Archive
The slow dismantling of a Prime Minister – downward slide continues
.
.
Continued from: The slow dismantling of a Prime Minister continues
The gradual slide of John Key’s popularity continues with the latest TV3 Reid Research poll further evidence that Key’s once-impenetrable teflon coating has been blasted away by successive scandals; ineptitude from his Ministers; and worsening socio-economic indicators on almost every front..
Since Key’s ascension to Prime Ministership, his poll ratings – as recorded by TV3-Reid Research have tracked from 36.4% in October/November 2008, to a high of 55.8% in October 2009;
Oct/Nov 2008: 36.4%
(Source)
Feb 2009: 52.1%
April 2009: 51.1%
Aug 2009: 51.6%
Oct 2009: 55.8%
After 2009, Key’s popularity began to experience “speed wobbles”, with fluctuation from low 50s, to high 40s;
Feb 2010: 49.4%
April 2010: 49.0%
June 2010: 49.6%
Jul/Aug 2010: 48.7%
Sept/Oct 2010: 50.6%
Nov/Dec 2010: 54.1%
Feb 2011: 49.1%
April 2011: 52.4%
May 2011: 48.2%
Jun/Jul 2011: 50.5%
Aug 2011: 53.3%
Sept 2011: 54.5%
Oct 2011: 52.7%
1-8 Nov 2011: 50.0%
9-16 Nov 2011: 49.4%
16-23 Nov 2011: 48.9%
From early 2012, Key’s popularity dived;
Feb 2012: 45.8%
April 2012: 44.2%
May/Jun 2012: 40.5%
July: 43.2%
(Source)
Feb 2013: 41.0%
And from early 2013, for the first time, his popularity as preferred PM broke the “40% barrier” into the 30s;
April 2013: 38.0%
May 2013: 41.0%
Jul 2013: 42.0%
Nov 2013: 40.9%
Jan 2014: 38.9%
Mar 2014: 42.6%
May 2014: 43.1%
Jun 2014: 46.7%
Jul 2014: 43.8%
5-3 Aug 2014: 44.1%
19-25 Aug 2014: 41.4%
26 Aug-1 Sept 2014: 45.1%
2-8 Sept 2014: 45.3%
9-15 Sept 2014: 44.1%
Jan 2015: 44.0%
From mid-2015, as scandal after scandal; growing reports of income/wealth inequality; and falling housing affordability began to impact on New Zealanders’ collective psyche, his support dropped from the 40s into the 30s;
May 2015: 39.4%
(Source)
15-22 July 2015: 38.3%
(Source)
8-16 Sept 2015: 39.5%
(Source)
22 Nov 2015: 38.3%
(source)
The most recent poll, released on Tuesday 24 May shows Key’s popularity now in the mid-30s. This represents a 19.1 percentage-point drop in Key’s personal popularity amongst voters;
24 May 2016: 36.7%
(source)
The Panama Papers may not have been a “king hit” on the government as some on the Right maintain – but public perception of National’s inaction over tax havens, tax evasion, secret foreign trusts, etc, all created an image that the Nats were friendly to those “rich pricks” who rorted the tax system.
But the worst of National’s problems lay much closer to home than the Panama tax haven.
The housing crisis has become a Force 10 political storm in this country, and National has been seen to be sitting on their hands whilst people are crowded into garages; living in cars; and even the scion on the Middle Class bourgeois are becoming more and more locked out of the housing market.
As Labour’s former President, Mike Williams stated on Radio NZ’s Nine To Noon political panel on Monday, 23 May;
“I think there’s a bit of schizophrenia going on in Middle New Zealand which is showing up in the UMR numbers. If you own a house you are feeling pretty good because the value of your asset has been going through the roof. However, if you’ve got kids, you’re worried about their schooling; you’re worried about will they get a house; and you’re worried about will they get a job that pays enough to pay for a house. So I think, that, yes, home-owning New Zealanders [are] feeling ok, but parents are not.”
So unsurprisingly, the same TV3 Reid Research poll showed in no uncertain terms where the public stood on National’s hands-off policy on housing;
.
.
Even National Party supporters have been unable to stomach the worsening housing crisis and the sight of fellow New Zealanders sleeping in cars.
National now finds itself trapped by it’s own free-market dogma. Historically, only Labour governments have built housing, whilst National busied itself selling off state houses; implementing market rentals for Housing NZ tenants (in the past); and otherwise leaving it to the free market to meet demand.
That “free market” has failed dismally, and attempts to blame the Auckland Council, RMA, and Uncle Tom Cobbly no longer wash with an increasing grumpy electorate.
$26 million wasted on a failed flag referendum also helped cement public opinion that National was out-of-touch; engaged in pointless exercises; and avoiding tough problems faced by many New Zealanders.
The last time this blogger saw the public show such dissatisfaction with a National government was in the late 1990s, when Jenny Shipley was PM. That did not end well for her.
