
(Please give Brian support by going to his Page and “liking” it. The bigger the numbers, the more ‘clout’ he has.)
It’s fairly obvious to all by the most stubborn-minded that a malnourished child is not well pre-desposed to learning well. A child who cannot focus on his or her lessons and falls behind, eventually becomes alienated and disenchanted. The cycle of poverty, hopelessness, and anger perpetuates.
The Mana Party introduced a “Feed The Kids” Bill – aka the Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill – into Parliament last year, on 8 November 2012. The Bill is scheduled to come before Parliament for its first reading on 5 June this year.
With pressure coming hard and fast on Key and his increasingly shakey, poll-driven, ‘government’, their strategists are planning to end National’s destructive austerity Budgets and begin spending on essential social services that are critical to the well-being of our communities.
Part of this is Key’s stated intention;
Children who aren’t fed become victims and the Government has to deal with that, Prime Minister John Key says.
His comments come as action on child poverty is tipped to be the surprise package in Finance Minister Bill English’s fifth Budget on Thursday.
“The vast overwhelming bulk are [fed] in New Zealand, but if a child isn’t fed then actually they become a victim and whatever we think of that we need to try and deal with that issue.”
Acknowledgment: IBID
At his regular press conference, Key was coy at whether National would rule in or out a food in schools programme – but was more candid in ruling out support for Mana’s “Feed the Kids” member’s bill.
So. What we have is;
- A firm “no” by National to Mana’s initiative
- A firm “no” by Peter Dunne to Mana’s initiative (Why Peter Dunne won’t “Feed the Kids”)
- A vague committment; “The vast overwhelming bulk are [fed] in New Zealand, but if a child isn’t fed then actually they become a victim and whatever we think of that we need to try and deal with that issue.”
Now, call me a cynic if you like, but National has a fairly poor track record on dealing with social matters, whether it be unemployment, solo-mothers, worker’s rights and conditions, etc.
To give an example; our high unemployment.
Unemployment is high.
Jobs are scarce.
National’s ‘solution’; “reform” social welfare and make it harder for the unemployed to access welfare support, or to retain it. Additional ‘solution’; demonise the unemployed and infer that that are bludging. Ditto for solo-mothers.
That was National’s ‘solution’; force people off welfare and make the numbers look good. (see: Bennett trumpets 5000 fewer on DPB, see: 5000 beneficiaries quit dole rather than reapply, see: Welfare rules force people to struggle on without benefits)
I hope I’m wrong, but my gut feeling is that the Nats plan to pull a “swiftie”. We’re going to see something along these lines;
- A WINZ-based “targetted” approach where families that cannot afford to buy adequate food will have an increase in their food grants – but will probably have to re-pay it from their weekly welfare assistance.
- A reliance on some form of “PPP”-style programme, such as Fonterra’s milk-in-schools programme. There will be nothing concrete – just a “promise” to “investigate possible options”.
- A commision of enquiry of some description.
- An increase for school budgets to buy food, but which will be limited; capped; and money will be taken from elsewhere in Vote:Education to fund this.
- No increase in welfare assistance; no food in schools; but a form of food vouchers making up a portion of a beneficiaries overall entitlement.
- A limited “trial” food-in-schools programme – for a handful of schools only.
Far from addressing this crisis, National, ACT, and Peter Dunne will apply a band-aid “solution” and present it to the public of New Zealand as “Mission: Accomplished”.
It will be nothing of the sort.
Only one thing will begin to address this problem – a change of government.
.
References
NZ Herald: Strong reaction to damning TV child poverty doco (23 Nov 2011)
Previous related blogpost
Why Peter Dunne won’t “Feed the Kids”
Can we afford to have “a chat on food in schools”?
Other blogs
The Daily Blog: Hungry Kids Annoy Frazzled Lobby Group Director
.
.
= fs =
Still someone else’s country
.
.
Wellington, Newtown, 9 February 2013 – As the issue of state asset sales and other New Right policies are on National’s impending agenda, the Newtown-branch of the Mana Party considered it worthwhile taking the time to look back at recent history. The events of today are firmly rooted in the past.
The New Right had taken power in Britain with the election of Margaret Thatcher in May 1979, and in the United States, with the election of Ronald Reagan in November 1980. Our turn came in July 1984, with the snap election called by an inebriated Rob Muldoon. (Intoxication on power and alcohol – not a very healthy mix.)
The Labour government that was swept to power (see: New Zealand general election, 1984) was not the Labour Party that people thought they were voting for. In total secrecy, Labour had been captured by a cabal of fanatical neo-liberal reformers. It was a government firmly under the control of what we know today, as the ACT Party.
Twenty nine years later…
Mana’s Newtown Branch decided to hold a public screening of Alister Barry’s hard-hitting, insightful, 1996 documentary, “Someone elses’s country“. The story told within that hour-and-a-half documentary is as valid today as it was three decades ago. (In fact, watch “Someone elses’s country” and then watch Bryan Bruce’s 2011 documentary, “Inside Child Poverty in New Zealand” – and the linkages of the radical transformation of our country is all but complete.)
Prior to the screening, the audience was welcomed by Mana Newtown organisor, Ariana, who gave a brief rundown of the content and it’s impact on our society,
.
.
Many in the audience were young people who either had not been born in the 1980s, or were too young to remember the calamitous events that were unfolding. To these people, the events we now understand as Rogernomics and Ruthenasia would have been like the 1951 Waterfront Lockout dispute that rocked the nation.
Following Ariana, a brief introduction to the film was made by sitting Wellington Councillor, Bryan Pepperell,
.
.
Pepperell said,
“It’s getting into it’s final stages where the agenda to actually get democracy out of the way of business is actually now reaching a high-point.There’s an awful lot of window-dressing and democracy in New Zealand context has become that, substantially window dressing…”
He then shared with the audience when his first disquiet over the election of the Lange Government came to him,
“When David Lange actually said on national television – and I remember the day when I sat and I watched it and I thought I can’t believe what I’m hearing – ‘from now on business is going to make the major decisions’. And that was actually a fairly startling thing as far as I was concerned… unfortunately poor old David probably got quite into something that was bigger than him, and here we are today with the consequences of those early decisions. And of course the National Party is utterly committed to helping it’s friends further the direction that we started in.”
.
The introduction completed, the screening began,
.
.
For many of us who lived through the period, memories of the time came flooding back. In some instances, several people in the audience even recognisedthemselves – with much younger faces – in stills and video footage of protest actions.
It is also worth recalling that despite calls from throughout the country, TVNZ’s Board rejected calls for widespread broadcasting claiming it it “too political”.
“Too political”?!?!
Of course it was bloody political!
It was so damn political that TVNZ’s boardmembers would have soiled their panties at the thought of upsetting their Ministerial masters in the Beehive.
As the doco’s producer, Alister Barry , said in November 2009,
“It was no accident that Someone Else’s Country wasn’t screened on TVNZ when it was completed in 1996.
It wasn’t that the Business Roundtable needed to actually tell the TV programmers not to screen it. Television executives knew perfectly well where their salaries came from and that TVNZ was being readied for sale.
Fourteen or fifteen minutes of every television hour – the very limit of viewers’ tolerance – was filled with messages carefully and expensively constructed to reach into their fears and appetites. Clutches of advertisements urged New Zealanders to “buy”, to think and feel like frustrated consumers. Airing a documentary which led viewers to think of themselves less as consumers and more as citizens capable of taking political action was not in the interests of the big corporations controlling the advertising dollar.”
It was not until 2003 that TVNZ finally mustered the courage to air “Someone elses’s country” – on a Sunday afternoon. Hardly peak viewing time.
Barry also had this pointed insight to make,
“It had been anticipated by New Zealand’s New Right revolutionaries, that by the early 2000s our values would have changed and we would have come to think like them, accepting poverty and extreme wealth as both normal and necessary. To pursue personal advantage and to care less about our neighbours. But studies show that in fact our values haven’t changed much from those of our parents and grandparents.
What is happening though, is that we are forgetting how things used to be and who changed them. Even as the human and environmental costs of the neoliberal experiment increase, we are finding it harder and harder to imagine how things could be better.I hope you will find this film a useful antidote to forgetfulness.”
See: IBID
Which is what this country so desperately needs – an antidote to the collective amnesia which so many of our countrymen and woman so often succumb to.
As this blogger noted above; imagine the disquiet and anger that would result if “Someone elses’s country” was broadcast at prime-time, on a major tv channel – and then followed by Bryan Bruce’s, “Inside Child Poverty in New Zealand“…
Addendum 1
The neo-liberal agenda continues. National plans to partially-privatise three power companies; a mining company; and Air New Zealand (which was privatised once before on 17 April 1989).
National is implementing a privatised form of education via “Charter Schools”.
And the economy is to be further “de-regulated” and made the rights of foreign corporations extended.
Addendum 2
In a society run along neo-liberal lines, it becomes dangerous to upsets one’s masters investors,
.
.
And shame upon shame to Jackson and his mates for aiding and abetting Hollywood’s Heavies.
What are they hiding?
*
.
Additional Info
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
Anti asset sale rally – this Wednesday 13 February
.
.
.
= fs =
Wellington sez Aotearoa is Not for Sale! (Rua)
.
.
Continued from: Wellington sez Aotearoa is Not for Sale! (Tahi)
.
What we do now, will impact on her future. Asset sales for this generation’s ‘benefit’ will affect how following generations live and work in our country. This is unfair and is little more than a form of inter-generational theft.
What will this young lady think of us when she’s older?
.
.
The link between impending asset sales and the secret Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) cannot be underestimated. The Agreement will be the vehicle through which our State Assets – currently own by all New Zealanders – will eventually end up in foreign ownership.
The Free Trade Agreement with China has already resulted in the sale of 16 Crafar farms to Chinese investors.
Dear Leader said that he would not like to see New Zealanders as “tenants in our own country” – yet that is precisely the road that he is driving New Zealand down on,
.
.
Citizens young and old, listened to speakers who addressed the crowd,
.
.
CTU Economist and Director of Policy, Bill Rosenberg, addressing the rally, and explaining why asset sales is a really, really bad idea,
.
.
Mother and children… she must’ve been wondering what sort of future we will be leaving our kids,
.
.
A sign that has appeared in over 16 towns and cities, on a nationwide day of action,
.
.
The crowd gave koha to cover the costs of organising and setting up the Protest rally. Some gave gold coins, others slipped $20 dollars into the jar,
.
.
.
Entertainment provided by musician, Billy Naylor,
.
.
Onlookers looking at someone who appears on the scene,
.
.
.
“John Key” broke in to Kris Faafoi’s speech to tell the crowd he had made a wheelbarrow full of money by selling every third or fourth word from our national anthem,
.
.
“John Key” proceeded to sing the “new, revised” anthem,
Download: tumblr_m775z00vlZ1rbqecu
There was mixed reaction when “John Key” announced he had sold the trademark name “New Zealand” and henceforth we’d be calling our country “Aotearoa”.
“John Key” then happily pushed his wheelbarrow of “billions of dollars” – the dirty proceeds from dirty little deal-making,
.
.
.
Blogger, Alistair, distracting “John Key” with a bit of boogey-dancing, whilst the people took back the loot from Key’s wheel-barrow of ill-gotten gains,
.
.
Alastair was interviewed by the Radio NZ journo, who asked him,
* why I was there?
I said that I was concerned about the sale of what is effectively a natural monopoly.
* Asked about the main reason why people in general are so concerned?
I said that people have been burned before, citing Telecom as an example of us being ripped off during the years when technological limitations meant that it remained a natural monopoly.
* I was challenged with the idea that the power companies could be run more efficiently in private hands (or words to that effect)?
I pointed out that the power companies are current well run and wouldn’t have sufficient capital value to sell if they weren’t. I also noted foreign investors’ tendency to starve capital investment, with the result being a loss of productivity within the organisation.
* I told the reporter that higher power prices were my main concern, not so much because of the immediate effect of paying more, but because of the downstream effects of low income people having no spare capacity in their budgets.
Well said, Alastair! Excellent responses!
.
.
“No Deal” – a fitting response to John Key’s “Deal or No Deal”. In this case, however, John Key is playing with assets that belong to us, the people,
.
