Archive
I have seen one future, and it is bleak
.
.
Way back in March, 2012, I wrote this story regarding a march to support striking workers at Ports of Auckland. It appears there was some prescience about some of my observations at the time…
.
|
|
18 March 2012 – I was looking at several images taken from the March 10 rally and the port picket lines, and for some reason, this one stuck in my mind. The more I look at the image of this young Kiwi girl (I hope I haven’t got that wrong!), it eventually came to me.
In my mind, I was wondering; what will be her future?
Depending very much on what my generation (“Baby Boomers”) and Gen X does now, in the Present, she probably has three likely futures ahead of her…
Future 1
More of the same. Casualisation of jobs; wages driven downward as businesses compete with each other, and overseas providers of goods and services; few job opportunities except in low-paid fast food, care-sector, cleaning, and suchlike. A wealth/income gap that has become so vast that even the Middle Class are now designated as the Shrinking Class. Top earners and asset-holders – the Privileged Class – are paying less and less tax; low income earners having to pay more and more; with fewer social services readily available. More user-pays; more alienation; less engagement with the electoral process.
This young lass cannot escape to Australia as she is either unemployed or under-employed. She is part of a growing Struggling Class that is resented by the Shrinking Class, and viewed with disdain by the Privileged Class, though grudgingly accepted as a useful pool of cheap labour.
The Shrinking Class know in their heart-of-hearts that they are living under a failed economic system that benefits only a few. But they are too frightened to vote for an alternative centre-left Party; they fear the back-lash from an angry under-class only too happy to exact revenge.
Meanwhile, the Baby Boomer generation has hit retirement – but there are few skilled care-workers left in New Zealand. So the government imports migrant workers from Third World countries under a bonded-system (so they cannot, in turn, escape to Australia). Taxation levels are now so low that government subsidies have ceased and full user-pays is now in effect for Rest homes. Baby boomers are selling up their residences and investment properties; the market is flooded with cheaper and cheaper houses – but with incomes so low, few can afford to buy them. Those that are sold reap less and less capital gains.
Future 2
More of the same, but she has been fortunate enough to be able to find resources and support from whanau over-seas – and she is of to Australia.
In Australia, she finds a relatively good job with decent pay. Her work conditions are protected by a strong Union; she has access to decent social services; and the government assists her and her new partner to build a house. They are both working; earning higher and higher incomes; and contributing to Australia’s economy and tax-base.
In a year or two, she helps other members of her family escape from New Zealand.
They leave behind a no-longer-smiling Prime Minister who is promising to “revitalise the economy” to “entice overseas Kiwis to come back” – then cuts another 1,000 workers from the State Sector and sells the last remaining profitable State Owned Enterprise.
Future 3
New Zealanders’ appetite for New Right, minimalist government, that has produced very few gains or benefits – has come to an end. The Smile & Wave Prime Minister is thrown out at the next election where he retires to his Hawaiian beach house, and is forgotten.
Meanwhile, a new centre-Left government takes stock and adopts a Scandinavian model of governance, taxation, and social services. The new government starts off with a crash programme of building 10,000 new state houses. Free school meals for breakfast and lunch starts in the first year. Free doctor’s visits and boosting immunisation rates up to 99% follows. New Zealand returns to a system of free education. (Howls of protest from a few remaining New Right supporters are either ignored or ridiculed. Some are offered a free plane flight to a Libertarian-run state of their own choosing – if they can find one.)
Amongst this “radical” social democratic reform, the young girl above is supported by well-resourced local community groups and by strengthened state social services to journey through the education system. A new “Social Contract” requires that all young people will be in education; a job; or serving in a new New Zealand Civic Corp, which involves fair pay for working on major infra-structure projects and ongoing tertiary/polytech education.
A Capital Gains Tax and Financial Transactions Tax, is a first step toward capturing heretofore un-taxed wealth and assets. As returns from these taxes kick in, the government makes the first $11,000 of income tax free. As incomes increase, government looks at Gareth Morgan’s “negative tax” system.
The young girl has grown, graduated, and is now working in the community in the children’s health sector. Her education is on-going, as the State encourages workers to undertake further tertiary education. This increases her productivity and value to society, and she is paying more in tax as her income rises. She is a saving some of her pay in an expanded Kiwisaver Account; spending more; and local businesses are benefitting from her expenditure. She meets a young man who is finishing his Builder’s Certificate through the NZ Civic Corp.
Together, they have a family. One stays at home to care for the family, the other remains in paid work. The negative taxation system advocated by Gareth Morgan has been implemented and the stay-at-home parent still recieves an income from the State. People are not disincentivised to have children; raise a family; who then grow up to be the next generation of tax-paying citizens.
With none of the pressures that young families are currently facing, their home is not stressed because of financial pressures and job uncertainty/insecurity, and the children are raised in a stable, relaxed environment. The children’s future ahead of them is reassured; early childhood education; schooling; tertiary education; and finally tax-paying citizens.
In this reformed society, children are number one on the list and will always have first recourse to resources. The Prime Minister is Minister for Children.
In school, civics is part of the curriculum, and young people are taught recent history of our country; the mistakes we have made; and how they can hold politicians to account.
Meanwhile, she has persuaded some of her whanau to return to New Zealand. They like what they see and can feel themselves ready to become a part of a true, inclusive New Zealand Society.
The best thing about the three futures I’ve described above? The power to choose which one we’ll have is entirely in our hands. No one else can give or take it away from us.
Which is it to be, I wonder?
.
Perhaps nothing better illustrates the three possible futures for the toddler pictured above than the all-too real – and thought-provoking – story of Aroha Ireland, formerly of low-income area, McGehan Close.
In February 2007, Key shamelessly exploited Aroha’s situation to attack the then-Labour-led government;
.
.
As I further reported on 23 November 2012 on Key’s cynical publicity stunt,
It’s somewhat disturbing to note that National list MP Jackie Blue, who had a close personal relationship with Aroha’s family, played along with the photo-op. That was despite reservations expressed by some,
“Labour list MP Dover Samuels was the only one publicly labelling Mr Key’s invitation a stunt yesterday, but others quietly voiced similar concerns.”
The family, though, seemed blissfully unaware that they were little more than pawns in National’s pre-election grand strategy and expressed their comfort with events,
“…Mrs Nathan told Close Up last night that the invitation had given her daughter a good opportunity.
She continued to disagree with some of Mr Key’s views on McGehan Close, but she believed he was trying to push for positive changes.”
The 2007 episode ended badly for Aroha and her mother, as the NZ Herald reported on 10 February 2010,
The mother of the 12-year-old girl John Key took to Waitangi three years ago says she has been let down by the Prime Minister, and her daughter now wants nothing to do with him.
Joan Nathan said she and her family were worse off since National won the election.
She’d lost her job with National list MP Jackie Blue, arranged by Key, and a training allowance she received had been cut.
“They gave me the job to sweeten the deal, and then as soon as they got elected I got the sack,” she said.
“I’m pretty anti-Mr Key at the moment”..
[…]
“He’s just made everything worse for us and made it easier for ones that are higher up. I’m struggling every week.”
On 7 September this year, Fairfax Media published this up-dated story on Aroha Ireland, formerly of McGehan Close, and now residing comfortably in Australia;
.
.
In his story above, Fairfax reporter Simon Day wrote,
Three years later Aroha, now 20, feels she was used by Key – and the Prime Minister won’t be getting her vote.
“The last time I spoke to him was when he took me to Waitangi Day. After that I have never heard from him again. I absolutely believe that I was used as a publicity stunt,” she says. “I wouldn’t vote for National.”
[…]
Now, she says, the opportunities she has in Australia just aren’t available here.
“I have a full time job that pays good, $38 an hour,” she says. “I have a house, rent is cheap, about $265 a week for 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, double garage, me and my husband are close to buying our own house. Life couldn’t be any better. There was nothing left in New Zealand.
“All this from someone who came from a ‘dead end’ street, right?”
She recently returned home to visit her mother. She couldn’t believe how expensive the price of living in New Zealand was compared to Australia.
“Petrol has shot up – $2 for petrol, really? I also brought about seven or eight items from one of the supermarkets and it came to a total of $78. No wonder people can’t fill their fridges. I’m glad I got out of New Zealand when I did.”
Over the past four years she has seen her mother’s financial situation worsen. “My mum works full time and she is still struggling really bad,” she says. “It is like she is worse off.”
“I have everything that I would never ever have in New Zealand. I would probably still be on the benefit if I lived in NZ right now.”
It seems that for Ms Ireland, of the three possible futures I outlined in 2012 – voters have chosen this path to follow;
Future 2
More of the same, but she has been fortunate enough to be able to find resources and support from whanau over-seas – and she is of to Australia.
In Australia, she finds a relatively good job with decent pay. Her work conditions are protected by a strong Union; she has access to decent social services; and the government assists her and her new partner to build a house. They are both working; earning higher and higher incomes; and contributing to Australia’s economy and tax-base.
In a year or two, she helps other members of her family escape from New Zealand.
They leave behind a no-longer-smiling Prime Minister who is promising to “revitalise the economy” to “entice overseas Kiwis to come back” – then cuts another 1,000 workers from the State Sector and sells the last remaining profitable State Owned Enterprise.
The economy in Australia may be slowing – but it still offers job prospects, housing opportunities, and social services that we here in New Zealand seem to be losing on a daily basis.
Especially when our housing crisis is worsening; child poverty continues to be a blight on our society; wages and wealth disparity continues to widen; social services are being pared back; and government is planning to introduce so-called “labour market reforms” that will further drive down wages, conditions, safety, etc.
This is what voters chose on 20 September.
However, be that as it may, there is one thing that every student of Quantum Theory understands – the future is never set in concrete.
The future can be changed.
Because it must.
.