Whatever plans National attempts to pull out of the Budget Hat will be too little and too late. Unlike pumping extra cash into Vote Health, Vote Education, Vote Police, or Vote Conservation, the housing sector is a behemoth much akin to a huge oil-tanker. It is simply too large to be turned around in a short time-period.
If three Ministers (English, Smith, and Bennett) devoted to housing could not address this country’s ballooning housing crisis, then National has failed miserably.
Short of a miracle, this will be Key’s last term in office, and this country will finally be rid of the Teflon Man;
.
.
.
.
References
TV3 News: Newshub poll: Key’s popularity plummets to lowest level
TV3 News: Government gets thumbs down on housing
Radio NZ: Nine to Noon – Political commentators Mike Williams and Matthew Hooton
NZ Herald: Key says he’ll quit politics if National loses election
Previous related blogposts
Polls and pundits – A facepalm moment
The slow dismantling of a populist prime minister
The slow dismantling of a Prime Minister continues
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 May 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Andrew Little’s “dangerous” speech – a cunning plan for the Middle and the Left
.
.
Wellington, NZ, 22 May – Speaking to a fully packed downtown conference centre in Wellington, on a cold, gloomy rainy afternoon, Labour-leader, Andrew Little launched into a fiery attack on the current National Government focusing on it’s inarguably lack-lustre track record for the past eight years.
With a heavy media presence, Rimutaka MP, and Labour spokesperson for Education, Chris Hipkins, was tasked with making the introduction;
.
.
Hipkins said;
“Certainly there is a mood for change around the country now and that mood for change is increasing. But the question that everybody has been asking us, is is Labour ready? And that’s a fair question to ask.”
“They say that being the leader of the Opposition is the toughest job in politics. Well I can tell to tell you that Andrew has taken to that tough job in politics like a duck to water.”
“In all of that time that he has been doing that job, and all the hours he has put in, he has never forgotten why is there; for people. And that is why the Labour Party is here.”
The short introduction over, the audience of committed Labour members clapped enthusiastically as Little mounted the podium;
.
.
To say that Little had plenty of material to work with would be an understatement as the growing crisis for both affordable housing; skyrocketing rentals; and shortage of state houses have been well publicised in the media and by bloggers.
From just one day in Wellington’s Dominion Post Monday 23 May edition;
.
.
Jane Bowron’s piece especially – Marae shows up Government with haere mai to homeless – is a must-read, head-on assault on the warped ‘values’ which currently afflict our government and some peoples’ thinking. Yet, the Dominion Post is hardly known as a bastion for marxist agitation.
Little wasted no time as he launched into a recitation of National’s failures after eight years in government;
“It’s becoming harder for many people to get ahead. Harder to find a good job or get a pay rise. Harder to find a home, put some savings aside, or get the health care you need. Parents are paying more for their childrens’ education, but our schools aren’t performing as well.
[…]
Look at the headlines from the last couple of weeks: Children sleeping in cars or forced to lives in houses that make them sick; plummeting home ownership; rising unemployment, [and] stalled wages for many people.
[…]
And while the few at the very top got to enjoy special rules that meant they didn’t have to pay their fair share – everyone else is paying the cost.
We’ve seen increases in unemployment. There are now 144,000 people out of work in New Zealand, 40,000 more than when National took office.”
Little is correct on those stats. According to the convenient graphs and data from US website, Trading Economics, the increase in unemployment in New Zealand has remained stubbornly high;
.
.
Little explained that the unemployment problem was worse than just sheer numbers;
“And it’s not just that more people are out of work – it’s that many more are out of work for longer. Under this government the number of people unemployed for more than a year has tripled – up over 11,000 since they took office.
The situation is especially tough for our young people. Under this government the number of young people who aren’t in work, education or training has risen by more than 26,000.
The truth is those are the young people this government has given up on – the ones they label as ‘pretty damn hopeless’.”
.
.
Little pointed out the numbers who had not gotten any wage increase in the last year, and more importantly that workers were missing out on the benefits of economic growth;
For those in work, getting a pay rise has become harder. 43% of New Zealanders saw no increase in their incomes at all in the last 12 months.
[…]
Under the last Labour government, the share of economic growth going to wage and salary earners was over 50%.
Today, it’s 37%.
The slice of the economy going to workers has fallen each year under National.
This year, that lost income works out to be fifty bucks a week for the average family.
His comments will most likely resonate with those workers who feel they are working harder and longer hours – and yet do not seem to be progressing. The back-stories of mega-rich tax-evaders hoarding their wealth in tax havens will fuel feelings of resentment by those who work and pay their taxes so we can have roads, hospitals, schools, etc;
.
.
Little then hit the big story of the last few weeks – growing homelessness in New Zealand. Coupled with a fall in home ownership rates since 1991 (from 74% in 1991 to 64% in 2015), and we get a clear picture how “free” market economics has impacted on our society.
National’s response was to deny that a problem existed in New Zealand at all. According to Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett;
.
“I certainly wouldn’t call it a crisis. I think that we’ve always had people in need.” – Paula Bennett, 20 May 2016
.