.
The crowd seemed to grow as the afternoon progressed. Passers-by stopped; watched; and many signed the petition,
.
.
Another of the Convenors, Aroha Priest, Mana whenua from Atiawa, addressing the crowd and reminding them of the cultural history and heritage of our beautiful country,
.
.
Ms Priest introduced 8-year old Jireh Pirihi, who in turn gave a brief talk to the rally. A very courageous young lad – perhaps a future Prime Minister?
.
.
Which was followed by an emotion-laden dance by Ms Priest, Jireh, and others,
.
.
.
.
Marama Te Kira, using here amazingly beautiful voice with some lovely singing,
.
.
And finally, Ariana Paretutanganui-Tamati thanking everyone for attending the Rally and encouraging everyone to keep fighting National’s asset-sales programme,
.
.
All up, it was a peaceful, dignified protest. In fact, there was no police presence at all (which was quite surprising). The media gave brief, limited coverage on TV1, but otherwise it will be up to the internet and social media to report the event fully.
The message continues tgo be sheeted home to John Key and National; our state assets belong to us, and we demand that the privatisation programme be scrapped. Quite simply, Aotearoa/New Zealand is not for sale!
.
*
.
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.
- For non-commercial use, images may be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
Important Links
.
.
= fs =
Wellington sez Aotearoa is Not for Sale! (Tahi)
.
.
Despite a cold, wet afternoon, with intermittant drizzle drenching the city, about 200 hundred people of all ages, race, etc, gathered in Cuba Mall on 14 July.
We were ‘greeted’ by this chap, who had his own ‘beef’ with John Key and a somewhat odious aspect of the recent 2012 Budget,
.
.
This blogger chatted briefly with the gentleman, who was passing out leaflets on this particular issue. In fact, he has a fairly strong point; taxing paperboys and girls for what tiny amounts they happen to earn reeks of a miserly desperation from National.
At the same time, the main beneficiaries of the 2009 and 2010 taxcuts were the richest 10% of New Zealanders.
For some reason, taxing children whilst giving more money to the wealthy constitutes “fairness” in the minds of John Key and Bill English…
Approaching the main protest rally, by the Bucket Fountain, we saw this young man. The sign he was holding seemed more than appropriate,
.
.
Signs stuck to park benches in the Mall. One sez, ” We are the average mum and dad and we don’t want our assets sold off “.
I disagree with this sign; there’s nothing average about the good folk who attended this protest. They are each outstanding in their own way, and love their country very much. Definitely above-average, patriotic folk!
.
.
The message was clear and simple, WE DON’T WANT OUR ASSETS SOLD!!
.
.
One of the organisers of the Protest,
.
.
Bronwyn, from the Labour Party. Where ever there is a just cause to fight, Bronwyn will stand up and be counted. We just need another 4,399,999 like her – and John Key is going downnnn,
.
.
“Zombie economics” – a valid description. Zombies stagger along; oblivious to everything; obsessed; and a menace to everyone. Hmmm, I think we’ve just described John Key and the National Party.
But unlike zombies, we’re not allowed to shoot them. (That’s still a no-no.)
We can, however, vote them out. Much better than shooting them. (And less messy.)
.
.
People were queueing up to sign the petition calling for a Citizens Initiated Referenda to put a halt to asset sales. There simply didn’t seem to be enough clipboards to go around,
.
.
.
TV1 News and Radio NZ were present to report the event. Sadly there was no sign of TV3 or any other media,
.
.
Members of the public chatted and shared their views on issues,
.
.
Interestingly, there was no police presence at any time during the Protest rally. Similar past events have all been peaceful, and no doubt our police had better things to do with their time. Like catching crooks.
Don’t forget John Key and his accomplices, Constable…
.
.
Labour’s, Kris Faafoi, was the only Member of Parliament present, and we chatted on issues surrounding state assets and how they might be protected from future National governments,
.
.
Aroha Priest, one of the Convenors of the rally, addressed the crowd. Other speakers and entertainers included Koro Alex, who opened with a mihi and karakia; Terry Shore (musician); John Maynard (People’s Power Ohariu); Howard Philips (Rail & Maritime Union); Labour’s Kris Faafoi; and others.
.
.
Someone who obviously understood economic and fiscal issues, and how their impact on other nations serve as a dire warning for us,
.
.
Obviously a cold, wet afternoon – but folk were not deterred,
.
.
.
.
The ones who will be most affected by John Key and his crazy plans for privatisation; our children. If National’s right wing agenda succeeds, what kind of society will our youngsters grow up in?
.
.
Many folk realise the close connection between state asset sales and the secretly-negotiated, extremely-dodgy, Trans Pacific Partnership agreement. Both have implications for our society that we can only begin to guess at,
.
.
A presence from the Maritime Union was good to see. Considering the vicious attack mounted against Maritime workers by the POAL board and management, and various right wing reactionaries, it is reassuring to have these gutsy guys standing alongside us,
.
.
Alastair (in blue jacket) – a well-known People’s Journalist, who reports many of these events on his Facebook page,
.
.
This image shows the wide range of ages of New Zealanders who are staunchly opposed to the sale of our State assets. This is not an issue for “young radicals” or “Grey Power” – this issue cuts across age, gender, incomes, race, etc. Quite simply, these are our assets that Key and his cronies are about to flog off,
.
.
A simple enough message for Dear Leader,
.
.
Continued at: Wellington sez Aotearoa is Not for Sale! (Rua)
.
*
.
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.
- For non-commercial use, images may be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
Important Links
.
.
= fs =
Veteran Activist hospitalised during removal of state houses
|
The Mana Party has hit out at the destruction of a community in Glen Innes, which saw a veteran activist hospitalised, as he was protesting the removal of state houses in the area.
The elderly activist Jimmy O’Dea, was injured this afternoon and taken to hospital. Mr O’Dea’s ankle was crushed whilst blockading a removal truck a few hours ago in Glen Innes.
|
Jimmy O’Dea
|
Jimmy is a diamond of a man who put himself in harm’s way in front of the house removal truck to try and protect the state houses of low-income residents of Glen Innes” says MANA Vice President John Minto. “Contracting companies are being used as the front line of attack against a community desperately trying to save their state houses. The government is selling state houses and the land beneath them to private developers for luxury housing on the high ground on the north side of Glen Innes. State house numbers will be reduced and the residents moved into soon-to-be slums in central Glen Innes”.
Houses under immediate threat are at 25 Silverton St and 6 Melling Streets.
There are currently Mana supporters on site and coordinating support for the community and opposition to the removals. Protests are planned throughout the night.
|
Acknowledgement
Reprinted with kind permission. Originally published by TangataWhenua.com.
|
* * *
Housing redevelopment project
Updated at 10:09 am 3 April 2012, Radio New Zealand
A housing group in the Auckland suburb of Glenn Innes says a redevelopment project is tearing the community apart.
Housing New Zealand has begun an urban renewal programme by removing the first of dozens of vacant state houses in the area.
About 40 state houses will be removed over the next two months.
The agency is redeveloping more than 150 properties to create at least 260 new homes in northern Glen Innes.
It says the state houses have been attracting crime and anti-social behaviour and it is removing them to improve safety.
But the Tamaki Action Housing Group says Housing New Zealand is ruining lives and families are being dislocated from the community.
Listen to more on Radio NZ Morning Report
|
|
= fs =
Inside Child Poverty – Bryan Bruce asks…
|
Fathers in Sweden enjoying 9 months parental leave to look after their daughters.
|
“… Here’s my challenge I will be sending to Housing New Zealand this week .
They own 70,000 properties. Why don’t they bulk buy electricity for those 70,000 properties so that the occupants can get cheaper power? It’s a win win situation.
Drier homes means better health for young kids. Means people won’t huddle together in one room to keep warm.. but it also means a dry house won’t rot and HNZ won’t have such a huge maintenance bill cause by mould and dampness.
I’ll let you know what CEO Lesley Mc Turk and the Minister for Housing Phil Heatley have to say.” – Bryan Bruce, Inside Child Poverty, 3 April 2012
Why not, indeed? If Comalco at Bluff could negotiate an absurdly low tariff for the power that they use to make aluminium, why can’t we – as a nation – do the same for low-income families?
|
Bluff aluminium smelter and Meridian in secret deal
“ The highly profitable Bluff aluminium smelter and Meridian Energy have signed the country’s biggest power contract, in a secret deal thought to be worth more than $5 billion over almost 20 years…
… Latest Companies Office reports show smelter company Rio Tinto Aluminium New Zealand made a $277 million profit last year, more than double the previous year’s gain.
… The new contract – understood to be about 4.7c a unit, about a quarter of the cost to the average home – covers the price New Zealand Aluminium Smelters will pay Meridian from the start of 2013 to the end of 2030, and will involve about 15 per cent of New Zealand’s power. ” – Source
|
It is not unusual for many other companies to negotiate bulk-buying deals. From Meridian Energy,
|
Rural co-operatives
“ We’re proud to be associated with New Zealand’s leading rural co-operatives.
We work closely with these groups to establish pricing, services and terms that specifically suit their members. If you belong to one of these co-operatives, you really need to be with us.
CRT
CRT Co-operative exists for one simple reason – to use the collective power of its shareholders to negotiate better deals and improve their individual profitability across all forms of agriculture.
The co-operative has a significant presence in the rural market with more than 25,000 shareholders who transact over $1 billion worth of business through the co-operative annually.
Meridian Mates Rates Pack
If you’re a member of CRT, you’re eligible for our Mates Rates Pack. This special deal includes an increased prompt payment discount of 12 percent (our standard discount is 10 percent) and a choice of variable or fixed term plans. We’ll also work with you to help find ways to reduce your electricity overheads. “ – Source
|
As Bryan states, we’d be saving money in the long run, both in house maintenance, and fewer people with cold/damp-related diseases.
Considering how much profit powercos extract from every household and business in the country, we have no excuse not to do this.
|
|
Making vast profits on the backs of society’s poorest is obscene. This will have to be an issue for the incoming Labour-led government, post2014 (if not earlier). It will be a ‘litmus test’ as to how much Labour is really in touch with the under-class of New Zealand,
|
|
If not, the Greens and Mana Party are waiting in the wings to assume that role. One way or another, this must be done. Damp homes and sick children cannot be the face of New Zealand in the 21st Century. Not unless our long-term goal is to be the newest addition to the world’s Third World Club.
|
Child with respiratory illness in Wellington Hospital. More than 25,000 NZ Kids are hospitalized year for chest infections spread by overcrowding and damp unhealthy housing.
|
|
* * *
|
Additional
|
|
= fs =
Ratbags, Rightwingers, and other assorted Rogues!
|
|
This morning, Auckland Mayor Len Brown; Maritime Union National President, Gary Parsloe; and Ports of Auckland chairman, Richard Pearson were interviewed (separately) on TV1′s Q+A. The following are transcripts of those interviews,
|
Q+A: Transcript of Paul Holmes interviews Gary Parsloe and Richard Pearson
|
PAUL This week the long-running labour dispute on the Auckland wharves came to a head with the Ports of Auckland making almost 300 workers, mostly stevedores, redundant. The Ports of Auckland claims it has to increase productivity to be competitive and deliver the required returns; only contractors can help them do that and provide exporters and importers with reliable service in an increasingly difficult world. The workers say Auckland’s already a profitable port, for heaven’s sake, and the contract on offer would have meant no guaranteed work each week and no ability to plan family time. And they even made an ad featuring workers’ families to ram the message home. So with me in the studio this morning are the Maritime Union head Gary Parsloe and the Ports of Auckland chairman, Richard Pearson. Now, both men will speak separately. So to you first, Mr Parsloe, what is this- at fundamental bottom, what is this dispute about?
GARY PARSLOE – Maritime Union
The dispute is about we just want a collective employment agreement that covers our members, one with some form of security so that people know when they go to work, when they don’t go to work, know what family time they’ve got.
PAUL Or is it about the amount of wages paid for downtime that the Ports of Auckland are worried about? They say it’s unsustainable; they don’t want to pay people when they’re not working.