References
Fairfax media: Aroha of McGehan Close flees NZ
NZ Herald: A Day Out with Friends In High Places
NZ Herald: Family still on struggle street after Key leaves
Scoop Media: Employment Relations Amendment Bill
Additional
NZ Herald: ‘No point’ in new state houses – Bill English
Acknowledgements
Election Commission: Orange Guy
Previous related blogposts
John Key: When propaganda photo-ops go wrong
National Housing propaganda – McGehan Close Revisited
Other Blogs
The Daily Blog: Chocolate milk shortage and creepy Santa? Let’s talk about real news
The Daily Blog: Ideological Blitzkrieg – Privatization of state housing, more charter schools & more union crushing employment law
The Standard: Poverty and the need to belong
The Standard: No point in state houses
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 27 October 2014
.
.
= fs =
Guest Author: An Open Letter to John Key – Why should the PM be any different?
– Tim O’Shea
.
.
Dear John
This is a message for you – please refer to the attached photo.
I just wanted to make it clear that this is from me personally, as an individual, as a person, as someone’s brother, cousin, father and uncle. I’m not going to hide behind a weak excuse that I am instead doing this as an employee, as a professional, or any other weak as piss argument.
We are all accountable for our words and actions – we can not, with any credibility or integrity, even half-reasonably suggest that we can somehow separate or distance ourselves from inappropriate actions and behaviour on the basis that we did it as an individual, or “in the line of duty”, or vice versa!
We expect high standards from our All Blacks, or for that matter, anyone representing New Zealand. Would we accept the excuse that “I got pissed the night before a test match as an individual, not as an AB”?
Why should the PM be any different? This is the most important and prestigious (and in theory, most honourable and respected) position in the country. Why should we accept such low standards of behaviour and integrity from you, Mr Key?
I’m quite surprised that Bill Clinton didn’t just say “I put my willy where I shouldn’t have as an individual, and not as the President”. Of course, no one would have accepted this as a reasonable defence, and Bill Clinton wouldn’t dare to insult people’s intelligence with such a farcical argument.
However, Mr Key, you expect us all to accept much lower standards. You treat all New Zealanders like idiots.
What goes round comes around. Your time will come.
– Tim O’Shea
Letter to the editor – Key paints a dirty, great, big bullseye on our country!
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Thu, Oct 23, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editorDominion Post.
On Radio NZ, on 23 October, I was gobsmacked to hear this from our esteemed leader, John Key, when he spoke in relation to joining the US in some kind of military action against ISIS;
“What we’re doing is all humanitarian but if that position was to change, the advice we’ve had is there wouldn’t be a material change to the risk that New Zealanders face.
In other words, we potentially already face some international, regional, and who knows, even domestic risks and those don’t dramatically change.”
No “ material change to the risk that New Zealanders face” ? He actually thinks “we potentially already face some international, regional, and who knows, even domestic risks and those don’t dramatically change“!
Has he lost his mind?
We all know that Key is renowned for being “relaxed” and “comfortable”. I guess that’s what holidaying on a beach in Hawaii will do for a person.
But it beggars belief that a man of Key’s supposed education and awareness of world affairs believes that participating in another American-inspired war would not paint a dirty big bullseye on New Zealand.He is either (a) grossly ignorant (b) badly misinformed, or (c) playing us for fools.-Frank Macskasy
.
References
Radio NZ: Access to Parliament to be restricted
Radio NZ: Listen to more on Checkpoint ( 2 min 58 sec )
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – when a Terror Alert really was needed!
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>
date: Tue, Oct 14, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editorSunday Star Times.
Our esteemed Prime Minister announces that our Terror Alert has “risen” from “very low risk” of a terror attack to a “low risk”. He says,“We are moving up. So it’s as I’ve been saying, we wouldn’t want to overstate the risk, but New Zealand is becoming riskier,”
Perhaps there was a time, not too long ago, when a Terror Alert was necessary – but was not activated.
In October 2007, the good folk of Ruatoki would have appreciated an alert that a gang of armed gun-men – commonly referred to as the ” Armed Offenders Squad” and “Special Tactics Group” were about to descend on their community and subject them to several days of terror.
It is supreme irony that the only acts of terror in this country, in living memory, were carried out by an ally bombing a ship in one of our harbours, and armed police descending in force on a peaceful village in the Ureweras.It is not Islamic extremists that worry me as much as our so-called “friends” and our own government and State para-military.A Terror Alert in such cases should always be set at Maximum Warning: Don’t trust the bastards.-Frank Macskasy
[address & phone number supplied]
.
References
TVNZ News: NZ ‘becoming riskier’ as terror alert raised
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Housing; broken promises, families in cars, and ideological idiocy (Part Rua)
.
.
Continued from: Housing; broken promises, families in cars, and ideological idiocy (Part Tahi)
.
National’s housing development project: ‘Gateway’ to confusion
.
Perhaps nothing better illustrates National’s lack of a coherent housing programme than the ‘circus’ that is their “Gateway” policy. The history of this project has to be seen to be believed. As I reported in November 2012;
October 2010: Gateway Project ON!
On 10 August 2010, the resignation of former Labour Pacific Island Affairs Minister, Winnie Laban, triggered a by-election in the Mana electorate. National stood Hekia Parata, a List MP, as their candidate.
As part of National’s campaign to win Mana from Labour, Housing Minister Phil Heatley announced a new housing programme called the “Gateway Housing Assistance“. According to their press release,
” Housing Minister Phil Heatley has today launched a new programme which will make it easier for first-time buyers and those on lower incomes to build or purchase their own homes.
Gateway Housing Assistance allows purchasers to build or buy a property but defer payment on the land.
“It is important the Government provides opportunities for people to move into home ownership. Affordable homes schemes such as Gateway is another way we can assist more people into a home of their own,” says Mr Heatley.
“Under Gateway full and final payment for the land can be deferred for up to ten years. This ten year period allows people on lower incomes to concentrate on designing and building, or buying, their homes before they assume the additional burden of paying for the land,” says Mr Heatley.”
It was an election stunt, of course. Much like National’s “sudden interest” in upgrading State housing in the Porirua area.
Three months, the by-election was won by Kris Faafoi.
May 2012: Gateway Project OFF!
Having lost the 2010 Mana by-election, and as National scrambled to cut state services; close schools; and scrap any projects it could get away with (avoiding any public backlash in the process) the “Gateway Housing Assistance” programme became a casualty,
“John Key has defended a decision to cancel sales of affordable housing in an Auckland development, saying low interest rates are making it easier for first-time buyers and people on low incomes to afford their own homes.
The Hobsonville Point development, started in 2009, allocated up to 100 of 3000 houses under the Gateway scheme, a helping hand for lower-income first-home buyers who could not afford to buy in Auckland.
[…]
The Prime Minister defended the decision not to include more of the Hobsonville development in the Gateway scheme.
“The Government has looked at that programme and decided that’s now not the most effective way of going forward”.”
Key added,
“He said one of the positive stories at the moment was that mortgage rates had fallen.
“So we think the capacity for lower income New Zealanders to own their own home is greatly enhanced by the fact interest rates are lower.
“If you have a look at the average home owner in New Zealand, they are paying about $200 a week less in interest than they were under the previous Labour Government”.”
November 2012: Gateway Project ON (again)!
On 18 November, Labour Leader David Shearer delivered a speech to his Party conference, promising to implement a mass-construction project to build 100,000 homes for desperate families.
Having gotten ‘wind’ of Shearer’s plans for “Kiwi Build”, National scrambled to dust off it’s Gateway Project, three days before the Labour leader’s speech,
“The Government has reinstated plans to allocate a percentage of the houses at Hobsonville Point in Auckland as affordable homes priced under $485,000.”
Then Housing Minister, Phil Heatley, was keen to reassure the voting public that National would “do it’s bit” to help Kiwi “mums and dads” into their own homes – something that has become a distant dream during National’s term.
Even pro-National columnist, John Armstrong, was less than impressed at the time,
“…when it comes to increasing the housing stock, there is not a lot central government can do unless it is willing to spend big bikkies.”
As was widely reported at the time, the so-called “Gateway Project” was less than a stirling success;
“In 2009, 100 of the 3000 homes at the development were tagged as affordable under the Gateway scheme, giving lower-income first-home buyers a helping hand.
Only 17 were sold, 14 for less that $400,000.”
As I pointed out two years ago – and not much seems to have changed in the interim under this government –
One aspect to Housing Minister Heatley’s press release (Hobsonville Point a boost for Auckland housing) that is painfully evident, is National’s luke-warm approach to the housing problem in this country. Having read it, one cannot avoid the conclusion that their heart simply isn’t in it, and each word in their press release must have felt like pulling teeth.
Just by comparing the two releases of housing policies, one could easily gauge which Party was more enthusiatic;
National: a press release
Labour: a major policy speech, given by the Leader of the Labour Party, at the Party annual conference, and released via television, internet, newspapers, etc.
National was not interested in assisting New Zealanders into their own homes. In this instance, National was more interested in trying to up-stage and undermine Labour’s release of a major policy initiative.
October 2014: Gateway Project – Status Unknown
As at this point, the status of Housing NZ’s ‘Gate Way‘ assistance project is uncertain, with a previous page on Housing NZ’s website now apparently a dead-link;
.
.
“We’re sorry, but that page doesn’t exist” – is appropriate. The Gateway Project – after only seventeen homes sold under the scheme – seems to have been quietly canned. But as John Armstrong pointed out in 2012, the purpose of National’s quasi-housing “scheme” was not to build new homes for struggling New Zealanders;
“… the Government has finally steered political debate on to something it wishes to talk about, rather than being hostage to what Opposition parties would prefer to debate.”
High rents; growing unaffordability; a shortage of social housing; and growing homelessness – all impacted on our notion of having a decent roof over one’s head. News that,
“…more than half of New Zealand’s homeless were under 25, and a quarter were children. Most lived temporarily with friends or family, squeezed into living-rooms or garages, rather than on the streets.”
– was not what New Zealanders wanted to hear. Not in a nation that once prided itself on high rate of home ownership and the “quarter acre pavlova paradise” was deeply ingrained in the Kiwi psyche. That Paradise was fast disappearing, according to Richard Long, writing in the Dominion Post in 2012,
“So much for our quarter-acre pavlova paradise. The Government belatedly has come to the conclusion that something needs to be done about the failure of the housing market to provide the necessary land; and for resources, somehow, to be directed to providing low-cost housing instead of the present concentration on the expensive stuff.