Andrew Little’s response was less dismissive of the challenges facing 21st century New Zealand families;
“When kids are sleeping in cars. That’s a crisis.
When families are crowded into garages. That’s a crisis.
When an entire generation is locked out of ever owning their own home, that is a crisis.”
He firmly sheeted home blame for our current predicament, in no uncertain terms;
“Instead of owning up to that and fixing it, the government is siding with property speculators and land bankers, while everyone else misses out.
Every initiative our bumbling housing minister Nick Smith has tried on housing has failed. Rather than go after the causes of the problems, he’s flailed around with gimmicks.
Remember special housing areas? Fewer than 1000 homes actually built.
Remember his gimmick from the last Budget? Releasing crown land? It turned out to include substations, cemeteries and even the back yard of Government House.
While the government’s been tinkering, the problem’s gotten so much worse.
In March, the average house price in Auckland rose by over $2,200 a day.”
For maximum effect, Little repeated that startling factoid to the audience and media;
“Let me say that figure again. Over twenty two hundred dollars a day.”
On Radio NZ’s political panel on Monday, 23 May, former Labour Party President, Mike Williams complimented Andrew Little’s speech, referring to it as “dangerous”;
“Middle New Zealand is concerned about health, education, housing, and the economy. And I think, as far as John Key is concerned, this is the most dangerous speech a Labour leader has given since Helen Clark resigned.”
Williams also made an interesting observation regarding how Middle New Zealand felt about their rising house values;
“I think there’s a bit of schizophrenia going on in Middle New Zealand which is showing up in the UMR numbers. If you own a house you are feeling pretty good because the value of your asset has been going through the roof. However, if you’ve got kids, you’re worried about their schooling; you’re worried about will they get a house; and you’re worried about will they get a job that pays enough to pay for a house. So I think, that, yes, home-owning New Zealanders [are] feeling ok, but parents are not.”
Little then addressed the growing under-funding of public healthcare;
According to Infometrics, we’ve had $1.7 billion dollars cut in real terms from our health budget over 6 years.
That’s meant that 160,000 people in the last 5 years have been unable to get the appointment they need with a specialist.”
Which seems to be a replay of National’s cuts to the Health budget in the late 1990s;
.
.
In response, Little promised;
“Under Labour, Kiwis will know that if they get sick, the public healthcare system will be there for them. That’s why we are committed to meeting the cost pressures that are depriving people of the care they need…
…Budgets are about priorities, and under Labour, health will be a priority again. We shouldn’t be spending money on $3 billion of unaffordable tax cuts when we could be fixing our health system instead.”
Which, if the previous Clark-led Labour government’s actions are anything to go by, can be counted as a solid committment;
.
.
Little was also scathing at National’s taxpayer subsidies being thrown at Charter Schools;
“At the same time as National has poured millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money into privately run charter schools, our public education system is struggling.
In the last year alone, National has cut funding for pupils by $150 each.
And so schools load more costs on to parents in order to fill the gaps.
Ask any parent and they’ll tell you the cost of uniforms, class activities, camps and of course ‘voluntary donations’ just keep on rising.”
For all of National’s much-vaunted “reforms” in our education system, the results are less than impressive. Little rattled off a list of stats that should raise concern with all New Zealanders;
But here’s the thing: while costs are rising, standards are falling.
In 2006, we were ranked 5th in the world for reading.
Now we’re 13th.
We were 7th in science.
Today? 18th.
And in maths? We’ve fallen from 11th to 23rd.
So much for National Standards. And so much for the neo-liberal ideology that has not only not delivered on promises of excellence in our education system – but has seemingly damaged it. Our fall in international rankings are stark evidence that National’s policies in education have failed spectacularly.
Little then offered what can only be described as Labour’s manifesto for the 2017 General Election;
- We’ll crack down on the offshore speculators who are driving up house prices and locking families out of the market.
- Labour will launch a mass home building programme to deliver new, affordable homes in Auckland and around the country.
- That’s why we are committed to three years’ free post-school education so that Kiwis can train and retrain across their working lives, without having to take on huge debt. That’s how we support our people and its how we tackle the challenge of the future of work.
- We’ll introduce a dole for apprenticeships scheme to give young people the opportunity to get into paid work.
- We’ll raise the number of hours people can work without having their benefit cut.
- We will feed hungry kids in schools…
In six, short, sentences, Andrew Little has put the boot into neo-liberal so-called “reforms”. If elected, and if Labour does not water-down it’s promises, we will be witnessing the dismantling of thirtythree years of the neo-liberal paradigm in New Zealand.
No wonder right-wing commentator, Matthew Hooton, seemed perturbed by Little’s speech during his regular ‘slot’ on Radio NZ’s Nine to Noon programme on 23 May.
Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect to Little’s promises is that of “three years’ free post-school education“. This is, in effect, partially undoing user-pays in our tertiary institutions.
But the most clever aspect to Little’s speech is that it is “talking” to two different parts of New Zealand.