GARY Well, they offered us 10% wages, and we declined it for 2.5%, and I don’t think it’s about money. We’ve never claimed money.
PAUL No, but, you see, they say there’s too much downtime and you’re still being paid. They want to pay you for when you work. What is wrong with that, Garry?
GARY Well, we’re quite willing to go through those things. In the mediation, we addressed those things. We gave up 18 points at the last mediation, that were going to address the flexibility, the downtime, we would continue. 18 points were put at the mediation, that’s right.
PAUL Look, I know, I mean, I was studying what the Ports of Auckland have come at you with over the last six months. They do not seem to have been madly ungenerous. I wonder if the strikes were an intelligent strategy. Even Mike Lee says going on strike was a grave error; that the Ports would turn on you, which is what they’ve done, of course.
GARY Well, of course, workers don’t have a lot of things in their power. The only time we can take strike action is in pursuit of a collective, and we waited to do that because we want a collective that covers our members. It gives them some form of job security.
PAUL But you were going to get a collective.
GARY Oh, I don’t know about that.
PAUL Come on, September 7 and 6 last year they came to you. The very first offer they were going to roll over the collective agreement was the 2.5% pay increase every year for three years. Now, why did you reject that?
GARY Because there was the fish hooks in the collective they wanted us to sign – the new one they gave us that took away all of our conditions, our security and was all the flexible hours-
PAUL Took away you having the right to roster, is that right?
GARY No, they took away a lot of things. Took away many many things. And, I mean, at that time you want to talk that they wanted a collective, well, I don’t believe they ever did. We got their strategy paper-
PAUL Why would they offer you a collective if they didn’t want a collective?
GARY We got a strategy paper last August, and in that strategy paper, they had $9 million of people’s money of Auckland. It’s on our website to get rid of the unions and get rid of them.
PAUL So go back to that September 6 and 7 offer – that they were going to roll over the collective agreement, 2.5% increase for three years every year. What were you going to lose exactly?
GARY Would have lost- There was nothing in there that defined times when people would go to work and not go to work and you couldn’t take the kid to the beach, couldn’t take your wife shopping, you had to sit by the phone all day wondering when you were next going to go to work.
PAUL Meaning they were going to do the roster, not the union?
GARY They were going to do the roster. They still do the rostering today. For goodness sake, they ring us up when to come to work.
PAUL Then you’ve been offered 10% wage- Then they came at you with a 10% wage offer, 20% productivity bonus offer, guaranteed 160 hours a month with the rosters sent out two months ahead. What in God’s name is wrong with that?
GARY Well, we tried to get some definitive about the rosters. We said, ‘What would they be? Would you do 160 in one week and get nothing for the next week, next week and next week?’ We wanted some form across the board where people knew what they were doing.
PAUL 160 hours a month. They’re not going to get you to do 160 in a week.
GARY Of course, but they’re packed up into whatever at one time.
PAUL But fours into 160 goes 40.
GARY Yeah, but you don’t get 40. Other ports work like that. You don’t get 40. They work you when they want you, and they leave you want they don’t want you.
PAUL In the end, also the union objects to the company contracting out. This has been a big sore point for the union, right?
GARY Yes.
PAUL I don’t understand this, because in the collective agreement you’ve had for the past few years, the Ports of Auckland can contract out, and they do so. Why are you so adamant they should be denied that?
GARY They can contract out, but the clause in the document doesn’t say they can contract out. The clause in the document talks about what happens when they contract out. It’s all about contingent liability, how they pay out people their redundancy payments and their payments. It’s formula for how it happens if it happens.
PAUL Do you believe this whole thing is about trying to reduce the amount of wages paid to the workers on the Ports of Auckland?
GARY Maybe, maybe not. I’m not sure what they’re after. It’s very hard to know what they’re after.
PAUL Well, for six months you might have found out, mightn’t you?
GARY Well, we’ve been in mediation for all that time trying to find out. And while we’ve been in mediation, they’ve been advertising our jobs in Australia. While we’ve been in mediation, they’re now making our people redundant-
PAUL You’ve been on 12 strikes.
GARY I wouldn’t call that good-faith bargaining.
PAUL Well, Gary, nor perhaps would people call 12 strikes good-faith bargaining either.
GARY The 12 strikes were because we’ve got to protect our members, and that’s what we’re trying to do.
PAUL Okay, but they weren’t going to lay anyone off; they’re just changing the conditions, weren’t they?
GARY Yes, they were changing the conditions for employment.
PAUL You want the mayor- I think you said yesterday you want the mayor of Auckland to get off his jacksie and do a bit more.
GARY Yeah, I would like that.
PAUL Do you think he’s being remiss?
GARY I think, well, the people of Auckland own the port, and the mayor is the mayor looking after the interests of the people of Auckland, and we believe he should do a little bit more than he’s doing. We believe there’s still a deal there, and maybe if people step and be a bit more helpful, there is a deal.
PAUL Thank you, Mr Parsloe. Now, I shall put that to the mayor when he comes along. Now, very quickly, are you expecting is this the- is this all over?
GARY No, this is only the start of it. We had- you said 3000, but there’s about 5000 of the community marching down Queen Street.
PAUL Do you expect international action, international support?
GARY The international have this under the microscope. They most certainly have. And those 5000 people don’t like the way that the people, that the workers of Auckland are being bashed around, and there’s a message in that. Because there’s only 300 of us, and yet 5000 people took to the streets yesterday.
PAUL Mm. Gary Parsloe, president of the Maritime Union of New Zealand, thank you very much for your time. Richard Pearson, you are the chairman of Ports of Auckland. Have you been bashing up the workers?
RICHARD PEARSON – Ports of Auckland Ltd
Absolutely not, Paul.
PAUL Why have you failed to reach an agreement after six months of this?
RICHARD Paul, it’s longer than six months. We started this process at the beginning of last year – all the consultation, all the negotiations that were going on. The collective came to its end in September. We started negotiating the collective in August. We’ve been through a hundred hours plus of negotiation, mediation, and we’ve got absolutely nowhere. The problem is-
PAUL But isn’t-?
RICHARD We just were not delivered the changes that we required, Paul.
PAUL Isn’t it a truism, in a way, of industrial relations that if you’re nowhere in a negotiation after six months, it’s a plague on both your houses?
RICHARD Well, from my perspective, Paul, I came into this situation, and I’ve been 37 years in the container port business and ports all around the world. I have never seen such a waste of resource going on here. I have never seen a situation where you pay someone for 43 hours and they work 26. I’ve never seen a situation where ships wait to come in to start waiting for the start of a shift. You know, that’s like aeroplanes flying around waiting for-
PAUL That average-26-hours business – have you had that audited?
RICHARD Absolutely.
PAUL By who?
RICHARD Ernest & Young.
PAUL Right, Ernst & Young. Do you want that union off the port? Was that the game all along?
RICHARD Not at all. We like unions. We’ve got unions already working on the port. In the outsourced model that we have with the stevedore contractors, they will have unions working for them.
PAUL So can you sit here this morning and say to us that you’ve negotiated in good faith?
RICHARD Absolutely, and I’ll give you good evidence of that-
PAUL Well, Mr Parsloe said you had fish hooks everywhere.
RICHARD No, if we had- if we were not negotiating in good faith, Paul, we would’ve actually introduced the whole outsourcing stevedoring subcontracting model before the end of the collective. During that time, the union would not have been able to strike. In good faith, we waited until the end of the discussions to give them a good chance to, and unfortunately it went over the time of the expiry of the collective. That gave them the right to strike, so I stand absolutely firm when I say to you we have abided by all rules, regulations and fairness.
PAUL Mr Pearson, how do you know that if you contract your stevedoring that’s going to improve productivity? You see, Auckland does no worse than any of the other ports in Australasia. Nowhere is madly more productive than Auckland.
RICHARD Pau l-
PAUL The Australian ports are all contracted out.
RICHARDPaul -
PAUL Melbourne does 3.1% return on equity.
RICHARD Paul, Australasia’s not the benchmark for good container-port operations around the world, with all due respect, okay? As I’ve said to you, I have never seen such a potential asset like we’ve got at Auckland that could actually run better. You know, today we’re running- Now, that port, without the MUNZ union, we’re were the IEAs, which unfortunately people are calling scabs, which I find derogatory – that port is now running at 25% faster than it was before. We have made no other change other than having people that come to work who want to work with the right attitude. That’s what I think people in Auckland want to see.
PAUL And the perception of people in Auckland might be that contracted-out stevedoring could mean worse pay and conditions for the wharfies.
RICHARD Again-
PAUL Otherwise, why would you do it, Mr Pearson?
RICHARD Paul, we’ve got them going. They’re working. 25 years Tauranga’s been working on this model, and it’s been working well. And during that time, we’ve lost 12% of our market to Tauranga. We can’t wait. We have to make this change now, and we have to make it quickly.
PAUL Now, the council wants that 12% return off the ports in five years, yes?
RICHARD That’s correct.
PAUL Is that what’s driving this?
RICHARD Not at all. That is an aspirational target, and you’ve mentioned the fact that it will be over 12 years, and it will be-
PAUL No, five years.
RICHARD Five, yes, correct, and it will be. It’s not a dividend return; it’s an equity return.
PAUL That’s right. Can you do it? Can you do 12%?
RICHARD Yes, we can.
PAUL Right. The unions call you anti-family. Have you had second thoughts about this?
RICHARD Paul, that is absolute nonsense. People talk about waiting by the phone, etc. Ships are on schedules. 90% of all the ships that come into the port are on their schedule, on their slot, within one hour of ETA. We know months ahead. We can actually plan shifts weeks and weeks ahead. It is absolute nonsense to say that, and all I could also say is talk to the people at Tauranga. They’re quite happy. Everything works well.
PAUL Right, a couple of quickies. Is it all over bar the shouting?
RICHARD It is all over. We’ve made the decision. We’re now into implementation. We’ve appointed the contractor, and my wish would be this: get our workers, please, workers that are on strike, come and apply for job. Don’t wait. Don’t let the people that are stopping you, and there’s a sinister little group of people down there – that’s a subject for another Q A at another time – that have been stopping these people applying for jobs. I think it’s wrong, and I think it’s unfair.
PAUL All right, just very quickly – are you worried about the ship in Sydney that the wharfies over there aren’t handling?
RICHARD No, that’ll all be covered by law.
PAUL Mr Richard Pearson, chairman of Ports of Auckland, I thank you. Gary Parsloe, I thank you again.
RICHARD Thank you very much.
|
Analysis?
Firstly, not having seen/heard the actual interview this morning, I can only go by the transcripts. The interview between Paul Holmes and Gary Parsloe seems to have been held in a completely different manner to that between Holmes and Richard Pearson.
1. In his opening introduction, Holmes starts of with, “So with me in the studio this morning are the Maritime Union head Gary Parsloe and the Ports of Auckland chairman, Richard Pearson“. Note that Holmes refers to Richard Pearson as the “Ports of Auckland Chairman” – Pearson’s correct title.
2. He does not offer the same courtesy to Gary Parsloe, and refers to him as “the Maritime Union head” – instead of Parsloe’s correct title; National President. The stage is set for an imbalanced encounter.
3. Interviewing Gary Parsloe involved in-depth questions and numerous follow-up questions, which probed Parsloe’s responses.
4. Interviewing Richard Pearson involved questions such as;
“Why have you failed to reach an agreement after six months of this?”
Pearson responds. No follow-up probing.
“Isn’t it a truism, in a way, of industrial relations that if you’re nowhere in a negotiation after six months, it’s a plague on both your houses? “
Pearson responds. Again, no follow up probing.
“That average-26-hours business – have you had that audited?”
Pearson responds with one word; “Absolutely”.
Holmes askes a follow-up question; “By who?”
Pearson answeers, simply, “Ernest & Young “
Holmes’ response; “Right, Ernst & Young.“
Pardon? Holmes accepts the response with an affirmation, as if Pearson answered a quizz problem correctly? (The only thing missing was a “Well done, old chap!”!!