All this is hardly new. I recall Helen Clark, when prime minister, lecturing me at a Wellington Cup meeting more than a decade ago about the need for land to be made available – at a reasonable price – to address the crisis. She surmised then that speculators were holding on to the land to gain higher returns. And she fingered, quite prophetically, the absurdity of house construction costing 30 per cent more in New Zealand than in Australia.
As the 2014 Election rolled closer, housing once again became a major election-issue. As Long wrote,
Now the Nats are going to have a go at solving the problem, with Finance Minister Bill English basically admitting the market system has failed.”
.
Key’s promise – 25 February
.
The sell-down of Air New Zealand, Genesis Energy, Mighty River Power, and Meridian raised approximately $4.67 billion. This was a far cry from earlier expectations of between $5 billion and $7 billion – and way below Key’s initial, wildly-optimistic forecast of $7 billion to $10 billion in January 2011,
“If we could do that with those five entities … if we can make some savings in terms of what were looking at in the budget and maybe a little on the upside you’re talking about somewhere in the order of $7 to $10 billion less borrowing that the Government could undertake.”
On 25 February 2014, Key announced an end to National’s asset sales programme,
“The truth is that there aren’t a lot of other assets that would fit in the category where they would be either appealing to take to the market or of a size that would warrant a further programme. Or they sit in the category where they are very large, like Transpower, but are a monopoly asset and so aren’t suited I think.”
He explained,
“Just as we did before the last election we’re making our position on share sales clear to New Zealanders before we go to the polls later this year.
We’ve achieved what we wanted with the share offers in energy companies and Air NZ. We’re now returning to a business-as-usual approach when it comes to [state-owned enterprises].”
Why was Key making such a clear promise to the electorate?
An earlier Roy Morgan Poll on 22 January 2014 – one month before Key announced a cessation of asset sales – would have sent National’s back-room strategists into a screaming tail-spin;
National: 43.5%
Labour: 33.5%
Greens: 12.5%
Those were heady days for National’s opponents, and a change in government seemed inevitable.
By committing National to an end to asset sales, Key was being strategic. He knew state asset sales were deeply unpopular with the public, and National did not want to risk giving opposition parties any further ammunition during what was then considered to be an up-coming, closely-fought election.
The polls (at the time) had forced National’s hand to acquiesce to public pressure. It would prove to be a pre-election promise they would regret later.
National made its panic-driven decision to abandon further asset sales at the same time that Fonterra announced at the end of February this year that it would be boosting it’s payout to dairy farmers,
Fonterra’s 35 cent lift in its milk price for the 2013-14 season to $8.65/kg milk solids means an extra half a billion in revenue for New Zealand.
The new forecast is a record payout from the co-operative and with the 10 cent kg/MS dividend on top, meant potential cash in hand for a fully shared up Fonterra farmer-shareholder of $8.75 kg/MS.
Federated Farmers’ dairy chairperson, Willy Leferink, was ebullient,
”In 2010, the NZIER said a $1 kg/MS rise in Fonterra’s payout makes every New Zealander nearly $300 better off. Given this latest 35 cent kg/MS uplift, every New Zealander could be $100 better off as a result of what we do.”
It was also no doubt something that National was casting a keen eye over, as an increased Fonterra payout meant more tax revenue. National was ‘banking’ on high dairy prices to get it back to surplus by next year, 2015.
It would be a slim surplus of $372 million.
By 24 September, Fonterra had slashed it’s forecast payout down to $5.30/kg.
Prime Minister John Key was candid in the implications for the economy and the government’s tax-take;
“It can have some impact because if that’s the final payout, the impact would be as large as NZ$5 billion for the economy overall, and you would expect that to flow through to the tax revenue, both for the 14/15 year and the 15/16 year. My understanding is Treasury is working on those numbers for the incoming Minister of Finance, which fortunately is the same as the outgoing Minister of Finance as well.
They are giving him (English) a bit of an assessment of what impact that might have. There’s a lot of different factors that go into that surplus. We expect it to have some impact and it’s a very narrow surplus. That doesn’t mean that we won’t achieve surplus. It means the Government will have to think through all of the issues here. There may be other options we choose to take.”
Bill English was already working on those “other options“. He needed to find $5 billion dollars to fill a hole left by collapsing international dairy prices.
.
National’s pre-election policy: 2014
.
National’s housing policies for the 20 September election were ‘divvied’ up between first home buyers and ‘social’ housing. Note that throughout National’s policy document, they refer to “social housing” and “state housing” is referred to as “state houses” only in terms of properties, not as a policy term.
For first home buyers, National was prepared to allow Kiwisaver investors to effectively ‘raid’ their savings and use the funds for a deposit for a house purchase. Aside from further pushing up the price of a limited availability of properties, this is hardly what Dr Michael Cullen had in mind when he set up Kiwisaver in July 2007. Saving for home ownership and saving for retirement are not necessarily the same thing.
On 24 August 2014, Key stated in a speech,
“The policy will help tens of thousands more first home buyers achieve their dream of home ownership. It will get young families started building what for most will be their biggest asset.
National backs young Kiwis who are disciplined, save up and want to put a deposit down on a house. National values home ownership. That’s because it provides stability for families, strength for communities and security in retirement.”
However, not all New Zealanders are fortunate enough to be in high-paying jobs where they can afford to “save up and want to put a deposit down on a house” – and pay high rent whilst doing so in rented accomodation.
Whether the houses are actually there to buy is also a moot point.
To date, this country has been woefully short of supplying new, mid-priced homes, to meet demand. Instead, ” the majority of new homes today are upmarket affairs“, as Rebecca Macfie reported for ‘The Listener‘ in July 2012.
The problem, simply, is insufficient supply to meet demand – especially of affordable properties. According to National’s policy, they need to find “ 90,000 lower and middle income first home buyers into their own home over the next five years” – a policy sounding remarkably similar to Labour’s 100,000 new homes over a space of ten years.
National’s social housing policy was more vague, with passing reference only to social housing providers other than Housing NZ;
What we will do next…
Continue helping those in most need
Support a growing role for community housing providers in delivering social housing through the social housing fund and Housing New Zealand.
In case the page mysteriously disappears (as have other National Party policy releases), the relevent section of the Social Housing page is posted here;
.
.
There was no mention of things to come once the election was over. Certainly no mention of a mass housing sell-off, which could also be described as a partial asset-sale of Housing NZ.
.
English Blames Everyone Else
.
On 7 October, as the National government faced increasing pressure over New Zealand’s growing economic and housing problems, Finance Minister Bill English made this bizarre accusation against local bodies;
“The growth in housing costs over time, to the point where you’re seeing families spending 50 or 60 percent of their income on housing – that’s pretty devastating at the low end.
So councils need to understand that when they run these policies that restrict the availability of land and the opportunity for lower value housing they are causing poverty.”
It was an accusation that startled city leaders from one end of the country to the other, from Auckland to Christchurch.
Green co-leader Metiria Turei was speaking for hundreds of local body elected leaders when she quite rightly pointed out,
“Nowhere in any report from any non-government organisation or Government department has urban planning been blamed for child poverty.
What I think is happening is Bill English is trying to divert attention from the fact that the solutions are obvious and within the power of the Government to implement, but they don’t want to.”
Interestingly, as reported in the same Radio NZ story,
ANZ chief economist Cameron Bagrie said restrictions around the availability of land had affected housing affordability but it wasn’t the only factor to blame for poverty.
He said there were a lot of other challenges behind the scenes, and there was no one-size-fits-all solution to make houses more affordable.
Mr Bagrie said housing unaffordability was possibly due to wages being too low.
In essence, if workers’ remuneration is too low, they cannot purchase the consumer goods and services their society produces.
English, though, was not blaming Councils simply because he was having on “off day”. His diatribe was part of a carefully-calculated agenda, and National’s attack on Local Bodies was part of a slowly unfolding plan.
He was looking for $5 billion, and there was precious little loose change behind the sofa cushions in the Beehive. Also, as Key had promised on 25 February 2014, National’s asset sales programme had been completed, and there would be no further full-scale privatisation of SOEs.
.
Key’s promise – 6 October
.
On 6 October, both Key and English made public statements that, on the face of things, seemed to be at variance with each other.
Key said that the government would not “you know, go crazy” selling Housing New Zealand homes
Yet, at the same time, he made clear what his interest in Housing NZ was;
“Housing’s a big issue, I think, for the Government; it’s a big issue for New Zealand and there’s specific parts to that.
So what we’ve done there is to have Bill English as the Minister of Finance responsible for what is a very big asset now in the Government’s balance sheet: Housing New Zealand. About NZ$15 billion worth of assets there.”
Now, in theory, with the income related rents there is a cash flow there that should allow them to actually go and build their housing stock. That is at way too slow a rate than what the government would like to see. So if you think NZ$15.5 billion sitting there for Housing New Zealand and NZ$100 million sitting in social housing, that mix is wrong and I think there is a real opportunity here to potentially change that dynamic and I want to see a lot more work done in that area.”
Part of National’s new agenda was Key’s intention to create a ministerial team compromising of Bill English, Paula Bennett and Nick Smith. The three ministers “would work together on housing issues”. But the crucial, critical appointment was Bill English, who would take responsibility for Housing New Zealand.
Bill English; Finance Minister and now also Minister Responsible for HNZC (Housing New Zealand Corporation)? What was the connection between the two portfolios?
As well as eying up the multi-billion asset that is Housing NZ and the additional millions in cash-flow, Key padded his speech with a litany of alleged “faults” with the Corporation;
- too slow “ to actually go and build their housing stock”
- “the mix is wrong”
- “the asset is often in the wrong place“
- governments of “successive persuasions have struggled with” State housing flexibility
- there was too much ” capital tied up in Housing New Zealand stock“
- “they are not always terribly flexible“
- “the previous government completely ignored the upkeep of those homes“
The implications from repeated rhetoric is clear; Housing NZ has allegedly “mis-managed” their stock, and the State “struggles” with being a suitable landlord.