His reference to “that lost income works out to be fifty bucks a week for the average family” is a direct pitch to Middle New Zealand that feels it is not progressing whilst the mega-rich rort the tax system.
But his reference to abandoning part of user-pays in tertiary education is directed at the Left who are demanding that the Labour Party make a public commitment to renouncing it’s Rogernomics past.
The trick for Labour’s hierarchy and strategists is to achieve both – appealing to Middle New Zealand and the Left – but without spooking the former, or further alienating the latter.
In effect, Labour has taken a firm step-to-the-left – and the public have not noticed.
Mike Williams was right: this was a “dangerous” speech from Andrew Little.
And a damned clever one.
.
Addendum
Full text of Andrew Little’s speech here.
.
.
.
.
References
Fairfax: Jane Bowron – Marae shows up Government with haere mai to homeless
Trading economics: New Zealand Unemployed Persons
Fairfax media: Bill English describes some Kiwis looking for work as ‘pretty damned hopeless’
TV1 News: Panama Papers investigation – ‘NZ absolutely, conclusively is a tax haven’
Interest.co.nz: Collapse in home-ownership rates among families formed since 1991 is an unfolding disaster for NZ’s economy
Radio NZ: No housing crisis in NZ – Paula Bennett
Radio NZ: Nine to Noon – Political commentators Mike Williams and Matthew Hooton
Scoop media: Andrew Little: Pre-Budget Speech 2016
Related
Pundit: Have We a Housing Policy?
Other bloggers
Chris Trotter: Left Unsaid: What Andrew Little Didn’t Say In His Pre-Budget Speech
Kiwipolitico: Not Quite But Getting There
No Right Turn: National should give us our $13,000 back
The Standard: Little’s $50 a week message getting through
Copyright (c) Notice
All images stamped ‘fmacskasy.wordpress.com’ are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
» Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
» Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
» At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals or groups.
» Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 May 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Foot in Mouth award – another former ACT MP plumbs new depths of dumbness
.
.
This Award is for a comment has has to be heard to be believed. It must rank as truly one of the dumbest things a politician (or former politician, in this case) has ever uttered in the entire million-year long history of Homo Sapiens.
The Award goes to former ACT MP, Heather Roy, for stating – with a straight face and without a hint of irony;
.
“Nuclear war is not the end of the world.” – Heather Roy, Q+A Panel, 22 May 2016
.
I kid you not.
Check it out for yourself on TVNZ’s website, here. The relevant comment is at 6.04;
“Nuclear war is not the end of the world.”
And Righties call us the “looney left”?!
I guess in a way, Ms Roy is correct; “Nuclear war is not the end of the world” – if you’re a cockroach. It’s more like an opportunity.
An opportunity to snack on 7.5 billion human charred corpses amidst the ruins of what was once a civilisation on planet Earth.
Absolutely. Barking. Mad.
.
.
.
References
TVNZ: Q+A – War between west and Russia inevitable – Panel (7:40)
Previous related blogposts
Heather Roy – head down the mine shaft?
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 24 May 2015.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – Who are the Real Greedies?
.
.
It is amazing how many blame the victims of neo-liberal ideology, rather than looking at the causes of why things happen. Are some people really so simple-minded that they can’t see beyond their immediate prejudices…?
.
.
So yet again, I point out some ‘home truths’ to people like Ms Moore, who seems to have selective amnesia when it comes to recent history…
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Sat, May 21, 2016
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor
Dominion Post.
In attacking so-called “loan defaulters”, Sylvia Moore has targetted the wrong group. (letters, 20 May)
She is indeed correct that increased student fees and student loans were introduced in 1992. Before that, tertiary education was near-free.
Beneficiaries of free tertiary education were people like John Key, Bill English, Steven Joyce, et al. Even Paula Bennett was recipient of free tertiary education, through the Training Incentive Allowance – which she scrapped in 2009 after becoming Minister for Social Welfare.
When Moore states that “perhaps if they [student loan defaulters] repaid their loans, the government, might be able to allocate a grant to parents in need of help” misses the point that since 1986 there have been seven tax cuts. The last two in 2009 and 2010 cost over $2 billion per annum
That is why schools and hospitals are being under-funded and children are in need in equipment such as lap-tops, as Ms Moore pointed out.
It is a double standard that we now saddle our youth with massive student debts and threats of prosecution.
Perhaps she should cast her ire at National Ministers who have gained personal benefit from free education and are now abusing their power to force others to pay for what they got for free.
.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
.
.
References
NBR: Bennett cutting a benefit that helped her – Labour
Infonews: Government’s 2010 tax cuts costing $2 billion and counting
Previous related blogposts
“It’s one of those things we’d love to do if we had the cash”
John Key’s track record on raising wages – 4. Rest Home Workers
Aged Care: The Price of Compassion
Nick Hanauer – a devastating demolition of the Neo-liberal dogma of tax cuts!
Tax cuts and jobs – how are they working out so far, my fellow New Zealanders?
Letter to the Editor – tax cuts bribes? Are we smarter than that?