Then, next question, “Right, Ernst & Young. Do you want that union off the port? Was that the game all along? “
Pearson responds with an astonishing, “Not at all. We like unions. We’ve got unions already working on the port. In the outsourced model that we have with the stevedore contractors, they will have unions working for them. “
Pearson “likes unions”?! At this stage, Holmes should have followed up with a question seeking clarification as to how Pearson can “like” unions when his Board has failed to come to a negotiated settlement; sacked 300 workers; and paid tens of thousands of dollars in full-page newspaper advertising.
But Pearson major slip was, “…we have with the stevedore contractors, they will have unions working for them. ” Unions do not “work for” companies or contractors – unions work for their members.
The following exchange also seemed to be little more than “patsy” questions,
PAUL So can you sit here this morning and say to us that you’ve negotiated in good faith?
RICHARD Absolutely, and I’ll give you good evidence of that-
PAUL Well, Mr Parsloe said you had fish hooks everywhere.
Pearson replied with a glib answer stating that “we have abided by all rules, regulations and fairness”.
Again, no follow up question.
At this point, Holmes should have questioned Pearson about the leaked memo from POAL which outlined, months in advance, POAL’s agenda to oust Union presence on Auckland’s wharves. Holmes made no reference to that damning document, and instead went off on a tangeant about productivity levels on other ports.
Towards the end of the “interview”, Pearson again slips up, when he states,
” Paul, that is absolute nonsense. People talk about waiting by the phone, etc. Ships are on schedules. 90% of all the ships that come into the port are on their schedule, on their slot, within one hour of ETA. We know months ahead. We can actually plan shifts weeks and weeks ahead. It is absolute nonsense to say that, and all I could also say is talk to the people at Tauranga. They’re quite happy. Everything works well. “
That statement is a flat-out contradiction of Pearson’s earlier assertion, at the beginning of the interview, where he makes the claim that,
“Well, from my perspective, Paul, I came into this situation, and I’ve been 37 years in the container port business and ports all around the world. I have never seen such a waste of resource going on here. I have never seen a situation where you pay someone for 43 hours and they work 26. I’ve never seen a situation where ships wait to come in to start waiting for the start of a shift. You know, that’s like aeroplanes flying around waiting for- “
On the one hand, Pearson claims that “I have never seen a situation where you pay someone for 43 hours and they work 26. I’ve never seen a situation where ships wait to come in to start waiting for the start of a shift” – and then goes on to contradict that claim by stating that “Ships are on schedules. 90% of all the ships that come into the port are on their schedule, on their slot, within one hour of ETA. We know months ahead. We can actually plan shifts weeks and weeks ahead“.
5. I think we know where Holmes’ allegiance lies.
Then we had the interview with Auckland Mayor, Len Brown, which seemed to ask more probing questions than with Pearson, and delved deeply into the Mayor’s motivations. Which is ironic really, as Pearson would have had more to do with, and deeper insights into, the dispute than Brown would have.
Holmes was asking the wrong person the hard questions…
|
Q+A: Transcript of Paul Holmes interview with Len Brown
|
Auckland Mayor Len Brown
PAUL How much responsibility for these redundancies at the Ports of Auckland lies with the mayor and
the council? Ports of Auckland is owned by the council via its investment company, Auckland Council Investments Ltd, and the council’s told the port to double its dividend from 6% to 12% over the next five years. The Maritime Union says the mayor should step in as mediator. You heard Gary Parsloe say that. Labour, Mana and the Greens have also called on the mayor to take a stand. Len Brown, the mayor of Auckland, is with us this morning. Good morning.
LEN BROWN – Auckland Mayor
Morning, Paul.
PAUL Is it your fault 300 men have been made redundant?
LEN No, but I certainly can’t be accused of not making a stand. Over the last eight months, I’ve been working within the framework that I can. I won’t run the port out of my office, but I have been dealing with both parties during the course of this discussion.
PAUL Well, can I say the perception is you’ve been doing nothing?
LEN Well, you know, as I say, there are some things that I can do and I will not run the port out of my office. I will say to you, though, for the last eight months, I have been giving direction, giving my view in terms of where they should be, and I wanted to see the resolution out of a collective. They have not got there. I’m not happy with that outcome. What I am here to say is that-
PAUL I heard you say to me- Did you say-? Could the union have settled earlier, do you believe?
LEN Of course.PAUL Yeah.
LEN Absolutely. They could’ve settled on the first offer.
PAUL Yes.
LEN And that’s past in history. What is now possible is my view is I am happy to continue to be in the position of providing mediation if both parties agree.
PAUL Well, it hasn’t worked so far, has it?
LEN No, but-PAUL Why hasn’t it?
LEN But that offer-
PAUL Why hasn’t it?LEN Because-
PAUL Why hasn’t mediation worked?
LEN Every time they sat down, their view to me- both parties’ view is we’re really close. In fact, Gary was saying to me, ‘On Thursday we think that we are going to deal with this and finish it.’ So every step of the way, the indication had been was that they were going to resolve.PAUL Whose side are you on?
LEN I’m on Auckland’s side.
PAUL Yes, but-LEN And by that, I mean that we are the 1.5 million Aucklanders, we own the shares, and as a consequence of that, I’m looking after their interests. I want that port to be successful. I certainly want a greater return on our investment-
PAUL Let’s talk about that shortly, but I wondered about your position because you have said and I quote you, ‘We deserve a port that’s competitive, a decent return for ratepayers and a settlement that is sustainable.’ That sounds like the port’s position, Mr Mayor.
LEN No, it sounds like our position – our position, the council’s position and the position of any Aucklanders. Look, my commitment during the campaign was not selling the ports; we will hold the port shares. Secondly, we wanted the ports to be more commercial and present a much better return for ratepayers.PAUL And that return, of course, the figure that you’ve come up with is you want an increase from 6.3% I think it is at the moment.
LEN Yeah.
PAUL After tax.LEN 12% over five years in terms of return on investment.
PAUL Where did you get the 12% from? Pluck it out of the air?
LEN No-PAUL There’s not a port in Australasia, Mr Brown, making 12%.
LEN So our view was, though, that the port was not performing as well as it was. Now, you’ve heard Mr Pearson say it’s an aspirational target. What we’re saying to the port is this is our view. We believe as a consequence of the assessments that we’ve done within the council-
PAUL Well, how firm are you on this? Have you laid down the law on the 12%?LEN We have given it to them in our statement of corporate intent. Right at the start of the year, I went down to the port, met all the workers and the employees and the company directors down there and said, ‘Right, this is what we’re expecting from the port.’ And we had an hour’s Q & A-
PAUL This is what we’re expecting. Is this-? I mean, were you laying the law about the return you want in five years – 12%?
LEN We were laying down the law in terms of what we expected from the port in terms of its return and in terms of its performance generally.PAUL Where did you get the 12%?
LEN So, the 12% was an estimate, a view that certainly I’ve been working on for right through the last sort of 18 months, two years. It was view that was discussed our own table with the officers, with our own council-
PAUL So it’s a guess? It’s a good guess?LEN No, it’s an estimate.
PAUL (laughs)
LEN This is what we think we should be aiming to achieve. And so we went back to the company and said, ‘Okay, this where we think you should be. What is your advice back to us?’ Their advice was, ‘Give us five years and we believe that we can receive that.’PAUL Well, excuse me, look at this. Okay, 12%, that’s your estimate – guesstimate. Tauranga returns 6.8%, Lyttelton 8.6%, Sydney 6.7%, Melbourne 3.1%, Auckland 6% — 6.3% after tax.
LEN So not just about return either-
PAUL Where’s the 12% being made anywhere?LEN It’s about competitiveness against other ports. So we are losing share against Tauranga. We are competing flat out against Brisbane, in particular, and Sydney. It was our desire that we wanted the port to be much much stronger in terms of its-
PAUL Do you endorse what Mr Pearson was saying about he cannot believe the waste of resource at the Ports of Auckland?
LEN Look, there’s a whole lots of things that we cannot believe about the performance of the Ports of Auckland, so it just was not about-PAUL Can I just say to you again-?
LEN a stronger return on investment.
PAUL Can I just say to you again there is a perception that you’ve abnegated leadership, that you’ve been a do-nothing mayor? For God’s sake, you are the mayor of Auckland, Ports of Auckland is owned by the people of Auckland, you are the boss. Harry Truman – you might remember the story – had a little thing on his desk that said ‘the buck stops here’. Why don’t it stop with you?LEN The buck does stop here, but I’m also the mayor of the city. I’m not the prime minister. I don’t have sovereign power, so I’m operating within a statutory framework, and I’m doing the very best that I can within that statutory framework.
PAUL And very quick, Mr Mayor, is it all over bar the shouting?
LEN No. What I’ve said to you today is that my offer today is that I’m happy to sit with both parties in agreement in a mediator process if they are prepared to continue to meet and deal with the-PAUL He says it’s all over bar the shouting – Mr Pearson.
LEN Mr Pearson is the chair of the board; this is my offer right here in front of you.
PAUL Mr Len Brown, mayor of Auckland, thank you very much for your time.LEN A pleasure speaking to you today.
|
The Maritime Union has welcomed Len Brown’s offer of mediation, as stated on ‘Scoop‘,
|
The Maritime Union has warmly welcomed an offer of mediation from the Mayor of Auckland Len Brown, and the Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops, made publicly over the last two days.
Today on current affairs programme Q+A the Mayor said he wanted to step in to the dispute between the parties to find a solution.
“The Mayor’s offer in particular is extremely important as the Council is the owner of the Ports, and we believe it is now being wrecked by the Ports board,” said Garry Parsloe, Maritime Union of New Zealand National President.
“We will meet any time any day with any decent offer to get this issue resolved”.
On Friday Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops in Auckland offered their leadership in a spirit of reconciliation to help resolve the dispute.
The bishops said they were concerned for the welfare of workers and their families, and for the future of the waterfront industry, and that they were willing also to work with city leaders to find a solution.
Garry Parsloe said the bishops’ offer was a generous one.
“We’ll warmly welcome the help of the Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops,” he said.
“They have demonstrated they understand that at its core, this dispute is about people and their lives.”
“Our deep concern during these negotiations has been the impact the proposed changes from Ports management would have on our members’ job security and their ability to prioritise time with their families and other commitments outside work.”
“It is in the interests of everyone in Auckland to resolve this dispute in a way that protects secure jobs and ensures a sustainable and successful Ports of Auckland.”
“We hope Ports management will take kindly to the offer also, and respect the role of the Council as the owners of the Ports and the importance of the offer from the Mayor,” Garry Parsloe said.
|
Unfortunately, the Board of POAL – which now seems to be a rogue entity and a power unto itself, has flat out rejected Brown’s offer of mediation,
|
“But Ports of Auckland chairperson Richard Pearson says it is too late for that.
He says the decision to outsource the stevedoring contractors has already been made and implemented.
“They are already appointed and we cannot go back on that, that is irrevocable”, he says.
Mr Pearson says he would like the mayor instead to persuade the workers to apply for the new roles.“
|
WTF?!?! What did we just hear???
Did Richard Pearson just tell his boss, Len Brown, “No, I’m not doing it”?!
This in a bizarre state of affairs; the Chairman of the Board of POAL has just told the Mayor of Auckland – which owns POAL – to naff off !!!
As I have maintained in previous blogposts, POAL is out of control.
I think we now have the proof we need.
Auckland City Council must take firm action at an upcoming meeting on Thursday, which I am informed by someone closely connected to events – will have a decisive outcome to events.
Crunchtime: 15 March.
|
Additional
Ports of Auckland Labour Strategy (leaked memo)
|
|
= fs =
10 March – Today was a True Labour Day!
|
|
Yesterday, thousands of ordinary folk - many from overseas – marched through the streets of Auckland in protest at unfair treatment, and in support of maritime workers. The numbers ranged from 2,000 to 3,000 to 5,000 to simply ‘thousands‘ – but regardless how many took to the streets, it was a grand effort,
|
Workers, families and supporters of Auckland's port workers who are currently striking over working conditions, make their way along the waterfront in protest at being made redundant by the company.
|
The March was a testament to the sense of fairplay and support for the underdog, that many New Zealanders hold dear and cherish as a value.