In his speech, Key failed to mention that National (and previous governments) have been using Housing NZ as a “cash cow”, demanding huge cash dividends from the corporation. As Nick Smith admitted in Parliament on 8 May,
“The average dividend under the 5 years so far of this Government has been $88 million. The dividend this year is $90 million.”
Sucking an average $88 million per year from Housing NZ – a government body charged with assisting the poorest people in our communities – was bound to have negative consequences. Key’s “litany of faults” was wholly predictable – a result of government self-interest to balance their books, at the expense of Housing NZ tenants.
It is not the first time National has used a SOE as a cash cow – or perhaps more akin to a lethal parasitic organism – to the SOE’s eventual detriment (see: Solid Energy – A solid drama of facts, fibs, and fall-guys).
At any rate, Key’s 6 October speech was laying the groundwork for National’s new State housing policy – which Bill English was making public the very same day. After all, as Tom Scott so astutely pointed out in 2012, Key was renowned as “the Great Salesman” for good reason;
.
.
Who better to “pitch the deal” to the public, than the most trusted, popular, apolitical Prime Minister since perhaps David Lange?
.
Real Reason for sell-off?
.
Meanwhile, Bill English was outlining National’s true agenda, whilst Key was putting on his benign face to the New Zealand public. As TV3’s Brook Sabin reported,
“A big state-house sell-off is on the way, and up to $5 billion-worth of homes could be put on the block.
The shake-up of the Government’s housing stock will be a key focus for the next three years, with Finance Minister Bill English to lead it.
On the block is everything from a tiny 75 square metre two-bedroom state house in Auckland’s Remuera, on the market for $740,000, to a three-bedroom home in Taumarunui for just $38,000. Thousands more properties will soon hit the market.”
The reason for putting up to $5 billion-worth of homes on the block?
Crashing dairy prices had left a gaping hole in the National Government’s books, and their much-vaunted Budget surplus next year was under threat. Remember that Key was candid in the implications for the economy and the government’s tax-take; when he stated – also on 6 October;
“It can have some impact because if that’s the final payout, the impact would be as large as NZ$5 billion for the economy overall, and you would expect that to flow through to the tax revenue, both for the 14/15 year and the 15/16 year. My understanding is Treasury is working on those numbers for the incoming Minister of Finance, which fortunately is the same as the outgoing Minister of Finance as well.
A day later, on 7 October, Fairfax’s Vernon Small reported on English reiterating the government’s parlous fiscal position;
The Government has posted a Budget deficit of $2.9 billion in the year to June 30, $338m worse than forecast in the pre-election opening of the books.
Finance Minister Bill English said the result was the third consecutive narrowing of the deficit before gains and losses (Obegal) and was further evidence careful fiscal management was producing consistent gains over time.
However it compared with the forecast deficit of $2b in the 2013 Budget.
The major changes since the pre-election picture were a decline in tax revenue, an increase in treaty settlement costs and an increase in earthquake rebuild expenses.
[…]
English said the economy faced some headwinds, including lower dairy prices, uncertain tax revenue, global risks in China and Europe and the impact of the Auckland housing market.
“There will be state house sales because we need to move a lot faster if we’re going to provide enough houses for low-income families,” says Mr English.
English’s planned $5 billion sale of State houses is a panic-driven measure by the National Government to plug the gap left by falling dairy prices and concomitant falling taxation revenue.
National’s re-election on 20 September was predicated on it’s undeserved reputation for being a “prudent fiscal manager” of the country’s economy. It was not just their surplus that was at risk – it was their carefully cultivated public perception at being better at managing the economy than Labour.
If National could not deliver a surplus – as it had promised – what good was it as a fiscal steward? It would prove to be a major mill-stone around their neck for the 2017 election.
In the meantime;
Housing New Zealand figures show that at the end of March 5563 people were on the waiting list, compared with 4495 at the same time last year and 4637 the year before.
- According to the previous referenced Otago University study, a quarter of New Zealand’s homeless were children, with “most living temporarily with friends or family, squeezed into living-rooms or garages, rather than on the streets“.
- Unsurprisingly, transience was impacting on children’s development and education, as families were forced to live in garages; over-crowded rooms; and in cars,
Our poorest schools are swapping nearly half their pupils a year, as transient families chase work or flee debt.
Some schools say they have taught 7-year-olds who have been through eight schools in their first two years.
Many transient children also have learning difficulties but are often uprooted before schools can bring in extra support.
A decile 1 school will, on average, have twice the student “churn” of a decile 10 school, according to Ministry of Education figures. During the 2013 school year, a typical school in a highly deprived area would have lost and gained the equivalent of nearly half its roll.
A decile 10 school typically has a much more stable roll, with about a quarter coming or going last year. This does not include pupils starting or finishing their schooling.
The transience was even worse in primary schools, hitting children at a time when experts say moving schools is the most harmful.
The figures, released under the Official Information Act, show Russell School, a decile 1 primary in Porirua, had the highest level of pupil turnover in the Wellington region two years ago.
Principal Sose Annandale said a Housing New Zealand shake-up was probably partly responsible for the high turnover that year, but transient families continued to be a big problem.
[…]
The higher level of transience in low-decile schools was not surprising, as deprived families were more likely to move for housing or work.
“Many of these transient families do not have a fixed abode. They are just staying with whanau for a while, until they have to move on again.
As the Salvation Army’s Major Campbell Roberts, stated with matter-of-fact bluntness;
“We, at the present in New Zealand, don’t have enough social housing, so to reduce that number further would be a major problem. What there needs to be is an increase in the numbers of social houses.”
In his story, TV3’s Brooke Sabin raised the question,
“So a big cull of state houses is about to get underway, but the crucial question is: Will all that money make its way back into social housing or will some be pocketed by the Government? The official response is that hasn’t been worked out yet.”
Yes, it has, Mr Sabin.
The money will indeed be “pocketed by the government”.
For no other reason than their re-election in 2017 depends on it.
.
.
References – Part 2
Scoop media: Gateway to improve housing affordability
Hekia Parata: State housing improved in Porirua
NZ Herald: Key backs cut-off for cheap homes plan
Labour Party: Speech – New Zealand – A new direction
NZ Herald: Quota reintroduced for Hobsonville housing development
NZ Herald: John Armstrong – National’s affordable housing package lacks any substantial detail
Housing NZ: Gateway Project
Dominion Post: Richard Long – So much for our quarter-acre paradise
Radio NZ: PM rules out more asset sales
NZ Herald: PM – no more SOEs to sell after Genesis
Fairfax Media: Labour spits over National’s asset sale figures
Fairfax Media: John Key reveals plan for asset sales
Roy Morgan: Poll – January 22 2014
National: Helping first home buyers
National: National to help 90,000 first home buyers
The Listener: Why it’s more expensive to build in NZ than in Australia
Otago Daily Times: Labour – 100,000 more affordable homes
National: Social housing
Radio NZ: Councils reject blame for poverty
Fairfax Media: Fonterra forecast worth an extra $500m to NZ
NBR: BUDGET 2014 – Government surplus meets global rating agency expectations
Interest.co.nz: Fonterra cuts milk payout forecast for 2014/15 to NZ$5.30/kg
Hive News: Treasury re-crunching Budget numbers for low Fonterra payout
Interest.co.nz: Key signals big shift towards community-provided social housing from pure state housing in creating ‘super group’ of housing ministers
Radio NZ: John Key reveals new Cabinet lineup
Parliament: Hansards – Housing, Affordable—Progress and Management of Housing New Zealand
TV3 News: State housing sell-off worth $5B
Fairfax Media: Government deficit widens
Fairfax Media: Housing NZ waiting lists swamped
Radio NZ: Govt pushes on with state house sales
Dominion Post: Kids dragged from school to school (See also: Housing policy will destabilise life for children)
Additional references
Dominion Post: Housing policy will destabilise life for children
Fairfax media: Over-crowded house blamed for baby’s death
TVNZ News: Thousands of Kiwi kids homeless
Previous related blogposts
Review: TV3′s The Nation – “Let them eat ice cream!”
Previous related blogposts
Can we do it? Bloody oath we can!
Budget 2013: State Housing and the War on Poor
Budget 2013: State Housing and the War on Poor
National recycles Housing Policy and produces good manure!
National Housing propaganda – McGehan Close Revisited
Solid Energy – A solid drama of facts, fibs, and fall-guys
Social Groups
Facebook: Affordable Housing For All
Facebook: Housing NZ Tenants Forum
Facebook: Tamaki Housing Group- Defend Glen Innes
Other blogs
The Jackal: More homelessness under National (30 July 2012)
The Standard: Unaffordable housing & the culture of greed
No Right Turn: A surprise policy
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 14 October 2014
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – John Key should lead by example
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Listener <letters@listener.co.nz>
date: Fri, Oct 17, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor
THE LISTENER.
Many young folk looking to become foreign fighters for the IS may be impressionable. They are also perceptive.
They probably understand the vicious nature of this group – but when they look at the West, do they see much better? We may not engage in widespread destruction like IS – but the American Empire is noted for thumbing it’s nose at international law in it’s own way;
* An invasion of Iraq based on lies (non-existent “weapons of mass destruction”)
* torture techniques such as water-boarding
* abuse of prisoners, eg, Abu Ghraib
* detention without due legal process at Guantanamo Bay
* ‘extraordinary rendition’, the apprehension and extrajudicial transfer of a person, to avoid due process of the law
* and extra-judicial killings using “drone strikes”, with only Presidential over-sight.
We may not be quite as in-your-face as IS/ISIS/ISIL, but whether you’re a hapless prisoner about to be executed by “Jihadi John”, or a carload of “extremists” about to be blown to bits by an unmanned aerial vehicle armed with deadly missiles, the question asked by many young people must be,
“Explain to us how we are any better?”