The consequences of tax-cuts – worker exploitation?
The Mendacities of Mr Key #3: tax cuts
A Message to Radio NZ – English continues fiscal irresponsibility with tax-cut hints
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 22 May 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Hooton and Farrar slag Key – With friends like these…
.
.
The Panama Papers continue to simmer and National’s greatest fear is that the public will link tax-dodging to the current government. (Up-coming political polls will be interesting to see.) But that is not all that National’s hierarchy has to worry about.
Closer to home, National is facing “Third Termitis” and an increasingly cynical view of the government and it’s leading figures – even from within.
Some recent ‘digs’ at Dear Leader John Key by right-wing commentators – ostensibly friendly to National – are either miscalculations, or a subtle hint that respect for Key’s leadership style is waning.
Case in Point #1 – David Farrar
On 2 May, National Party pollster and apparatchik, David Farrar made a guest appearance on Jim Mora’s afternoon Panel (hosted that afternoon by Jesse Mulligan), on Radio NZ. Along with lawyer Mai Chen, they discussed the issues of the day;
“…foreign Trusts and how much the Prime Minister was involved in our tax laws.”
The issue of what Key’s lawyer – Ken Whitney – said to then-Revenue Minister, Todd McClay arose amongst the Panelists, and host.
Ken Whitney, the executive director of tax-trust specialist, Antipodes Trust Group, wrote to McClay on December 3, 2014, over concerns Inland Revenue were reviewing the sector;
“We are concerned that there appears to be a sudden change of view by the IRD in respect of their previous support for the industry. I have spoken to the Prime Minister about this and he advised that the Government has no plans to change the status of the foreign trust regime.
The PM asked me to contact you to arrange a meeting at your convenience with a small group of industry leaders who are keen to engage to explain how the regime works and the benefits to NZ of an industry which has been painstakingly built up over the last 25 years or so.”
Key refuted that he had “advised that the Government has no plans to change the status of the foreign trust regime“;
“One of the members of the tax, that group, the foreign trusts, asked me about it. I said I haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about, I don’t think that’s right that there are changes, but go and take it up with the minister.
Subsequently there’s miles of paperwork that shows all the stuff he did, I had no other involvement other than that – it happens every day to me, people come up to me all the time and say ‘what about x or what about y?’ and I say take it up with the relevant minister.”
Bear in mind when this conversation took place: December 2014.
Key is clear in his recollection of the conversations he had with his then-lawyer, Ken Whitney, and then-Revenue Minister, Todd McClay;
Mr Key was insistent he made clear to McClay the connection between himself and Mr Whitney, when he alerted his minister to the approach from his lawyer about the trust rules regime.
“I’ve seen his comments, what he basically said was he couldn’t absolutely recall but it was two years ago but I absolutely told him – 100 percent. It’s a few years with an oral conversation that lasted a few seconds but I definitely told him.”
Which is intriguing, as Key has a somewhat dubious reputation for having a shockingly bad memory of events that are uncomfortable for him to recall and discuss. Especially when journalists are present.
A particularly extraordinary example of Key’s inability to retain recollection of events took place in November 2014, when Key “forgot” a txt-conversation he had had with right-wing blogger, Cameron Slater;
“He sent me a text one time, but I can’t remember when that was.”
In fact, the txt-conversation with Slater took place only eighteen hours previously. Which resulted in headlines like this one;
.
.
When the issue of John Key’s memory and reputation for lapses arose, Farrar made this revelation;
@10.06
“Oh I’m not sure I quite accept the assertion there. I found in my experience the Prime Minister has a remarkable good memory on things. There was – I had a conversation with him the other day on something, where he referred to ‘Oh I think there was something in January, um, 2007’, and he was right. It took me half an hour to look it up, but he remembered this thing, from what was it, nine years ago. So I think actually he generally has a very good memory, just not a perfect one.”
Farrar’s willingness to share this aspect of John Key’s mental state is reassuring. It means our esteemed Dear Leader is not suffering on-set Alzheimers Disease or any similar brain-debilitating condition, when he insists he cannot re-call an inconvenient event.
It just means Key is lying.
Thank you, David Farrar, for clearing that up.
Case in Point #2 – Matthew Hooton
The next person to offer a singularly unflattering insight into Key’s personality was right-wing commentator and a member of the neo-liberal cadré, Matthew Hooton.
Hooton has a regular 11am appearance on Radio NZ’s Nine to Noon show, where he offers his views from a right-wing, free-market perspective. He speaks frankly on a variety of issues-of-the-day and can be as highly critical of National; it’s policies; and leadership, as he is on the Left.
Hooton’s own investigation into Murray McCully’s corrupt Saudi farm-in-the-desert deal should be required-reading for all New Zealanders, regardless of their political persuasions. As political scientist, Bryce Edwards wrote in May last year;
Perhaps the strongest views are from Matthew Hooton, who has two columns in the National Business Review (which have just had their paywalls removed). The first column, Gulf games fail to deliver, gives the background to the fallout between the New Zealand Government and Saudi Arabia, with Hooton largely blaming John Key. According to Hooton’s story, the Saudi businessman was led to believe that the incoming National Government of 2008 would resume live sheep exports.