And it will continue to grow. When citizens discover the raw power that they wield, they use it to stunning effect. Just ask any dictator in the Middle East , or former leaders from Soviet-era Eastern Europe.
This industrial bonfire has been sparked by a Ports of Auckland Ltd (POAL) Board and CEO, Tony Gibson, who have engaged in dishonest tactics; unprofessional behaviour; a sham negotiation process; and are now wasting tens of thousands of ratepayers’ dollars on full page ads in the Herald (which are nothing more than one-sided propaganda).
But it’s hardly surprising really, that Gibson is trying to destroy the Maritime Union and de-unionise the port. A de-unionised workforce is cheaper and more readily exploited for port companies and shipping lines – shipping lines like Maersk, which have been playing off Auckland and Tauranga Ports against each other.
Maersk – the shipping company Tony Gibson used to work for,
|
|
No divided loyalities or conflict of interest there, I hope, Mr Gibson?
|
* * *
|
Meanwhile, true loyalties were expressed when local Auckland councillors, Community Board members, Members of Parliament, and unionists came from around the world to support port workers and their families.
Photos courtesy of various good people who were fortunate to attend the March (I am so incredibly envious!!!) and presented in no particular sequential order,
|
Greg Presland, Denise Yates, chair of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board, Patricia M Reade, Julie Fairey, Michael Wood and Leau Peter Skelton. (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)
|
Labour Party; Moira Coatsworth, Darien Fenton, Phil Twyford, David Cunliffe, Sua William Sio, Moana Mackey, Charles Chauvel, and Megan Woods. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
10 March - Aucklanders support port workers. (No acknowledgement details available)
|
Denise Roche, David Shearer, Sally Wilson, Moira Coatsworth, Darien Fenton, Phil Twyford, David Cunliffe, Sua William Sio, Jacinda Ardern, Moana Mackey, Andrew Little, Charles Chauvel, Megan Woods and Louisa Wall Labour Manurewa. (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)
|
David Shearer, Labour Leader, speaking on the mound. In front of him, a crowd of thousands gathers to support MUNZ workers. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
CTU President, Helen Kelly (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)
|
The tide has turned and it is sad - Michael Wood and Enzo Giordani. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
Mana Party's flag (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)
|
Garry Parsloe, President of MUNZ. We're in this for the long haul- oh yes we are. With Carol Beaumont, Helen Kelly, David Shearer, Moira Coatsworth, and Darien Fenton. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
Thousands march!(Acknowledgement for photo: save our ports.com)
|
Labour's Sunny Kaushal, Charles Chauvel, David Cunliffe and Carmel Sepuloni. (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)
|
Really happy to be supporting MUNZ workers. Really upset at the Mayor I campaigned for. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
The Workers' Haka! (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)
|
Helen Kelly, President of the Council of Trade Unions, makes her point. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
An Auckland Citizen making her feelings known! (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)
|
Nga Ringa Tota - Len Richards and Jill Ovens. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
With Anahila Lose Suisuiki and Josephine Bartley. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
Somewhat to the point, I believe. A call from the people that their leader should lead! (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)
|
With Kate Sutton and Richard Hills at 10 March rally for workers. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
Meat Workers do the Haka. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
Fighting for our children - this is what it's all about! (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)
|
With Kymberley Inu at the march. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
Is it me.. or does David Cunliffe look like that bloke from "Gladiator"? Quick, someone give him a sword, shield, and Union Agreement and send him into POAL's Boardroom! There - sorted!! (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)
|
Supporting Auckland port workers - 10 March (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
Solidarity with Port Workers! David Cunliffe second from right. (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)
|
"mum and dad" New Zealanders who demand better treatment for our fellow workers - before everyone buggers off to Australia! (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
Speakers at the March to support Auckland Port workers - Denise Roach in green. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
ACT's representation on the March! (No acknowledgement details available)
|
With Tele'a Andrews at the march. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
Community Board representatives, Leau Peter Skelton and Tafafuna'i Tasi Lauese; Labour MP Louisa Wall (at back); and Labour MP, Sua William Sio. (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)
|
With Anahila Lose Suisuiki, Josephine Bartley, Moana Mackey, Megan Woods and Richard Hills. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
With Green Party MP, Denise Roche and Ray Familathe, International Transport Workers Federation representative. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
Labour MPs Ross Robertson, Louisa Wall Labour Manurewa and Sua William Sio. (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)
|
With Megan Woods and Moana Mackey. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
Folks are p----d off, and they ain't going to take it no more! (Acknowledgement for photo: Greg Presland)
|
New Zealanders who've had a gutsful at the way we treat our fellow workers. (Acknowledgement for photo: Gina Giordani)
|
Those at the center of this dispute; workers and their families. (Acknowledgement for photo: Save Our Port.Com)
|
- Roll Call of Honour -
.
Members of Parliament
Jacinda Ardern, MP, Labour
Charles Chauvel, MP, Labour
David Cunliffe, MP, Labour
Darien Fenton, MP, Labour
Hone Harawira, MP, Mana Party leader
Parekura Horomia, MP, Labour
Andrew Little, MP, Labour
Moana Mackey, MP, Labour
Nanaia Mahuta, MP, Labour
Sue Moroney, MP, Labour
Ross Robertson, MP, Labour
Denise Roche, MP, Green Party
David Shearer, MP, Labour leader
Sua William Sio, MP, Labour
Rino Tirakatene, MP, Labour
Phil Twyford, MP, Labour
Louisa Wall, MP, Labour
Megan Woods, MP, Labour
Auckland City Councillors
Cathy Casey
Sandra Coney
Mike Lee
Community Board Members
Josephine Bartley, Tamaki Subdivision of the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board
Leila Boyle, Tamaki Subdivision of the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board
Shale Chambers, Waitemata Local Board
Christopher Dempsey, Waitemata Local Board
Julie Fairey, Puketapapa Local Board
Graeme Easte, Albert-Eden Local Board
Catherine Farmer, Whau Local Board
Grant Gillon, Kaipatiki Local Board
Peter Haynes, Albert-Eden Local Board
Richard Hills, Kaipatiki Local Board
Vivienne Keohane, Kaipatiki Local Board
Tafafuna’i Tasi Lauese, Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board
Simon Mitchell, Albert-Eden Local Board
Greg Presland, Waitakere Ranges Local Board
Patricia M Reade, Waitemata Local Board
Leau Peter Skelton, Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board
Lydia Sosene, Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board
Michael Wood, Puketapapa Local Board
Denise Yates, chair of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board
International Trade Unionists
Ray Familathe, International Transport Workers Federation representative
Mauro Viera, Sydney stevedore
& many others!
Young Activist Heroes!
NZ First Youth
And last, and most important,
The People of Auckland who Marched!
|
* * *
|
Additional
Fairfax: Thousands march in support of port workers
TV3: John Campbell interviews Auckland Mayor Len Brown
TV3: Unions band together against ‘vicious employers’
TV3: Mana, Greens, Labour join ports rally
TVNZ: Thousands rally for sacked Ports workers
TVNZ: Port dispute ‘causing ripples’ overseas
TVNZ: Port’s growth target questioned
TVNZ: Q+A: Transcript of Paul Holmes interview with Len Brown
Metro: Every Storm in the Port
Matt McCarten/NZ Herald: Mayor’s leadership feeling the strain
Brian Rudman/NZ Herald: Mayor’s paralysis in port dispute leaves role of leader vacant
Auckland Now: Shipping firm quits port amid protest
NZ Herald: Auckland, Tauranga ports ‘cutting each other’s throats’ – Mike Lee
NZ Herald: Noisy march gives heart to wharfies
NZ Herald: C-words that don’t help anyone except bosses
|
Other Blog Reports
Dimpost: Destroying the village to make it more efficient
Dimpost: ‘We’re going on a journey . . .’
The Jackalman: Richard Pearson – Asshole of the Week
Tumeke: In defense (and immediate criticism) of Mayor Scab Brown
Tumeke: What was said on the protest march
Bowalley Road: Frightening The Government
Waitakere News: Len Brown and POAL – Its your time Len
Waitakere News: Is Auckland’s Port’s labour costs cheaper than Tauranga’s?
|
|
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 15 – Protest at TPK! (Part Rua)
Continued from February 15 – Protest at TPK! (Part Tahi).
.
Long time socialist and Alliance stalwart, Larry Hannah, made a firm point about the folly of selling public assets,
.
.
The media finally arrived and started filming,
.
.
Occupy Wellington unfurled their banner,
.
.
About two dozen protestors crowded around the front of TPK’s entrance,
.
.
Below; Roimata (L) and Joyce (R) had joined the protest for their own reasons,
“I’m just concerned for my mokopuna”, said Roimata.
“I’m here for the important issues that affect maoridom,” added Joyce.
.
.
Benjamin, at the doors to TPK,
.
.
Dr Peter Love, from the Tenths Trust, and Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust, made his way to TPK,
.
.
By 3pm, there were about 26 protesters and three police. By 3.05, two more Police arrived,
.
.
The newly arrived policeman had a quiet chat with Benjamin, for a few minutes,
.
.
Ian, from the Workers Party, addressed passers-by, and on-lookers. He started out by explaining that “we are here today, against asset sales.” He added, “we want to see these assets run for public benefit, not private profit.”
.
.
The media filmed Ian on the loudhailer, as he continued to make his case against asset sales, and honouring Treaty committments,
.
.
John then took the loudhailer, and said,
“This is not consultation, this is bullshit. We cannot afford to give away our country to foreign corporations! Instead of sitting on our arses, let’s show [them] this country is not for sale!”
.
.
Across the intersection, two more police officers were watching events,
.
.
They seemed bemused by the protest – unlike their colleagues who were moving freely amongst the protestors, and chatting amicably.
By 3.13pm, the number of Maori Wardens increased to eight; police numbers went up to five; and at least one Diplomatic Protection Squad plainclothesman was present,
.
.
The body language of the police (above) seemed in stark contrast to the laid back, quiet nature of the protesters,
.
.
Warwick gave his views on state asset sales – none complimentary to the government,
.
.
TPK Regional Leader, Te Huia (Bill) Hamilton, stopped for a friendly Kiaora and brief chat with this blogger, before proceeding on his way,
.
.
At 3.30, Hone Harawira arrived, and was well-recieved by people present,
.
.
.
.
A chat with a journo,
.
.
Hone was given the loudspeaker and he gave a brief address to the crowd,
.
.
Hone spoke well, addressing the issue of state asset sales, and the relevance of the Treaty.
.
.
Hone’s speech*,
“Tena koe! Talofa lava!
That’s exactly what they expect to happen with these shares, and it is our duty; it is our obligation as citizens of Aotearoa, whether we are Maori or whatever, to do our best to stop this government from pushing this door open. Because once open, these assets will be sold on the open market and our shareholdings, so-called 51%, is simply going to be a majority shareholding in a company whose primary interest is generating profit.
Nothing at all to do with the public good, only the generating of profit. And any investor – doesn’t matter what sort of investor they are – they don’t put money into these sort of exercises because they love you and I. They put money in because they expect to get a lot of money back. And they get they money back in two ways; cutting costs, as they sack staff – or what are we doing outside Te Puni Kokiri?
The other way they do it is by raising prices! Now who’s going to pay for those higher prices in electricity? Ordinary New Zealand citizens! And who’s going to bear the most price? The poor ones! Poor pakeha, poor pacifica, poor everybody else, poor maori. So we have an obligation to ensure that those assets are retained in the hands of the New Zealand government as trustee on behalf of the nation as a whole.
I’d like to thank the Courts for their decision today, to say to the government to put a stop to the sal of the Crafar farms. Not necessarily because they were being sold to the Chinese, but because they are New Zealand land being sold out of the hands of New Zealand citizens.
The more and more people we can bring to support this kaupapa, the greater will be our own sense of our sovereignty and our ability to change the world. Life is not about sitting around and letting other people do to us what we wouldn’t allow to be done to anybody else. We have an obligation to our children, and our grandchildren, to take up this stand today, here in Wellington and thanks to [traffic noise] all of us, all around the country who’ve attended the Hui so far, and from what I understand an 88% rejection of the government’s plans to sell of these state assets.