We currently have the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, Search and Surveillance Act 2012, Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013, and the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Act 2013. How much more does our esteemed Prime Minister need to control us?John Key can implement all the Soviet-style mass surveillance; restrictions on travel; cancelling passports; etc, he likes. He can fill our jails with political detainees. But in the end, if we give young people nothing better to believe in, it will all be pointless.Leading by example will achieve much more than restricting our liberties, invading our privacy, and monitoring our communications as part of creeping authoritarian legislation.The eventual failure of the Soviet police apparatus and reliance on propaganda to suppress it’s populace should have been a salient lesson for this government.-Frank Macskasy
.
References
Radio NZ: PM says NZ part of ‘broader’ coalition
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – Daleks, Kim Jong-un, Elvis, and Roger Douglas
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Tue, Oct 14, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editorNZ Herald
.Our esteemed Prime Minister announces that our Terror Alert has “risen” from “very low risk” of a terror attack to a “low risk”. (13 Oct)Key states that our risk of a “terror attack” has gone from “unlikely” to “possible but not expected”.I could add a few more “possible but not expected” terror scenarios;
* Daleks landing at the United Nations, demanding our immediate surrender or face extermination,
* an asteroid smacking into our planet, wiping out 99% of the human race and civilisation,
* Kim Jong-un decides to replace North Korea’s totalitarian state with a 1960s-style hippie free-love commune
* Elvis really is alive and working at a KFC outlet in Huntly.* Roger Douglas recanting.When one thinks about it, anything is “possible but not [necessarily] expected”.Hardly a sound reason for the Prime Minister to be needlessly creating anxiety with the public? Anyone would think that our government was trying to instill fear in people so as to justify expanding state power?-Frank Macskasy
[address & phone number supplied]
.
References
TVNZ News: NZ ‘becoming riskier’ as terror alert raised
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Housing; broken promises, families in cars, and ideological idiocy (Part Tahi)
.
.
Intro. Lamp-posts, letterboxes, and liquor outlets
.
Barely three weeks since the election, and Key’s re-elected government is set for one of the biggest state asset sell-offs since… last year. In line for privatisation; an estimated $5 billion worth of State housing.
State housing is one of the most critical of this country’s social service, delivering a much-needed roof over the heads of society’s poorest, most vulnerable, and often most transient. It is fair to say that without state housing – a legacy of enlightened Labour governments and a more sympathetic past public values – we would have thousands more families living in squalor or on the streets, as currently happens in the richest nation on Earth.
In the US, street homelessness is now as much a feature of the urban landscape as lamp-posts, letterboxes, and liquor outlets;
.
.
Here in New Zealand, we seem to be going all-out to emulate our American cuzzies, as our housing situation at all levels is worsening.
Overall home ownership has dropped from 1991, when 73.8% of households own their own home (or held it in a family trust) – compared to last year’s census which now reports 64.8% home ownership (or held in family trust).
In Auckland, home ownership rates are worse, 58% today, compared to 64% in 2001.
Homelessness is a more difficult notion to measure, as the Statistics NZ pointed out for it’s 2013 Census,
In general, people are becoming more difficult to contact in any census or survey collection…
• people having no usual residence (eg homeless people)
However an Otago University study, released in September 2013 concluded,
An estimated 34,000 people, or about one in every 120 New Zealanders, were unable to access housing in 2006, according to the latest available census and emergency housing data.
UOW researcher Dr Kate Amore says very little is known about this population, and the study provides the first ever New Zealand statistics on the problem.
“These 34,000 people were crowding in with family or friends, staying in boarding houses, camping grounds, emergency accommodation, in cars, or on the street. They all had low incomes.
Many of these people are excluded from poverty and unemployment statistics, and are not on social housing waiting lists. They are extremely disadvantaged, and it’s great that we now have a way to produce robust numbers about the size of the problem and who’s affected.”
The tragic nature of homelessness was chillingly spelled out when the report went on to state,
A quarter of severely housing deprived people were children under 15 years, living in these inadequate situations with their family.
The report went on to reinforce the growing social problem of the working poor,
About a third of the adults in the population were working, but still could not get a house for themselves or their family.
The 10th annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey showed housing as severely unaffordable in all eight of New Zealand’s major centres. Christchurch-based survey author Hugh Pavletic blamed recently centrally-imposed State controls on mortgage loan to value ratio (LVR) restrictions, low mortgage interest rates, and lack of land as reasons for increasing unaffordability.
The same report stated that Auckland house prices were less affordable than Los Angeles or London.
Meanwhile, the Reserve Bank’s loan to value ratio (LVR) controls – approved by Bill English on 16 May 2013 – has apparently succeeded in not just forcing first home buyers out of the housing market, but into renting, and pushing up rents. The average weekly rent for a three bedroom home in Auckland increased by 29%, from $440 in 2005 to $570 in 2013.
Long time property investor, Ollie Newland, has warned of slums developing as over-crowding increases,
Some landlords were capitalising on the desperate market by renting out homes on a room-by-room basis.
“It’s not a good look. We don’t want to go the way of Bangladesh. It’s quite rife. We come across it all the time, especially in the lower socio-economic areas.
So has housing only recently become a critical social problem?
Not according to the Prime Minister…
.
National’s pre-election policy: 2008
.
In January 2008, then Opposition Leader, John Key attacked Helen Clark’s administration for Labour’s track record on the economy. He said, in part,
“Tomorrow, Helen Clark will tell us what she thinks about the state of our nation. In all likelihood, she’ll remind us how good she thinks we’ve got it, how grateful she thinks we should be to Labour, and why we need her for another three years.
Well, I’ve got a challenge for the Prime Minister. Before she asks for another three years, why doesn’t she answer the questions Kiwis are really asking, like:
[…]
-
Why can’t our hardworking kids afford to buy their own house?”
Indeed – why can’t our hardworking kids afford to buy their own house?
In the Otago University study (see above) Dr Amore stated,
“We know that housing shortages, poverty, and crowding are very serious problems in New Zealand, so these findings are not surprising. We expect the problem is bigger now than it was in 2006. This study just adds to the evidence that housing is major issue, and we need a lot more quality housing that people on low incomes can afford to live in.”
In the Sydney Morning Herald, when interviewed on the issue of child poverty in this country, John Key was uncharacteristically candid when he admitted,
“Our opponents say more children are living in poverty than when we came into office. And that’s probably right.”
Gerry Brownlee – Waiting for Godot, Tomorrow, and Private Enterprise?
.
Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee has been made aware of a critical housing shortage in Christchurch, due to the September 2010 and February 2011 earthquakes which devastated much of the inner city. According to a Buddle Findlay report dated February 2012,
The sheer number of buildings up for demolition is significant. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) currently lists 742 CBD buildings that have been or will be demolished. In his state of the economy address in Auckland on 25 January, Prime Minister John Key said that of the 1,357 buildings approved for partial or full demolition in greater Christchurch, over two thirds have been demolished. In addition, the demolition of the up to 7,000 residential red zone homes has recently begun in Bexley.
This has resulted in a massive shortage of rentals in Christchurch, with rents continuing to escalate, and people forced to live in substandard or over-crowded accomodation. A 2013 Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MoBIE) report revealed,
No reliable statistics are available on the number of people living in insecure housing. To generate an estimate of the scale of housing insecurity the report starts with a baseline established by a study of homelessness in Christchurch, supplemented by 2006 Census figures on people living in overcrowded housing. Qualitative information from non-government organisations in the area is used to identify plausible increases in the numbers of people living without shelter or in temporary or emergency shelter. Estimates of the housing stock lost due to earthquakes are used to identify the potential increase in numbers of people living in crowded conditions with other households. Through this approach, the report’s initial estimate of the scale of insecure housing is expressed as a broad range. That range runs between 5,510 and 7,405 residents, up from 3,750 before the earthquakes.
The same report updated the decline in housing stock in the quake-ravaged city,
“…it has been estimated that the total housing stock has been reduced by a net 11,500, or 6.2% of the previous housing stock.”
Predictably, as housing stock and rental numbers fell, rents skyrocketed. According to the same MoBIE report,
In the month of February 2013, the average weekly rent from new bonds lodged for the greater Christchurch region was $384. This is a 31% increase compared to the pre-earthquake month of August 2010 when the average rent was $293. The majority of this increase took place in 2012, as shown in Graph 6. Greater Christchurch’s average rent increased $92 per week which is very significant and will have an adverse impact on many tenants’ financial wellbeing. During this same period, Auckland’s average rent increased $50 per week or 13%.
When confronted with this crisis, Minister Brownlee’s response was reported in The Press, on 20 March 2012, offering this “solution” to Christchurch’s housing-shortage;
The Government appears to have ruled out further intervention in Christchurch’s worsening rental housing crisis.
The solution is best left to the market, Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee says.
A month later, Brownlee continued his ‘King Canute-like’ resistance to the problem,
People may be sleeping in cars, sheds and garages, but there is no rental housing crisis in Christchurch, Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee says.
“This is a problem, I’ll accept that, but I don’t think this is a crisis,” he said yesterday.
And incredibly,
Brownlee said the steep increase in rent was “not a problem that has been brought to my attention”.
The Government would not intervene in the issue, he said.
“A rent freeze doesn’t increase supply and will never encourage new stock to come in. We won’t be moving to regulate rents but we most certainly are actively providing new housing.”
Brownlee’s defensiveness is understandable. Nationwide, it is estimated that 20,000 – 23,000 new homes are required per year, to meet demand.
However, over the last three years, less than 15,000 per year have been built.
So much for “the market”.
.
Making Supply “meet” Demand – a sleight-of-hand trick
.
When “market” supply doesn’t meet demand, there are three options available,
- Increase supply
- Dampen demand
- Ignore the problem
National chose Option 2 as the fastest, cheapest way to address the problem. As referred above, on 16 May 2013, Finance Minister Bill English approved a “Memorandum of Understanding” with the Reserve Bank’s loan to implement Loan to Value Ratio (LVR) controls. In simple terms,
Banks will be required to restrict new residential mortgage lending at LVRs of over 80 percent (deposit of less than 20 percent) to no more than 10 percent of the dollar value of their new residential mortgage lending.