Once in power, however, Hooton says that Key changed his mind on hearing that TVNZ would broadcast “a programme critical of live sheep exporting. In a panic, and fearing further criticism from the Green Party’s Sue Kedgley, Mr Carter was ordered by Mr Key’s media staff to go on TV and rule out any resumption of the trade, ever. This was later confirmed to the Saudis as New Zealand’s new position and negotiations ceased. Furious, Mr Al-Khalaf used his influence with the Saudi royal family to ensure the FTA was put on ice”.
Hooton’s second must-read column, Flying sheep endanger McCully, turns the focus to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, suggesting that his subsequent handling of the mess could lead to his sacking. Hooton suggests the whole deal is “implausible” in terms of the bizarre farming arrangements and partnership that the Government has established.
He doubts that the promised innovative “agrihub” will actually eventuate and “If not, people might start comparing Mr McCully’s dealings with Mr Al-Khalaf with those with Mr Roberts 15 years ago. For which Mrs Shipley sacked him”. Hooton says “Key’s nervous ‘yup,’ when asked if he had confidence in his foreign minister, betrayed concern over where the story may head”.
On 9 May, filling his regular slot on Nine to Noon’s political panel, Hooton voiced his views on the Panama Papers and how – in his view – our Esteemed Dear Leader was handling the growing scandal.
As Hooton discussed cleaning up the trust sector in New Zealand,
“That is despite his government’s obvious negligence in not legislating for greater transparency around the trust industry years ago, when reputable trust lawyers themselves were lobbying for it.”
– one particular remark caught my attention,
@ 2.19
“… From talking to the people in the industry, is that some of the people I’ve been talking to, who’ve been using other consultants up till now I should say, they’ve been trying to lobby John Key on this issue since when he was Leader of the Opposition. And they’ve been wanting him to make the industry more transparent. And Robin Oliver [former head of IRD] was on Morning Report this morning and talked about this. And the people that I’m talking to anyway, they tell me that John Key’s consistently said to them, ‘Oh yeah, absolutely, totally agree, we must sort that out, yep, yep, the government will do that’.
But absolutely nothing has happened. And I don’t think that’s necessarily – there’s nothing corrupt about that. It’s how John Key rolls. It’s a refrain I hear from people in the business community, the education sector, the health sector, you name it, John Key always just sez to people what he thinks they want to hear, and there doesn’t seems to be any follow up.”
“John Key always just sez to people what he thinks they want to hear…” – a very brief, off-the-cuff remark – but one which goes some way to perhaps explaining Key’s popularity with the public. Even those who might stand to be disadvantaged by his policies.
An example of occurred in 2008, during the PSA Conference, when Key made a firm committment resiling National from any future asset sales;
“There’s no agenda to sell assets. There will be no asset sales in the first term – in fact there may never be asset sales in the year’s ahead.”
His speech can be viewed here.
In the same video clip, Key also resiled from weakening Union power;
“Yes, I support Unions, and I support New Zealanders’ rights to join unions. And no, we’re not proposing to change the Employment Relations Act in a way that weakens unions…”
Seven years later, amendments to the Employment Relations Act were pushed through Parliament. The amendments weakened Union power;
National has highlighted employment law changes as one of its key priorities in the first 100 days in Government. Proposed changes will affect collective agreements, the 90-day trial period, strike action and rest and meal break provisions.
[…]
The changes will give employers more power during the bargaining process.
As Hooton pointed out, “John Key always just sez to people what he thinks they want to hear…” – and Key was speaking to the 2008 PSA Conference. Union delegates were told precisely what they wanted to hear.
Coupled with Farrar’s comments about Key’s “very good memory” (and by a process of elimination, therefore a liar) – and we have two right-wingers close to our esteemed Dear Leader who have shared their personal observations with “how John Key rolls“.
However, the public may not be as gullible to Key’s duplicitous charms as many would think.
In October 2009, Key’s popularity rating (3News/Reid Research Poll) was at a staggering height of 55.8%.
By July 2015, his popularity rating had fallen to 38.3%.
Whether consciously or sub-consciously, perhaps the public are coming to the same realisation that Farrar and Hooton are at; our Prime Minister is a con-artist.
And a damned good one.
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: The Panel with Jim Mora – 2 May 2016
NZ Herald: The Antipodes email – John Key, his lawyer and foreign trusts
Radio NZ: PM’s private lawyer lobbied government on foreign trusts
Radio NZ: I told McClay about lawyer, says Key
Fairfax media: How is John Key going to spin this one?