Well, if there’s 88%, there must be a pretty low percentage in some of the other Huis because the three Huis I attended was a hundred percent opposition! One hundred percent!
Maori see the Treaty as a way of stopping these assets being sold on the open market until their Treaty claims are properly settled. New Zealanders should support Maori in these efforts because the Treaty exists in this particular instance to benefit all New Zealanders…
… Tena koutou, tena koutou.”
.
.
At about 3.40, Hone entered Te Puni Kokiri’s building and Seann advised the group that all protesters were invited to accompany him. It was agreed that all banners, placards, and loud-hailers would be left at the doorway-entrance. People were asked to behave in a respectful manner.
Maori wardens would watch over their gear, while they attended the Hui.
Mana Party member and protest organisor, Seann had said earlier that a more radical approach to attending the Hui would be to ask polite, but firm, questions of the politician present – and insist on straight answers. He believed it would be more productive using this approach, than yelling at English and Ryall.
One of the police constables who had stood by TPK’s door said later to this blogger that he was satisfied with the way the protestors had conducted themselves. He said, “everyone has the right to protest peacefully, and I wouldn’t want to see us become like other countries where protest was forbidden“.
His relaxed demeanour indicated that he was sincere in his views.
All in all, this was a peaceful and relaxed (not a “John Key relaxed”) protest.
Note: this Blogger did not attend the Hui because of another prior engagement. Additional commentary from attendees will be welcomed.
.
***
Media reporting
- TV1 News: nil
- TV3 News: nil
- Radio NZ: nil
- Dominion Post: nil
.
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.
.
* Recorded and transcribed mostly verbatim.
.
.
February 15 – Protest at TPK! (Part Tahi)
.
.
At around 2pm, 15 February, members of the Mana Party, Labour, Alliance, Occupy Movement, and other groupings and individuals assembled outside Te Puni Kokiri, on the corner of Lambton Quay and Stout Street.
The protest was organised primarily by the Newtown Branch of the Mana Party, to coincide with a hui at the TPK offices.
The Hui was one of a series throughout the country called by the government; facilitated by Wiri Gardner; and attended by Ministers Bill English and Tony Ryall. English and Ryall were expected to attend to listen to peoples’ concerns about Treaty implications regarding state asset (partial-)sales, and Section 9 of the SOE Act 1986.
John Key has suggested that Section 9 – which states simply, “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the – might be deleted from the SOE Act 1986. Many view such a move as a retrograde step, setting Crown-Maori relations back by decades.
.
.
Above; Darren Kemp (L) from the Mana Party; Cedric, (center) and Jonathan Elliot (R). Darren and Jonathan were the first to arrive and take up placards opposing the sale of state assets.
Below, John (L) and Warwick (R), arived soon after. Warwick is a long-time supporter of the Alliance Party,
.
.
Jonathan (L) and Ian (center) from the Workers Party, handing out leaflets to passers-by,
.
.
More people soon arrived to join the protest,
.
.
Donna was one who joined the protest. She said that “only a couple of people had been rude” to her as she handed out leaflets. Donna was more concerned at “the apathy I find distressing. At least they should care for their children‘s future“,
.
.
Seann (holding sign), said that there should be more focus on Peter Dunne’s role in asset sales. He said that whilst it “might be a long shot“, Dunne was vulnerable because of his slim majority in Ohariu,
.
.
Ariana, from the Newtown Branch of Mana Party. Ariana said that Hone Harawira would be arriving at the Hui and would present a submission on Treaty issues surrounding state asset sales.
Ariana said that asset sales “makes this country vulnerable to overseas corporatisation” and added that “selling our children’s assets was shameful “,
She questioned the outcome of the Hui, “what will they do with the final consultation report?” Ariana did not seem confident that much notice would be taken of peoples’ concerns.
.
.
More people arrived, and took up placards – including some other familiar faces from the Alliance,
.
.
Seann, Donna (center), and Freda,
.
.
Buses and cars honked their support every few minutes. We noticed bus drivers especially seemed very supportive of the protest, judging by their horn-honking as they went past,
.
.
.
.
The protest group was low-key, which perhaps explained only two police office and six Maori Wardens stationed nearby. Protestors, Wardens, TPK staff, and Police mingled and chatted amicably.
.
.
.
The signs said it all, and elicited support from drivers in their cars, and their drove past. Even if pedestrians did not stop and take a leaflet, I suspect that the protestor’s message of higher power prices would not be lost on them.
.
.
.
Bronwyn, a Labour Party member, chatting with Cedric (from TPK?),
.
.
Mike, from the Alliance Party,
.
.
Bronwyn, with a very pertinent message to the government: does a one seat majority give them a mandate to pursue unpopular policies? Especially if this government is only one by-election away from faling.
.
.
Darren (L), Mike, and Len Arthur (R).
Len was visiting family, from Cardiff, Wales. He is a supporter of Occupy Cardiff; a member of the UK Labour Party; and decided to join the protest after hearing about it from Socialist Aotearoa,
.
.
The message is simple and to the point; No asset sales and privatisation will inevitably lead to higher power prices,
.
.
Benjamin, who describes himself as a “political busker”, held the flag of the United Tribes of New Zealand,
.
.
Warwick, Larry (background), ?, and Darren,
.
.
During the first 30 to 45 minutes, the laid-back situation still required the presence of only two constables. A couple of Occupy Wellington supporters had arrived, to join the protest,
.
.
.
As the protest rally got larger, the msm arrived – as did more Police. Word also got around that Mana Party leader, Hone Harawira would be arriving shortly…
To be continued Part Rua (so as not to overload this page with too many images).
.
.
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).
.
.
Latest Horizon Poll – released today!
.
.
.
The latest Horizon Poll has been released today, with results on,
.
- the electoral system referendum
- political party ratings
- Maori voting intentions
.
Electoral system referendum
.
MMP is still the preferred option, with FPP coming in second place. This will no doubt annoy the heck out of the “Vote for Change” lobby group, who chose the FPP-variant, Supplementary Member (SM) as their preferred option.
Big mistake, boys. I know why you did it – you believed that FPP was tainted by past political abuses of power (which is correct) and that Supplementary Member would be a welcome alternative. “Vote for Change” even touted SM as a “compromise between FPP and MMP – which it isn’t, of course. But you relied on low-information voters not knowing this and following your lead.
Unfortunately for “Vote for Change”, their non-existant campaign achieved very little. In fact, it was distinctly amateurish, to put it mildly.
The results,
.
Full Results.
Political party ratings
.
As usual, Horizon Polling results differ markedly from Roy Morgan, Herald-Digipoll, et al, because Horizon prompts Undecided respondants to state a preference. Other pollsters also often do not include Undecideds when calculating their percentages.
The poll results,
.
.
It’s interesting to note that the poll results for ACT, Labour, and the Greens match very closely other political opinion polls – only the result for National is markedly different.
For example, a Fairfax Media-Research International poll released yesterday had the following results;
- Labour – 26%
- Greens – 12%
- ACT – 0.7%
Very similar results to the Horizon Poll, with two important exceptions – Fairfax had the following results for National and NZ First;
- National – 54%
- NZ First – 4%
Significantly different to the Horizon Poll.
As the poll above stands, a Labour-led government is possible, with NZ First support. (And woe betide Winston Peters if he plays silly-buggers with Supply & Confidence.)
The election results will point to which company has gauged voter preferences the most accurately.
.
Maori voting intentions
.
As Maori politics follows Pakeha political movement and fragmentation along classic Left/Right lines, Mana and Maori Parties are becoming critical potentional partners for National and Labour. (Phil Goff may say he won’t go into Coalition with the Mana Party – but I believe he will need Hone Harawira’s Supply & Confidence to govern. He is hardly likely to turn down Mana Party support – critical if the left are to win on Saturday.)
Party Vote Results:
- Labour is attracting 27.6% of Maori nationwide
- Mana 14.9%
- Maori Party 14.9%
- NZ First 11.3%
- Green 11% and
- National 9.5%.
It is interesting to note that, generally speaking, Maori still favour Labour-led government;
- 20% of Maori want the Maori Party to enter a post-election coalition agreement with National.
- 53.5% would prefer it enter a Labour coalition.
- 45.8% of Maori would prefer Mana to enter a coalition agreement with Labour, 9.2% National.
If Horizon Polling is accurate – and I believe that their results are more realistic than the 50%, 53%, 56%, results that other polling companies have been coming up with – then National is on-course to being a one-term government.
And if John Key follows comments he made earlier this year, he will resign from Parliament.
Interesting times, indeed…
.
.
National and ? – some thoughts
.
.
.
I’ve been thinking…
.
National
.
That National is higher in the opinion polls than Labour is undeniable. Even the Horizon Poll – which has supposedly more accurate methodology than the other polling companies – has National at 36.8% and Labour at 25.7%. (Source)
Other polls have National at an unfeasibly high 56% – unheard of in an MMP environment, where up till now the highest Party Vote was National’s 44.9% in 2008.
If National is anywhere near 50%-51% of the Party Vote – enabling it to barely form a government – then it will have made history in MMP elections.
Assuming that National’s vote on 26 November will be somewhere in the high 40s – it will not have sufficient seats in the House to govern alone. It will need a coalition partner.
Which is where things start to get interesting…
.
.
ACT?
.
It is apparent to all but the but die-hard fan of ACT that Don Brash’s coup d’état in April has not achieved a single desired outcome for that Party. Brash’s toppling of Rogney Hide was done on the premise that Brash would re-focus ACT on economic matters and change it’s “brand” from a “chapter” of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, to it’s more traditional role of a neo-liberal party, espousing free market ‘reforms’; user-pays; asset sales; minimalist government; and the Cult of the Individual.
Brash has achieved none of those policy-goals.
ACT is polling well under the 5% MMP threshold (5%). It’s 1% – 3% poll rating rating is not sufficient to win seats in Parliament. It must therefore rely on winning an Electorate Seat, at which point the 5% threshold is set aside.
John Banks’ candidacy in Epsom has also seemingly failed to ‘fire’. Banks is trailing well behind the National Party’s candidate, Paul Goldsmith. Banks’ position is not helped by John Key stating publicly,
“I’m going to vote for Goldsmith. I am the National Party leader and I am going to vote for the National Party candidate and give my party vote to National.” – John Key
Which makes a mockery of the unspoken “arrangement” between National and ACT, and seems to be an insult to Epsom voters that whilst they are expected to give their vote to John Banks – the Prime Minister refuses to lead by example. Charming.
If, as seems likely, John Banks does not win in Epsom then, like Winston Peters losing Tauranga, ACT is out of Parliament.
Strike 1 for National.
.
Peter Dunne?
.
Since the height of United Future’s popularity in 2002, their electoral support has declined to margin-of-error polling,
.
.
United Future, as a political entity, is all but dead except in name. Peter Dunne is essentially now a one-person band – and even in his electorate of Ohariu-Belmont, is experiencing waning support with each election,
.
Peter Dunne, Electorate Votes 1996 – 2008
.
1996 – 15,915
1999 – 20,240
2002 – 19,355
2005 – 16,844
2008 – 12,303
.
In 2008, Dunne’s electorate majority over his nearest opponant, Charles Chauvel (L), was a bare 1,006 votes. At the rate that Dunne has been losing electoral support, and if even half the Green electorate vote shifts to Chauvel, then Peter Dunne will lose his seat in Parliament.
Strike 2 for National.
.
Maori Party?
.
National’s only remaining life-line; the Maori Party. Polls indicate that Maori Party co-leader, Pita Sharples, will most likely win his seat, Tamaki Makaurau. Whether he is join by other successful candidates from the Maori Party is anyone’s guess, and with their low overall ranking in the polls, the Maori Party is unlikely to approach the 5% threshold, much less cross over it.
In 2008, the Maori Party won five out of the seven Maori Seats. With the advent of the Mana Party, formed by breakaway MP Hone Harawira, and supported by many disaffected Maori Party members/activists, these seats are now contested in a three-way battle; Mana, Maori, and Labour.
As an indicator, Hone Harawira won his seat Te Tai Tokerau in a by-election, earlier this year,
.
.