Banks which exceeded the limit (10% of all lending) of low LVR (20% deposits) risked considered reprisals from the RBNZ,
If a bank breaches the speed limit it will be in breach of its conditions of registration. The Reserve Bank would need to consider the reasons for the breach and may impose a range of sanctions.
Again, Key was candid in the plan to address demand-side pressures on housing,
“Even with LVRs introduced, interest rates may ultimately rise anyway, but the intention with these loan-to-value ratios is to provide the Reserve Bank with other tools to dampen demand.”
Not since the Muldoon-led National administration, when price-wage controls froze the economy in 1982 – with dire results – has a government attempted to control a facet of the banking system with such direct, interventionist controls. Again, state intervention was the tool-of-choice, as Key admitted,
“We need to try to help people into their homes but also facilitate an orderly market.”
This was Muldoonism 2.0, and it was coming from a supposed free-market National government, with the blessing of Muldoon’s successor, John Key.
Even before the RBNZ implemented their new, prescriptive LVR regulations, National was pushing for exemptions with New Zealand Bankers Association chief executive Kirk Hope stating the obvious,
“The Reserve Bank policy will have an impact on low income buyers. It will knock them out of the market.”
By December 2013 the Reserve Bank had “buckled” to government pressure. The government realised that preventing first-home buyers from getting into their first house was not a palatable political option. The opposition would have a field day at National’s expense, and New Zealanders would begin to notice.
Forcing the RBNZ to implement first-home buyer exemptions for new-build houses ultimately proved fruitless. By 1 October this year, the damage had been done and the results were wholly predictable;
Experts say the Reserve Bank’s controversial home loan restrictions have achieved the desired effect, but at the expense of first-home buyers.
One year ago today, the central bank introduced limits on high loan-to-value ratio (LVR) loans in an attempt to slow house price growth and reduce risk to the financial system.
The latest bank lending data from the June quarter shows the rules have been highly effective, wiping $5.5 billion worth of high-LVR loans from the balances that were recorded on September 30, last year.
[…]
HSBC chief economist Paul Bloxham said the limits had helped dampen house price inflation, though it was difficult to say by how much.
“It’s still unclear as to whether LVRs were the driver, or the higher interest rates were the driver.”
Bloxham said the limits had worked well in removing risk from the financial system, but not without social consequences.
“Along the way . . . the largest effect it’s had is to cut the first-home buyer out of the market.”
New Zealand Institute of Economic Research economist, Shamubeel Eaqub, was damning of the government-sanctioned LVR restrictions, saying that first-home buyers had been unfairly blamed for the housing bubble,
“The data we have seen very clearly shows it was investors. We don’t think there’s any reason to maintain the LVR restrictions any further, especially now [the Reserve Bank] has raised interest rates.”
Bear in mind’s National’s technique for solving problems. It would set the stage for New Zealand’s growing shortage of social housing, and National’s ‘Clayton’s‘ response.
To be Concluded: Housing; broken promises, families in cars, and ideological idiocy (Part Rua)
References
TV3 News: State housing sell-off worth $5B
Radio NZ: Home ownership on decrease
Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment: Housing key facts
Statistics NZ: Coverage in the 2013 Census based on the New Zealand 2013 Post-enumeration Survey (pdf)
Otago University: 34,000 people missing out on housing, University of Otago research shows
Fairfax media: Housing affordability getting worse
Reserve Bank NZ: RBNZ signs MOU on use of macro-prudential tools
NZ Herald: Rents rise as buyers forced out of market
John Key: A Fresh Start for New Zealand
Sydney Morning Herald: The Key Factor
Buddle Findlay: The Progress of earthquake related demolitions in Christchurch
Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment: Housing Pressures in Christchurch (pdf)
The Press: Christchurch rent crisis ‘best left to market’
Fairfax media: No Christchurch rental crisis -‘Pontius’ Brownlee
Reserve Bank: Loan-to-value ratio restrictions – FAQs
Dominion Post: Few first home buyer details in PM speech
Te Ara – TheEncyclopedia of New Zealand: Muldoon announces a wage and prize freeze, 1982
TVNZ News: Govt pushes for loan restriction exemption
NZ Herald: Reserve Bank buckles – new homes exempt from loan rules
Fairfax media: LVR works at first-home buyers’ cost
Scoop media: Gateway to improve housing affordability
Hekia Parata: State housing improved in Porirua
Additional references
Dominion Post: Housing policy will destabilise life for children
Fairfax media: Over-crowded house blamed for baby’s death
Previous related blogposts
Review: TV3′s The Nation – “Let them eat ice cream!”
Previous related blogposts
Can we do it? Bloody oath we can!
Budget 2013: State Housing and the War on Poor
Budget 2013: State Housing and the War on Poor
National recycles Housing Policy and produces good manure!
National Housing propaganda – McGehan Close Revisited
Social Groups
Facebook: Affordable Housing For All
Facebook: Housing NZ Tenants Forum
Facebook: Tamaki Housing Group- Defend Glen Innes
Other blogs
The Jackal: More homelessness under National (30 July 2012)
The Standard: Unaffordable housing & the culture of greed
No Right Turn: A surprise policy
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 12 October 2014
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – The New Vietnam; who is first?
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Listener <letters@listener.co.nz>
date: Thu, Oct 16, 2014
subject: Letters to the editor.
The editorThe Listener
.Our esteemed Prime Minister seems very keen and eager to show our American cuzzies that we can contribute to the war in the Middle East.
In which case, if we are going to put “boots on the ground” in Iraq or Syria, who will be filling those boots?
Will it be the sons and daughters of National Ministers?
And when the first coffins start returning home, will Mr Key be on the tarmac, seeing them unloaded?
Or will he be “otherwise engaged”, watching his son play baseball in the US?
-Frank Macskasy
.
References
Radio NZ: PM’s assurances over US meeting questioned
TVNZ News: Slain soldier criticised Key for missing troops’ funeral
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – The martians are coming! The martians are coming!
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Tue, Oct 14, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editorDominion Post
.Our esteemed Prime Minister announces that our Terror Alert has “risen” from “very low risk” of a terror attack to a “low risk”. (13 Oct)
Key states that our risk of a “terror attack” has gone from “unlikely” to “possible but not expected”, saying,
“We are moving up. So it’s as I’ve been saying, we wouldn’t want to overstate the risk, but New Zealand is becoming riskier,”
So what does Key do to reduce potential risks to this country?
He announces he is considering greater involvement in the Middle East conflict against ISIS.
Smart move, Prime Minister. You’ll have us up to “Attack: Imminent” in no time at all.
Subjecting the public to fear-generating announcements is certainly one way to guarantee re-election in three years’ time.
-Frank Macskasy
.
References
TVNZ News: NZ ‘becoming riskier’ as terror alert raised
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
2014 Election – Post-mortem Up-date
.
.
Counting of Special Votes are completed and the Electoral Commission’s final election results have been announced;
National: 47.04 (60 seats – down 1)
Labour: 25.13 (32 seats – no change)
Green Party: 10.70 (14 seats – plus 1)
NZ First: 8.66 (11 seats – no change)
Maori Party: 1.32 (2 seats – 1 electorate, 1 List – no change)
ACT: 0.69 (1 electorate seat – no change)
United Future: 0.22 (1 electorate seat – no change)
Conservative: 3.97 (nil seats – no change)
Internet Mana: 1.42 (nil seats – no change)
It is interesting to compare the 2014 results with the 2011 Election figures;
.
* Predominantly electorate based-parties
.
Other results
2011: 93.7%
2014: 92.6%
2. Total Votes counted by Electoral Commission:
2011: 2,278,989
2014: 2,416,481
Increase: 137,492
3. Voter turnout (as a percentage of enrolled electors):
2011: 74.2%
2014: 77.9%
4. Advance votes cast:
2011: 334,558 (14.7% of voters)
2014: 717,579 (29.33% of voters)
Increase: 383,021
Observations
National
National lost it’s overall majority in the House, though with ACT’s single MP (and to a lesser degree, Peter Dunne), they will most likely still maintain a de facto majority regardless.
My belief is that National’s party strategists were acutely aware that once Special Votes were counted, they would lose their 61st MP, Maureen Pugh. This was a re-play of the 2008 and 2011 elections, where election night results were only temporary, and National’s numbers were pared back (usually by one seat) after the counting of special votes.
Little wonder that Key and National Party strategists have been very, very, very eager to form coalition deals with ACT, Peter Dunne, and the Maori Party. Despite Key’s noble-sounding public pronouncements,
“It’s more about, you know, the kind of inclusive government we want to have other parties working with us…[…]
But equally, we sort of know each other quite well now, after six years we got a bit of a sense of the areas of importance and significance to each other and in a perfect world we don’t want to pass legislation 61 [to] 60 votes the whole way through, we do want to work with other people.”
Yeah, right, whatever. Key wasn’t being “inclusive” or “magnanimous” – he was playing his cards right, knowing full well what the Electoral Commission was going to deal out to his Party two weeks after Election night results.
National’s coalition deals with three minor parties was their “insurance policy”.
For the next three years, Key will be praying nightly to the political gods for all his MPs to remain alive, loyal, and healthy (in that order). At 60 Members of Parliament out of 121, National cannot afford too many by-elections or defections.
ACT
Not just on political life-support by the good graces of the National Party, but more importantly, ACT’s 7,200 drop in their Party vote signifies New Zealanders’ lack of appetite for any further right-wing, neo-liberal “reforms”.
This is something Key and National Party strategist should take careful note of. National’s increase in support may reflect a current preference by voters for a “steady-as-you-go” regime – not further radical moves to the Right.
It is also something that Left-Wing parties should take note: New Zealanders have expressed a subtle distaste for neo-liberalism. We need to capitalise on that.
On a side-issue, if ACT’s Party Vote is destined to reside with a tiny hard-core element of incorrigible, fanatical, right-wing voters, then what is the value of gifting Epsom to ACT if no other candidate will coat-tail into Parliament on the success of someone like John Banks or David Seymour?