TV3 News: John Key ‘genuinely couldn’t recall’ text messages
Radio NZ: The Panel with Mai Chen and David Farrar – Part 1 (alt. link) (audio)
NZ Herald: Political roundup – The bizarre ‘bribery’ and flying sheep scandal
Radio NZ: Key ends week deeply satisfied
Radio NZ: Nine to Noon – Political commentators Mike Williams & Matthew Hooton
Radio NZ: Nine to Noon – Political commentators Mike Williams & Matthew Hooton (alt. link) (audio)
TV3 News: Labour: Key promised no job cuts, asset sales in 2008 speech
TV3 News: Highlights from Key’s 2008 ‘no job cuts’ speech (video)
MoBIE: Amendments to the Employment Relations Act 2000 (March 2015)
Radio NZ: National’s proposed labour laws
The Paepae: John Key is getting a reputation as a liar
Previous related blogposts
The slow dismantling of a Prime Minister continues
The Mendacities of Mr Key # 16: The sale of Kiwibank eight years in the planning?
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 17 May 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to Radio NZ – Homelessness, Poverty, and the Final Solution
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Morning Report <morningreport@radionz.co.nz>
date: Wed, May 18, 2016
subject: Homelessness and the Final SolutionKia ora Suzie & Guyon,
I’ve been hearing some of your listeners making comments that the homeless should not have children.
In effect, what they are doing is blaming the poorest in society for their predicament. Really? When did the poor ever decide economic policy in this country?
What those correspondents are saying is only the well-off should have children.
The only question that remains to be answered is what do working families do when they are made redundant and end up in garages or cars with their children – what method do your correspondents advocate to euthenase those children?
Because that is what they’re advocating; a Final Solution for the Poor.
– Frank Macskasy
.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – Mark Weldon’s fan club offers support
.
.
It appears that there are now two supporters for Mark Weldon;
.
.
It demanded a response…
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Mon, May 9, 2016
subject: Letter to the editor.
The Editor
Dominion Post.
“It concerns me that Mark Weldon has become a scapegoat”, writes Gaylene Freeth (7 May) She asks, “why should all the finger pointing be directed solely at him, when surely the responsibility and accountability rest primarily with the Mediaworks chairman and board members”.
The reason is quite simple. As CEO, Mark Weldon carried out certain policies – policies ostensibly in accordance with Mediaworks’ Board directives.
However, no one forced Weldon to carry out those policies. No one held a gun to his head as he oversaw the mass-redundancies of highly skilled, experienced professionals from their jobs and cancellation of “Campbell Live”.
He could have resigned at any time.
The old argument that “he was only following orders” is one that was firmly rejected as recently as 1945.
When Ms Freeth – herself an experienced businesswoman – demands to know “why is Weldon the only one being targeted at present”, the answers are glaringly obvious;
1. He agreed to carry out Board directives
2. He was paid to do the job
3. CEOs are ultimately responsible for their actionsMs Freeth says that “any board directive must be implemented regardless”.
No, Ms Freeth. Mark Weldon had a choice and he exercised it. The buck stops with him.
.
– Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: MediaWorks CEO Mark Weldon resigns
Previous related blogposts
Blogger threatened with lawsuit over questions of conflict-of-interest regarding Mediaworks
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 17 May 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Panama Papers: Matthew Hooton’s Alternate Universes on Twitter and Radio NZ
.
.
On 8 May, Martyn Bradbury posted the below screenshot, with an associated story (<a href=’http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/05/08/matthew-hooton-and-the-panama-papers-why-does-he-sound-so-frightened/’>Matthew Hooton and the Panama Papers – why does he sound so frightened?</a> ) .
Reading Matthew Hooton’s “tweets” and his re-Tweets of other comments – many of which seemed to verge on the hysterical – it was apparent that our favourite right-wing commentator was beside himself at what the Panama Papers had uncovered (and continues to uncover);
.
[Image courtesy of Martyn Bradbury]
.
There is a preternatural volcanic fury from the Right – many, if not most, of whom view taxation as “theft” and tax-havens as a legitimate counter to governments who cheekily demand tax from it’s citizens and corporates.
The same Right believe that taxation is “wasted” on “frivolous” matters such as public health, public education, welfare, environmental protection, housing the poor, etc. Only funding for Police and the Armed Forces is considered justified. (To protect their hoarded wealth from increasingly poor , frustrated, and angry workers.)
Rather surprisingly, Hooton’s comments were toned-down for Radio NZ’s Nine To Noon political panel on 9 May;
.
.
Listen to Hooton’s participation on the panel, and compare his measured commentary on Radio NZ versus his irrational sniping on Twitter. It’s almost as if we’re seeing and hearing two completely different Matthew Hootons from Parallel Universes; our Earth and Earth 2.
Earth 2 must be a lovely place to live, if Matthew v2 is anything to go by.
.
.
.
References
Twitter: Matthew Hooton
Twitter: Mark Hubbard
Libertarianz: Taxation
Libertarianz: Justice
Libertarianz: Defence
Radio NZ: Nine to Noon – Political commentators Mike Williams & Matthew Hooton (alt. link) (audio)
Previous related blogposts
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 11 May 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Foot in Mouth award – Former ACT MP exposes flaw in free-market system
.
.
Meet Ken Shirley;
.
.