If the Maori Party beat Mana’s challenge and win sufficient seats; and if they enter into coalition with National, then John Key is faced with the real prospect of having no counter-balancing Party on the Right. Unlike the 2008 election result which gave him ACT and Peter Dunne on the right, National will be governing at the “pleasure” of just one coalition partner.
Considering that the Maori Party has stated it’s opposition to asset sales (albeit lukewarm opposition), the partial-privatisation agenda may not go ahead as John Key and Bill English anticipated. (*whew!* The ‘family silver’ is saved till another day!)
John Key recently stated,
“I think it is important to understand if the Greens hold the balance of power it would be a Phil Goff Labour-led government and I think they would be quite upfront about that.“ Source
The same could be said of the Maori Party. National’s re-election prospects now depend solely on the success of their Coalition partner.
National’s strike 3? We will have to wait till 26 November for the final result.
.
.
ACT and The Greens – some thoughts
.
.
.
I’ve been thinking…
.
ACT
.
Throughout this election campaign – and even prior to Don Brash’s coup d’état - ACT has been polling well under the 5% MMP threshold, that permits a Party to win seats in Parliament.
With such low voter support, ACT has relied on the electorate seat of Epsom, which Rodney Hide won in the 2008 General Election with a handsome 21,102 electorate votes. National’s Richard Worth came a distant second with 8,220 electorate votes.
Since then, ACT has suffered several set-backs;
- A very public coup, which saw Don Brash seize the leadership of ACT – despite the fact he was not even a member of that Party when he took over.
- A serious mis-calculation in advocating legalisation of marijuana. Whilst this would be reasonable policy for a quasi-libertarian Party – it did not go down well with the conservative folk of Epsom.
- John Banks reportedly “reigning in” his own Party leader on the cannabis issue.
- Deputy leader, John Boscawen, resigning under circumstances that were less than clear.
- Brash attempting to resuscitate anti-Treaty sentiment with a newspaper advert attacking “maori privilege“.
- Brash not focusing on core, economic issues, as he said he would at the time he took over from Rodney Hide.
- Nominating John Banks as the new candidate for Epsom – something that Epsomites seem less than enthusiastic about.
- John Key stating publicly that he was voting for the National candidate in Epsom, Paul Goldsmith.
.
Prime Minister John Key will not vote for ACT's John Banks for the Epsom electorate, instead giving his vote to National's Paul Goldsmith
.
With ACT practically falling apart before our eyes, it seems unsurprising that it barely registers in public opinion polls. It polls usually 1-3%.
Meanwhile, Banks is trailing behind Paul Goldsmith, despite the “unspoken arrangement” between National and ACT, the Epsom National Party supporters give Banks their Electorate Vote, and National their Party Vote. The idea being that if ACT scores over 1.2% of the Party Vote nationwide; and wins Epsom*; then Banks could pull one or two extra MPs into Parliament with him, as a Coalition partner for National.
So far there seems little chance of this happening. If current polling translates into votes on 26 November, then ACT is out of Parliament – another small party “bites the dust” under MMP.
One part of me views this possibility with a shrug and a “meh”. Considering ACT’s harsh right wing policies that most certainly favour the rich and corporate ‘elite’, it is hard to muster any sympathy for such a group.
But another part of me is… uneasy. Uneasy at the prospect of ACT’s demise.
Though I have no truck with that Party and it’s hard-line right-wing, neo-liberal, free market ideology – I cannot help wondering what will happen once it fails to return to Parliament.
What will happen to it’s supporters?
Where will they go, in terms of finding a new political “Home”?
Remember that ACT was founded by Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble – one-time Labour Party MPs. Douglas, Prebble, and other hangers-on had colonised a supposedly social democratic, left-wing party – and between 1984 and 1989, had managed to gain control of Labour. Like some parasitic organism, they had managed to take over the Host, and turned Labour into a precursor of the ACT Party.
A party of me shudders at the imminent demise of ACT.
Where will the ‘parasites’ end up? In which new Host?
The obvious choice would appear to be National.
If ACT supporters colonise National and become a viable, albeit invisible, faction within that Party – it will happen out-of-sight, and without the elecorate’s knowledge.
Voters in 1984 believed they were voting for a traditional Labour Party. They were badly mistaken.
National, with an agitating ACT faction vying for power and influence, could be a re-run of history.
Let’s not be too keen to see the end of ACT. Let’s keep the buggers where we can see them; out in the open.
.
+++ Updates +++
ACT polls at wipeout low in Epsom
.
The Greens
.
There has been some discussion recently about the (extremely remote) possibility of a National-Green Coalition, post-election.
The Green Party leadership seems frosty at the idea, and List candidate, Catherine Delahunty, has stated that she will resign if such a Coalition deal eventuates.
Most recently, this issue was canvassed during an episode of Statos TV’s “iPredict Election Show”, with Green MP, Gareth Hughes.
.
.
Personally, I have no great love for this notion either.
My first preference would be a Labour-Greens-Mana-(Maori Party?) Coalition. (And yes, I think such a notion would work. They all want similar things for their constituents, and despite some asteroid-sized egos at work, their party policies are not as divorced from each other as they like to make out.)
However…
In saying that…
Part of the rationale for MMP is that small parties act as a “brake” on the executive power of governments. Most recently this worked well when ACT voted – along with Labour and the Greens – to seriously amend National’s outrageously draconian, Police Video Surveillance Bill.
MMP is not just an electoral system – it is an extension of the Will of the Voter to prevent any one party from having total control over Parliament. The days of unbridled power by the likes of Muldoon, Douglas, Bolger, and Richardson, are long gone.
If the Greens can act as a “brake” on National – should it win the largest number of seats in Parliament – but not sufficient to govern on their own – then this option should be explored. With all due respect to Ms Delahunty – a principled person who does not appear to brook political shenanigans easily – let us at least look at what the Greens might achieve in Coalition with the Nats…
- No asset sales. Not 49%. Not 25%. Not 1%. End of story.
- No more demonisation and attacks on unemployed and other beneficiaries. Enough of the victim-blaming of this recession.
- Re-focus the next government’s attention on job-creation policies. This has to be a priority. Without jobs, we are sentencing a couple of hundred thousand of our fellow Kiwis to rot on welfare.
- Raise the minimum wage. Yeah, I know this is Labour Party policy – but somehow I dont think they’ll mind if you nick it and use it.
- Begin the re-building of Christchurch, in earnest. Enough with the messing around. As a famous sweatshop-operator-and-maker-of -footwear sez, Just Do It!
A Green-National partnership would be handy to achieve all of the above. But more than that – much more importantly – the Greens could pull National away from the Right, and back to the middle ground in politics.
That, in itself, would be a worthy achievement.
.
.
* Note
If a Party wins an Electorate Seat, then they are not bound by the 5% threshold, and can win as many seats as their Party Vote allows them, regardless of whether or not they are at 5%.
.
.
Of Polls, Politics, & Pollution
.
“Do as I say, Not as I Do”, is not a particularly savvy way to relate to an important electorate such as Epsom,
.
.
It beggars belief that a Party leader could ask voters in a given electorate to vote for the candidate of another Party – whilst he himself supports his own Party’s candidate. John Key has stated categorically,
“‘I’m going to vote for Goldsmith. I am the National Party leader and I am going to vote for the National Party candidate and give my party vote to National. ” Source
One wonders how National supporters in Epsom must be feeling.
The leader of their Party hints that they should vote for ACT’s John Banks, whilst Key himself votes for the National candidate, Paul Goldsmith?
And if Paul Goldsmith is the “sacificial lamb” – why is he standing as an electorate candidate anyway? National could just as easily – and more honestly – simply not stand a candidate and mount a publicity campaign for the Party Vote only,
.
.
In effect, National’s electorate candidate is not really campaigning to win. And if he doesn’t want to win, why is he standing? To give Epsom National supporters a “wink and a nod” to Electorate Vote ACT and Party Vote National?
And if such is the case – what possible legitimacy does that give ACT when they can’t attract electorate support on their own merits?
So much for ACT being a Party that encourages success through merit. Especially when they apply the merit-based principle to Maori: Maori Must Earn Auckland Seats On Merit .
As the ACT statement sez; “Let our bright boys and girls EARN their seats.“
.
***
.
.
ACT and National’s machinations in Epsom are, of course, due to ACT’s low poll ratings. Practically every single poll has them around the 1.5-3.5% mark. Under MMPs rules, if they cannot cross the magical 5% Party Vote threshold – or – win an Electorate Seat, they will end up like The Alliance and NZ First: out of Parliament.
(Despite what critics of proportional representation would have us believe, MMP is not a very ‘forgiving’ system to small Parties.)
The latest Horizon Poll makes for very interesting reading. Horizon is the only polling company that prompts Undecideds to state a preference. Under this system, the results appear to give a far more realistic result of Voter’s intentions, rather than the ‘fantasmagorical‘ results that have National at 53-55%-plus,
Horizon is the only polling company publishing results for don’t know voters.
Horizon’s results are for
- Decided voters
- Undecided voters with a preference
who are
- Registered to vote and who
- Intend to vote.
The poll finds
- National has 36.8% of registered voters (down 2.7% since September 22)
- Labour 25.7% (-1.1%)
- Green Party 11.6% (up 0.9%)
- New Zealand First 6.2% (- 1.1%)
- Mana Party 2.3% (+ 0.3%)
- Act 3.4% (down 1.4% from September and down from a high of 5.3% in May shortly after Don Brash became leader)
- Maori Party 1.7% (+0.7%)
- United Future 0.4% ( 0% in September)
- Conservative Party of New Zealand 2.2% (new party, first time measured)
- New Citizens 0%
- Other parties 1.2%
National has highest voter loyalty: 76.2% of its 2008 voters still support it. It has picked up 19.9% of Act voters and 9.1% of Labour voters (while Labour has picked up 7.6% of National’s).
The Greens have 68.7% voter loyalty and are gaining 2008 voters from the Maori Party (23.1%) and Labour (14.6%).
Labour has 63% voter loyalty, losing 14.3% to the Greens, 9.1% to National and 3.7% to New Zealand First.
The Maori Party has 30.8% voter loyalty, losing 23.1% of its 2008 voters to the Greens and 19.1% to Mana.
Assuming John Banks wins the Epsom electorate seat for Act, Peter Dunne retains Ohariu-Belmont, the Maori Party retains its four electorate seats and Hone Harawira retains Te Tai Tokerau, a 122 seat Parliament would result, with a two Maori Party seat overhang, comprising:
National 50
Act 5
Maori party 4
United Future 1
Current governing coalition: 60 seats
Labour 35
Green 16
NZ First 8
Total: 59 seats
Mana 3
Horizon Research says a great deal depends on the support New Zealand First attracts at November 26.
Horizon polls have had the party at 6% or higher since November 2010. (Note the poll’s margin of error is +/- 2.2%).
If correct, National is in trouble. Their chances of a second term are not guaranteed, and judging by the public’s low opinion of National’s performance of the grounding of the m.v. Rena; the double credit-rating downgrades; the questionable veracity of the so-called Standard & Poors “email”; and various promises made that have not been kept, John Key’s “teflon” image is definitely beginning to show signs of wear and tear.
And with the RWC behind us, and the public “partyed-out”, a return to politicking may be a welcomed diversion for many. Especially as people begin to focus on issues such as asset sales and the sales of farmland – both contentious and highly unpopular with the public. In a way, the RWC may even strengthen opposition to asset/farm sales to foreigners.
After all, if we’re good enough to beat the world in rugby, then why the dickens aren’t we good enough to hold on to our taongas?! Explain that, Dear Leader!!
On the other hand, though Labour leader Phil Goff has consistently polled lower than Key, his dogged determination to persevere and not fold under media scrutiny may actually earn him “brownie points” with the public.
Goff can wear the label of “underdog” with real credibility. If Labour can play on this in a subtle manner, and show that Goff does not cave under pressure; that he keeps on like the proverbial ‘Energizer Bunny’ when all seems lost; and that he doesn’t rely on shallow charisma and meaningless smiles and utterances – he is in with a fighting chance.
God knows that lesser mortals would’ve probably chucked it in long before now, and call for a replacement from the “benches”.