There can only be one possible benefit to National: ACT is the “trojan horse” whereby unpopular right-wing policies (eg; Charter Schools) can be introduced as part of sham “coalition negotiations”. As Cameron Slater’s malicious right-wing blog was used to conduct “second track” vicious attack politics on National’s enemies, ACT’s usefulness lies in enacting right wing policies Key may not wish to be closely associated with.
United Future/Peter Dunne
UF’s drop in it’s Party Vote – by well over a half – signifies that voters see Dunne fully as a one-man band. He may continue to win Ohariu on Electorate Votes, but his low Party Vote results preclude any other UF candidates “coat tailing” into Parliament on Dunne’s localised success.
A Party Vote for UF has therefore become a “wasted” vote, and eventually National will ask itself a question, “Why are we supporting Dunne when we might as well go hard out to win the seat ourself, with one of our own candidates?” When the Nats cannot even pin unpopular policies on Dunne – what is his purpose to the centre-right bloc?
As well; the day that Green Party voters wake up to the reality that supporting the Labour Candidate, instead of their Green candidate, with the Electorate Vote, is the day Dunne loses his seat. His presence in Parliament is based purely on some Ohariu Green voters voting shambolically rather than tactically.
Mana-Internet
Interestingly, the Mana-Internet alliance was the only electorate-based Party to actually increase their overall Party Vote: from 24,168 in 2011 to 34,095 on 20 September. ACT and United Future between them lost much of their support. And whilst the Maori Party lost only 132 Party Votes – they lost two electorates; Tamaki Makarau and Te Tai Hauauru to Labour.
As history shows, Hone Harawira only lost his seat – Te Tai Tokerau – after Labour’s candidate was endorsed by John Key and Winston Peters, along with some very shady back-room dealings by the Maori Party.
Subsequently, the mainstream media, indignant commentators, etc, all piled on to the battered and bruised body of Mana, the Internet Party, Kim Dotcom, and Hone Harawira. However, New Zealanders should never forget;
- Through Kim Dotcom’s refusal to buckle to State power, we discovered that the GCSB had been illegally spying on 88 New Zealand citizens.
- After Kim Dotcom’s efforts, we now know that mass surveillance is being undertaken in this country. This is the new reality which the media seems to have over-looked (as per usual) in their constant demands for sensationalistic news stories (as if living in a mass-surveilled society wasn’t sensational in it’s own right).
- Yes, Kim Dotcom did fund the Internet Party to the tune of around $3 million.
- Compare that to National spending $2,321,216 from wealthy benefactors for the 2011 general election.
- And contrast with the $60,082 Mana spent at the same time. When did the media ever question the David-VS-Goliath battle between National and Mana in 2011? The answer is blindingly obvious.
New Zealand has a fine tradition of giving people a fair go.
We like to think we help one another.
There is also a darker side to our nature. Some call it “The Tall Poppy Syndrome”.
I call it bullying.
Less words. Same meaning.
Something Patrick Gower might reflect on.
Conservative Party
Whilst I am no fan of Colin Craig and his ill-considered mish-mash of populist and right wing policies – I do recognise that National’s on-going refusal to carry out reforms to MMP – as recommended by the Electoral Commission in 2012 – is persistently creating bizarre and undemocratic results.
The Conservative Party polled 95,598 Party Votes – three times as high as the Maori Party, which was able to bring in a second MP on Te Ururoa’ Flavell’s “coat-tails”. Yet the Conservatives have no MPs, despite out-polling the Maori Party.
(Yes, I understand that the Conservatives achieved only 3.97% of the Party Vote. But who is say they would not have gained extra votes had the Party threshold been dropped to 4%, as the Commission recommended?)
Green Party
Of the left-wing parties, the Greens fared better than Labour or Mana-Internet. Clearly, their extra 9,986 Party Votes came from Labour’s drop of 10,402 votes. Their campaign was well-targetted; they stayed consistently on-message; and their Party was not under-mined by loose-cannon-candidates engaging in open sabotage. (ref)(ref)(ref)
At 257,356 Party Votes, the Greens increased their support from their 2011 result ( 247,370 Party Votes). Their overall percentage dropped only because the overall number of Party Votes cast increased this election by 137,492.
NZ First
NZ First benefitted from the increase in voting this year. The scandals exposed in “Dirty Secrets“, and the political fallout that affected Labour, escaped Winston Peters who has continually portrayed himself as “above petty politics”.
Peters, however, was not quite sufficiently “above petty politics” to under-mine Mana Leader, Hone Harawira, in his bid to retain Te Tai Tokerau. By endorsing Labour’s Kelvin Davis, Peters plotted with John Key and the Maori Party in an unholy, manipulative, venal triumvirate to destroy the Mana Movement.
Peters can get down and dirty with the worst of them, it seems.
Like Peters’ broken promises post-1996, the public will soon forget Peters’ quiet treachery. Unfortunately.
Labour
Ye gods, where does one start…?!
- The billboards which promoted electorate candidates – and mentioned the all-important Party Vote in barely-discernible small letters?!
- The constant attacks on a potential coalition support-partner by Labour candidates?!
- Allowing certain media political commentators to frame the narrative on coalition partners – thereby forcing Cunliffe to look too eager to “do the right thing” according to certain pundits?! (ref)(ref)(ref)
- Engaging in internecine warfare, whether pre or post-election – simply the most futile act that Labour could possibly engage in. Did they think no one would notice?
- Changing the leader, post-election. Does that mean Labour never had confidence in Cunliffe in the first place, and this his appointment was a mistake? Does that mean Cunliffe’s replacement may also be a mistake? Does it mean Labour has 100% confidence in their new Leader – until they don’t? So… why should the public have confidence in Labour’s new choice of a new Leader, when s/he may be temporary?
Perhaps Labour’s worst mistake of all the above was constantly deriding the Mana-Internet alliance. The constant attacks on Hone Harawira and his Party signalled to the public that Labour was weak; full of self-doubt and lacking in self-confidence. Labour’s desperation for votes was so dire that they were willing to attack and destroy a potential coalition ally, to cannibalise their electoral support.
That showed weakness.
And the public took note.
Contrast Labour’s treatment of Hone Harawira and Mana-Internet, with how John Key related to ACT, United Future, and the Maori Party: with confidence; courtesy; and collegiality.
When Key refused to make a deal with Colin Craig’s Conservative Party, he did so with professional courtesy. There was never any rancor involved, and despite refusing any Epsom-like deal, Key still left National’s options wide open to work with the Conservatives.
Key even flip-flopped on his previous hand-on-heart promise never to entertain any coalition deal-making with Winston Peters;
“I don’t see a place for a Winston Peters-led New Zealand First in a government that I lead,” – John Key, 2 February 2011
When the public looked at Key, they saw a politician who said categorically he would be prepared to work with anyone.
The public liked that. The public want politicians to work together for the good of the country. Key not only said as much – he demonstrated it by working with parties as disparate as ACT, the Maori Party, United Future, and the Greens (though the latter not in any formal coalition agreement).
When the public looked at Labour, they saw a left wing party willing to consume another left wing party, to further their own selfish agenda.
Key showed collegiality and co-operation.
Labour exuded desperation.
Whoever leads the Labour Party after 18 November – take note.
Media
The closet, political “party” in this election – the mainstream media. Acting much like a ‘spoiler’ for the Left, it did it’s damndest to engage in “gaffe” journalism; focus on trivia (scarves, holidays, etc); and failed to chase up real stories when they hit the public.
The nadir of junk ‘journalism’ came when Mike Hosking interviewed both Nicky Hager and National Minister, Steven Joyce, on 14 August, over revelations contained in the expose, “Dirty Secrets“.
As I wrote previously, when I reviewed this segment of “Seven Sharp”;
I encourage people to watch the opening segment, where Mike “interviews” Minister Steven Joyce, and then interogates and derides author, Nicky Hager.
Any pretence that Mike Hosking is an “unbiased journalist” has been firmly dispatched. The man is a mouthpiece for the National government and his behaviour and line of questioning proved it.
.
.
Nicky Hager’s investigations have uncovered practices that can only be described as an abuse of power by this government.
Did Hosking ask challenging questions to the Minister? Answer: no.
Did Hosking put specific examples requiring explanations to the Minister? Answer: no.
Was Hosking’s line of questioning relevant to the book and offer insights to the viewer? Answer: no.
Hosking then asked hard questions from Nicky Hager, who to his credit realised that he was being set up as the “fall guy” for the story.
This was not journalism. Not even close. It was superficial, Fox-style partisan politics masquerading as “informed debate”. Again, not even close.
The only television I have seen in my life that came close to Hosking’s slanted, pro-government performance was during my visits to Eastern European countries in my late teens/early twenties. In those times, Eastern Europe was ruled by well-policed, undemocratic, One Party “communist” regimes. Television “news” was little more than a mouthpiece for the government – no questions asked. There was never even an attempt at balance.
Hosking would have fitted in perfectly.
As far as I am concerned, Hosking’s “talent” lies elsewhere, but not in journalism. Perhaps a PR/spin-man for a cereal company or arms manufacturer or bordello run by the Chow Brothers (he’s already sold his soul, so the other bodily bits should be equally saleable).
On The Daily Blog, on 3 October, Keith Rankin made this pertinent observation
Note that the apparent conservatism of the mainstream media is due it being almost completely bound to the prevailing consensus; far more bound to it than even the politicians themselves.
“So once again the blue team gets one over the red team.Yes, it’s cringey, but it’s left Cunliffe looking whingey.”