.
***
.
Another Horizon Poll has shown what many suspected would be the reaction from New Zealanders over the grounding of the m.v. Rena: that the government was slow of the mark and wasted precious time in delaying action,
.
.
Taken in isolation, the grounding and response from government and statutory bodies would probably have raised no more than slight annoyance from the public.
But the grounding of the Rena is now the third major disaster this country has experienced; on top of the Pike River Mine explosions and the Christchurch earthquakes.
In both instances, central government made promises to locals that – in hindsight – may have been unrealistic at best, and irresponsible at worst. Public patience with the ever-smiling, waving, John Key may be wearing just a bit thin.
Then on top of all that, was the near-disaster of the Rugby World Cup’s opening night. The government had well and truly taken their collective eyes of the ball that night, and it is pure good luck that no one was seriously injured or killed in the mayhem.
Unrealistic promises and slow responses were only the beginning.
We also have the government intending to bring deep-sea oil drilling to our coastal waters. More than half the country by now must be asking themselves,
“Just hang on a mo’, Mr Prime Minister! If we can barely cope with a single stranded freighter, sitting on the surface of the sea – how the heck are we going to cope with a major oil disaster that might be two or three times the depth of the Gulf of Mexico disaster?! Aside from hoping for good luck that nothing goes wrong, we’re not really prepared are we, Mr Key? “
.
***
.
To make things worse, is the disquieting suspicion that our de-regulated safety regime; lax building codes; and continual cutbacks to government workers are contributing to a systematic running-down of essential services. Especially when even emergency services are now starting to feel the blades of National’s savage cuts,
.
.
When the aspirational middle class Baby Boomers start to feel that their comfort zones are threatened, government politicians should take heed. That’s when we throw out governments. We don’t like our “comfort zones” upset. (It upsets our delicate tummies.)
.
***
.
Now let’s really stir the political pot of discontent; our youth seem to have re-discovered their own political power and realised that leaving matters to the Older Generation (us) may not achieve the outcomes they desire. God knows our generation has succeeded in wrecking the global economy; threatening the stability of the Eurozone; and bringing the once great super power that is the United States, to it’s knees.
Young folk have woken up to the world around them – and they are not very happy at what they find,
.
.
The recent government interference in Student Union affairs (forcing voluntary unionism upon people who may not necessarily wish for it) should be a stark wake-up call to young people that National governments – far from being “hands off” and opposed to “nanny statish” behaviour – can be just as controlling as their counterparts allegedly were.
In fact, more so. After all, this “hands off” government did force almalgation on Aucklanders without any democratic referendum being conducted. National had no hesitation in passing legislation to ban cellphone usage whilst driving (but not banning applying makeup or eating whilst driving). Then they lifted the driving age. And have begun liquor law reforms. And John Key is even now contemplating the ungodly “Nanny Statish” policy of making Kiwisaver compulsory!! Oh dear gods – whatever next?!
Oh, that’s right – National wanted to extend Police powers to allow greater video surveillance in the community. (Which even ACT decided was a step too far.)
All in all, the gloss has worn away from this government, and it’s track record of the last three years cannot be dismissed with a smile and a wave, with a hollow promise chucked in for good measure.
And young New Zealanders are starting to flex their political muscle.
Not too bad, on top of winning the rugby world cup, eh?
.
.
2011 Party Lists
2011 Party Lists:
- Act
- Green Party
- Labour
- Mana Party
- National
- NZ First
- United Future
ACT Party
Announced: 28 August 2011
1. Dr Don Brash
2. Catherine Isaac (replaces John Boscawen)
3. Don Nicolson
4. Hon John Banks
5. David Seymour
6. Chris Simmons
7. Stephen Whittington
8. Kath McCabe
9. Robyn Stent
10. John Thompson
11. John Ormond
12. Lyn Murphy
13. Kevin Moratti
14. Robin Grieve
15. Pratima Nand
16. Dominic Costello
17. Toni Severen
18. Richard Evans
19. Ian Cummings
20. Gareth Veale
21. Toby Hutton
22. Dan Stratton
23. Robert Burnside
24. Hayden Fitzgerald
25. Alex Spiers
26. Peter McCaffrey
|
|
|
Green Party
Announced: 29 May 2011
1. Metiria Turei
2. Russel Norman
3. Kevin Hague
4. Catherine Delahunty
5. Kennedy Graham
6. Eugenie Sage
7. Gareth Hughes
8. David Clendon
9. Jan Logie
10. Steffan Browning
11. Denise Roche
12. Holly Walker
13. Julie Anne Genter
14. Mojo Mathers
15. James Shaw
16. David Hay
17. Richard Leckinger
18. Aaryn Barlow
19. Jeanette Elley
20. Sea Rotmann
21. Michael Gilchrist
22. Dora Langsbury
23. David Kennedy
24. Tane Woodley
25. Joseph Burston
26. Mikaere Curtis
27. Shane Gallagher
28. Saffron Toms
29. Steve Tollestrup
30. Jack McDonald
|
|
|
Labour Party
Announced: 10 April 2011
1. Phil Goff
2. Annette King
3. David Cunliffe
4. David Parker
5. Ruth Dyson
6. Parekura Horomia
7. Maryan Street
8. Clayton Cosgrove
9. Trevor Mallard
10. Sue Moroney
11. Charles Chauvel
12. Nanaia Mahuta
13. Jacinda Ardern
14. Grant Robertson
15. Andrew Little
16. Shane Jones
17. Su’a William Sio
18. Darien Fenton
19. Moana Mackey
20. Rajen Prasad
21. Raymond Huo
22. Carol Beaumont
23. Kelvin Davis
24. Carmel Sepuloni
25. Rick Barker
26. Deborah Mahuta-Coyle
27. Stuart Nash
28. Clare Curran
29. Brendon Burns
30. Chris Hipkins
31. David Shearer
32. Michael Wood
33. Phil Twyford
34. Stephanie (Steve) Chadwick
35. Kate Sutton
36. Jerome Mika
37. Iain Lees-Galloway
38. Josie Pagani
39. Lynette Stewart
40. Jordan Carter
41. Kris Faafoi
42. Christine Rose
43. Glenda Alexander
44. Susan Zhu
45. Rino Tirikatene
46. Sehai Orgad
47. Megan Woods
48. Mea’ole Keil
49. David Clark
50. Richard Hills
51. Anahila Suisuiki
52. Hamish McDouall
53. Louis Te Kani
54. Tat Loo
55. Soraya Peke-Mason
56. Julian Blanchard
57. Peter Foster
58. Pat Newman
59. Julia Haydon-Carr
60. Michael Bott
61. Vivienne Goldsmith
62. Nick Bakulich
63. Chris Yoo
64. Barry Monks
65. Hugh Kininmonth
66. Jo Kim
67. Paula Gillon
68. Carol Devoy-Heena
|
|
|
Mana Party
Announced: 1 November 2011
- Hone Harawira
- Annette Sykes
- John Minto
- Sue Bradford
- Misty Harrison
- James Papali’i
- Tawhai McClutchie
- Angeline Greensill
- Jayson Gardiner
- Dr Richard S Cooper
- Dr Peter Cleave
- Val Irwin
- Sharon Stevens
- Keriana Reedy
- Pat O’Dea
- Roderick Paul
- Grant Rogers
- Nguha Patuwai
- Barry Tumai
- Ngawai Herewini
|
|
|
Maori Party
Announced:29 October 2011
1. Waihoroi Shortland
2. Kaapua Smith
3. Wheturangi Walsh-Tapiata
4. Tina Porou
5. Awanui Black
6. Davina Murray
7. Tariana Turia
8. Pita Sharples
9. Te Ururoa Flavell
10. Josie Peita
11. Paora Te Hurihanganui
12. Fallyn Flavell
13. Daryl Christie
14. Tom Phillips
15. Tim Morrison
16. Tamai Nicholson
17. Aroha Rickus
|
|
|
National Party
Announced: 4 September 2011
1. John Key (1)
2. Bill English (2)
3. Lockwood Smith (12)
4. Gerry Brownlee (3)
5. Tony Ryall (6)
6. Nick Smith (5)
7. Judith Collins (7)
8. Anne Tolley (10)
9. Chris Finlayson (14)
10. David Carter (9)
11. Murray McCully (11)
12. Tim Groser (15)
13. Steven Joyce (16)
14. Paula Bennett (41)
15. Phil Heatley (22)
16. Jonathan Coleman (29)
17. Kate Wilkinson (30)
18. Hekia Parata (36)
19. Maurice Williamson (8)
20. Nathan Guy (18)
21. Craig Foss (33)
22. Chris Tremain (31)
23. Jo Goodhew (39)
24. Lindsay Tisch (19)
25. Eric Roy (28)
26. Paul Hutchison (23)
27. Shane Ardern (24)
28. Amy Adams (52)
29. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga (35)
30. Simon Bridges (51)
31. Michael Woodhouse (49)
32. Chester Borrows (32)
33. Nikki Kaye (57)
34. Melissa Lee (37)
35. Kanwaljit Bakshi (38)
36. Jian Yang (-)
37. Alfred Ngaro (-)
38. Katrina Shanks (46)
39. Paul Goldsmith (-)
40. Tau Henare (26)
41. Jacqui Dean (40)
42. Nicky Wagner (43)
43. Chris Auchinvole (42)
44. Louise Upston (53)
45. Jonathan Young (66)
46. Jackie Blue (45)
47. Todd McClay (54)
48. Alan Peachey (34)
49. David Bennett (44)
50. Tim Macindoe (55)
51. Cam Calder (58)
52. John Hayes (50)
53. Colin King (47)
54. Aaron Gilmore (56)
55. Jami-Lee Ross (-)
56. Paul Quinn (48)
57. Paul Foster-Bell (-)
58. Maggie Barry (-)
59. Ian McKelvie (-)
60. Mark Mitchell (-)
61. Mike Sabin (-)
62. Scott Simpson (-)
63. Claudette Hauiti (-)
64. Joanne Hayes (-)
65. Leonie Hapeta (-)
66. Sam Collins (-)
67. Jonathan Fletcher (-)
68. Heather Tanner (-)
69. Denise Krum (-)
70. Carolyn O’Fallon (-)
71. Viv Gurrey (71)
72. Karen Rolleston (-)
|
|
|
New Zealand First
Announced 12 November 2011
1. PETERS, Winston
2. MARTIN, Tracey Rodney
3. WILLIAMS, Andrew North Shore
4. PROSSER, Richard Waimakariri
5. STEWART Barbara Waikato
6. HORAN, Brendan Tauranga
7. O’ROURKE, Denis Port Hills
8. TAYLOR, Asenati Manukau East
9. MULFORD, Helen Pakuranga
10. BARR, Hugh Ohariu
11. TABUTEAU, Fletcher Rotorua
12. PARAONE, Pita Whangarei
13. CATCHPOLE, Brent Papakura
14. CRAVEN, Ben Wellington Central
15. HO, Jerry Maungakiekie
16. GUDGEON, Bill Hamilton West
17. GARDENER, Kevin Nelson
18. DOLMAN, Ray BOP
19. SCOTT, David Otaki
20. RATANA, Randall Dunedin Sth
21. BINDRA, Mahesh Mt Roskill
22. PERRY, Edwin Taupo
23. JELLEY, Dion Northcote
24. HALL, John Manurewa
25. STONE, Kevin Coromandel
26. NABBS, Doug Hunua
27. PIERSON, Brent Rongotai
28. ILALIO, Oliva Mangere
29. STEWART, Gordon Hamilton East
30. REID, Tamati East Coast
31. BROUGHAM, Ian Whanganui
32. WOODS, Bill Selwyn
33. DAVIES, Allen Auckland Central
|
|
|
United Future Party
Announced: 20 October 2011
1. Peter Dunne
2. Doug Stevens
3. Rob Eaddy
4. Sultan Eusoff
5. Alan Simmons
6. Bryan Mockridge
7. Vanessa Roberts
8. Pete George
9. Ram Prakash
10. Martin Gibson
11. Clyde Graf
12. Damian Light
13. Andrew McMillan
14. Diane Brown
15. Brian Carter