References
Electoral Commission: 2014 General Election – Official Result
Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 2011
Electoral Commission: Party Votes and Turnout by Electorate
NZ Herald: Final election results in – National loses majority
Dominion Post: National loses majority, Greens pick up one
NZ Herald: Special votes see Greens gain seat, Nats lose
NZ Parliament: The 2011 General Election
TVNZ ‘Breakfast’: Coalition deals signed – ACT and United Future
Radio NZ: Big change in Maori seats
Dominion Post: Lots left to be desired
Twitter: Patrick Gower
NZ Herald: Govt rejects recommendations to change MMP system
NZ Herald: MMP review recommends lower party threshold
Scoop Media: Māori Party’s first list MP Confirmed
TV3 News: Labour candidate makes more ‘Shylock’ comments
Fairfax media: Mallard’s mad Moa blurt
Fairfax media: Winston Peters backs Labour’s Kelvin Davis
NZ Herald: Election 2014 – Hone’s call to arms after Winston backs Kelvin
Fairfax media: Kelvin Davis blasts Mana Party (alt. link)
TV3 News: David Cunliffe owns up to getting it wrong
TVNZ: David Cunliffe stands by decision to take family holiday
Election Ads: James Dann – Labour Party – 2014 General Election
Frankly Speaking: The secret of National’s success – revealed
Scoop Media: Patrick Gower interviews Labour leader David Cunliffe
Radio NZ: Cunliffe says no to Internet-Mana
TV3 News: Cunliffe – Labour, NZF, Greens ‘will work’
NZ Herald: Cunliffe on Dotcom – ‘We have nothing to do with him’
TVNZ News: No deal – Key leaves Colin Craig out in the cold
Fairfax media: Possible coalition line-ups after election
TVNZ News: Winston Peters not grabbing John Key’s olive branch
NZ Herald: PM rules out any NZ First deal
TV3 News: Cunliffe apologises ‘for being a man’
The Daily Blog: When the media say they covered Dirty Politics – did they?
TVNZ: Seven Sharp 14 August
The Daily Blog: National Party Spice Boys
TV3 News Bulletin: Tuesday 30 September 2014
TV3 News: Key nestles in with the All Blacks
Previous related blogposts
Winston Peters recycles pledge to “buy back state assets” – where have we heard that before?
The secret of National’s success – revealed
Election 2014; A Post-mortem; a Wake; and one helluva hang-over
Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot
“Dirty Politics” and The Teflon Man
The Donghua Liu Affair – The Players Revealed
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 6 October 2014
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – From a warm beach in Hawaii, With Love
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>
date: Tue, Oct 7, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor
.
The editor
Sunday Star Times.
John Key has delegated responsibility and oversight of the SIS and GCSB to Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson saying,
“Mr Finlayson will operate within the framework I set and exercise ministerial oversight of the NZSIS and GCSB, including approval of warrants.”
The last person supposedly responsible for “exercising ministerial oversight of the NZSIS and GCSB” seemed to be “on holiday in Hawaii” when sensitive information was released by the SIS to a certain right wing blogger – or unaware that one of our spy agencies was illegally spying on New Zealand citizens.
It is reassuring to know that someone, at last, in this government will be “exercising ministerial oversight of the NZSIS and GCSB”
That will be a welcome change.
That will leave Mr Key with plenty of time to fulfill his role as Minister for Tourism – from a warm beach in Hawaii.
-Frank Macskasy
[name & address supplied]
.
References
NZ Herald: John Key unveils new Cabinet line-up
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – Key’s one true portfolio remains…
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Mon, Oct 6, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editorDominion Post.So John Key won’t be Minister in charge of the SIS & GCSB?
Well, that leaves him as Minister for Tourism – a position he ably fulfills from a beach in Hawaii…
-Frank Macskasy
[address & phone number supplied]
.
References
Radio NZ: John Key reveals new Cabinet lineup
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor – An own-goal from a particularly stupid National Supporter
.
.
There was something about this letter that didn’t quite ring true…
.
.
It seemed “too cute” by far. Too clever. And it seemed familiar, as if I’d read the story elsewhere – or something similar to it.
Sure enough…
.
.
Which prompted this response from me to the Dominion Post’s editor…
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Thu, Oct 2, 2014
subject: Letter to the Editor.
The editorDominion Post.
Re Dave Christie’s letter, telling the story about his “friend’s little girl wanting to grow up to the the Prime Minister so she could house and feed all the homeless people; and then Christie replies they should all mow his lawns for $25 and do other work around his house”.(1 Oct)
Perhaps Mr Christie could have added that the story was actually lifted, almost word-for-word, from Republican House Representative, Michelle Bachmann’s Facebook page.
It is one of those apocryphal political fables that regularly does the rounds on the internet.
The only difference is that when Mr Christie copied and pasted it, passing it of as his own “letter to the editor”, he changed one important feature. The American version had the homeless guy working for $50.
It seems that a National Party supporter couldn’t bring himself to pay that much, and halved the remuneration.
National advocating cutting pay for New Zealanders? Apocryphal indeed.
Own goal, Mr Christie, own goal.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
References
Facebook: Michele Bachmann
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
A Study in Party Stability
.
In terms of long-term stability, one party above stands above all others, with the exception of personality-driven groups such as NZ First and United Future. That party is the Greens.
If the Labour Party wants to look elsewhere for solutions to their problems, they need only walk down the coridor at Parliament and knock on the doors to Metiria Turei and Russell Norman.
The Greens’ record speaks for itself…
.
.
(L-R) Helen Clarke – Michael Cullen – Jeanette Fitzsimons (retired 2009) – Russell Norman
.
.
(L-R) Phil Goff – Annette King – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman
.
.
(L-R) David Shearer – Grant Robertson – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman
.
.
(L-R) David Cunliffe – David Parker – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman
.
.
(L-R) ? – ? – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman
.
.
(L-R) ? – ? – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman
.
In the meantime, Labour’s ritual post-election self-flagellation and purging of their leadership damages their standing in the public’s eye even further. The words I’ve been hearing in the last 48 hours are “clowns”, idiots”, and a few others that are unmentionable around kids.
If the Labour caucus don’t support their own leader – especially when times are tough – why should they expect the voting public to take their leadership choices seriously? After all, with four leaders gone in six years, it would appear to be a temporary position at best.
The only thing that Labour is proving by it’s actions is that it cannot cope with defeat; cannot build positively; and most important – will not support it’s elected leader when he needs it the most. Not exactly an inspiring message to send to voters, eh?
Remind me why the public would think that this is a team worth supporting?!
No one benefits from this circus.
Except of course, Cameron Slater, David Farrar, Simon Lusk, and their parasitic mates. For them, despite Nicky Hager’s expose, this has been a dream-come-true. For the apostles of Dirty Politics, Christmas has come early.
Gift-wrapped and presented by the Labour Party caucus and hierarchy.
.
References
Radio NZ: Cunliffe resigns as leader of Labour
NZ Herald: Timeline: Labour’s years of leadership pain
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 September 2014
.
.
= fs =
Deep thought vs Deep prejudice
.
.
This letter to the editor appeared in The Listener, on 27 September, and caught my attention;
.
.
Mr Dawson wrote in response to one of those typically unthinking comments which condemned the poor for their “unbridled, reckless breeding“. The previous letter writer, a Mr Smith, parrotted the usual prejudice,
For too long, family numbers have blown out of control, because the state, funded by people who took a responsible attitude towards family numbers, has been there to pick up the tab, and this has bred a culture of entitlement
The problem with people like Mr Smith is that no thinking is required when making such puerile statements. He just repeats what he’s heard from elsewhere.
It’s worthwhile recalling that before the Global Financial Crisis – caused by well-educated, white old men (and predominantly, they are usually always White Old Men) – unemployment in New Zealand in the September 2007 Quarter stood at 3.5% – or around 79,000 people.
By 2012, that had rocketed to 7.3% – or 173,000 of our fellow New Zealanders.
That’s 95,000 men and women who went from wage and salary earners – to the “lifestyle choice of luxury living on unemployment” .
Even with unemployment currently at 5.6%, there are still 137,000 people unemployed – 58,000 more than seven years ago. Factor in a growing problem of under-employment, and it becomes apparent very quickly why we have growing child poverty in this country. Especially when the definition of being ’employed’ is working only one hour a week (or more), whether paid or un-paid.
When public or media attention is focused on high unemployment and poverty and government policies – the causation of these problems is slated home to the GFC.
But taken in isolation, when the focus is on families suffering the effects of unemployment and poverty – the problem is slated home to “individual responsibility”.
The ignorance of people like Mr Smith is a kind of self-inflicted, Orwellian, double-think. No brain-power required.
By blaming individuals, and pointing to a so-called lack of ‘personal responsibility for indulging in irresponsible sexual activity’, Mr Smith is saved from the task of having to think through the issues. (Or else he’s just jealous he’s not ‘gettin’ some action‘, as our American cuzzies phrase it so eloquently in ghetto/under-class idiom?)
The next time Mr Smith or one of his clones parrots the same preconceived prejudice, they should be posed the question; what do we do with the children of workers who were in work, but now aren’t?
Do we;
Option A: Adopt the Eastern European gangster method and sell them into sexual slavery?
Option B: Adopt the Asian method, and chain them to sewing machines in sweat-shops, churning out Nikes and trendy t-shirts bearing witty social-justice slogans for Western consumers?
Option C: Or just go with the ISIS technique of mass extermination?
Once we sort out that little “issue” (because actually calling these things problems then demands solutions – an ‘issue’ only requires a cuppa tea and a chat), we can turn our attention to more pressing matters, according to our esteemed Dear Leader;
.
.
Damn. Which one?
Maybe we should ask Mr Smith. Perhaps it’s something he has thought deeply about?
.
References
The Listener: Letters to Editor 20 September 2014
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey: September 2007 quarter
MoBIE/Dept of Labour: Labour Market Reports – Employment and Unemployment – March 2008 Quarter
NZ Herald: Unemployment up to 7.3pc – a 13 year high
Reserve Bank NZ: Employment
Statistics NZ: Labour market statistics for the June 2014 quarter – Media Release
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey – Definitions
Statistics NZ: Introducing new measures of underemployment
Irregular Times: Celebrate Labor Day Without Outsourced Sweatshop T-Shirts – wear a sweatshop-free shirt instead
Fairfax media: Key moves for poll on change to flag
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 27 September 2014
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 