Most folk won’t remember who Ken Shirley was, prior to his current ‘gig’ as CEO of the Road Transport Forum (RTF), representing road transport interests since July 2010.
From 1984 to 1990, Shirley was nominally a Labour Party MP. He was closely aligned with the likes of Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, and other right-wingers who had seized control of the party during the 1980s.
From 1996 to 2005, Shirley was an ACT Party MP. As such, he was an acolyte of the neo-liberal school of economics and a strong adherent of free market forces. Part of ACT’s policies is to scrap the minimum wage.
Indeed, to under-score ACT’s abhorrence of the minimum wage, ACT’s current leader (and sole MP), David Seymour, condemned a recent rise in minimum wage levels. On 26 February this year, Seymour was scathing;
“The new $15.25 minimum wage will hit regional employers especially hard… In Auckland, $15.25 might not sound like much, but small businesses in the regions who generally charge less will struggle to bear the cost. Hikes to the minimum wage will discourage new employment, and lead to more lay-offs and business failures.
The first employees to suffer will be young, low-skilled workers who won’t be offered a chance to prove their worth. Pulling up the jobs ladder will only add to poverty in low-income areas.
This is a wage set for the distorted Auckland economy. Why should the rest of the country have to bear the same costs?”
[Fun Fact: As a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Seymour is currently a taxpayer-funded beneficiary on a salary of $185,098 p.a. – which equates to nearly $89 per hour. One wonders if “small businesses in the regions who generally charge less will struggle to bear the cost” of Seymour’s salary?]
But returning to Ken Shirley; as an ex-ACT member of Parliament he is still most likely an advocate for the abolition of the minimum wage.
On 5 May, Shirley was invited to be a commentator on Radio NZ’s afternoon Panel, hosted by Jim Mora;
“Ken Shirley of the Road Transport Forum discusses what’s behind logging truck crashes and what needs to be done.”
At one point in the discussion, a suggestion was made that low wages in the trucking industry is not attracting the most highly-skilled and experienced workers;
@ 7.50
Jim Mora: “How bad do you think, Ken, is this situation with truck driving?”
Ken Shirley: “Oh, the spate we’ve had in Northland is just unacceptable. There’s no excuse for roll-over[s]. We know we have some difficult roads in New Zealand with topography, Northland’s is particularly difficult.
But there’s an obligation on the drivers and the forestry companies who hire the drivers to make sure they drive to the conditions. That’s the obligation on all drivers, and the spate we’ve had is just unacceptable, and I think inevitably it seems it’s not mechanical failure, it is driver error.
Whether it’s speed, inattention, or fatigue.”
Jim Mora: “So, it’s a…what, is it a hiring of drivers problem, hiring the wrong drivers, or is it a keeping-costs down problem, Ken? What do you think?”
Ken Shirley: “Well, the two are related of course. We have a chronic shortage of H5 drivers in New Zealand. That’s the heavy combination driver, the truck and trailer. It’s a global problem, but it’s particularly severe in New Zealand at this time. We’ve had it for many years, but with the activity in the economy now, that we are currently having, there is a chronic shortage of drivers.
Many of our members throughout the country are just saying they simply cannot get drivers. And I guess inevitably, you can, in that situation, such a tight situation, out of desperation, you can perhaps hire someone who’s not as skilled as you would like or need, out of sheer necessity. But at the end of the day, there’s no excuse. This should not be happening. We’re taking it very seriously.
We’ve actually instigated a series of roll-over prevention seminars in conjunction with NZTA around the country. They started some six weeks back. And these are actually very good seminars. But we have to educate the drivers, the loaders, the dispatchers, the transport operators themselves, but we must not have this level of roll-over.”
Jim Mora: “Ken, is it the… what is it deep down? Is it the meager wages paid, as some people are saying? You’re just not attracting the skills to the industry?”
Ken Shirley: “Ah, no, you do, it’s, you know, you can have a driver error. But it’s, it’s… you have to have better training, better awareness, that has to be the answer.”
Jim Mora: “So, there was this work-force development strategy, wasn’t there, ah, put into place a wee while back to try and try to entice more people to become truck drivers because of that shortage. But what is the point of a work-force development strategy if we know what the problem basically is, which I’m interpreting as maybe a lack of training and a lack of procedures put in place in the industry – [garbled].”
After a further exchange between Jim More, Peter Elliot (one of the panelists), and Ken Shirley, the host returned the discussion to the matter of wage rates;
Jim Mora: “It does seem though, with the wage rates that we see talked about, that you might not be getting the optimum recruits for the job? Is that a fair criticism, or not?”
Ken Shirley: “Well we know that the skilled labour market across the economy, whether it’s a diesel mechanic, a skilled driver, all of of those industries are, are, reporting severe chronic shortages. And because they are so highly skilled, reliant on a high level of, of, of, experience, when there is a chronic shortage, there is a temptation to often, out of desperation [to] take what you can get. And, and, that’s, that’s when you start to get into issues that like we are seeing and that’s when you start introducing potential road safety problems.”
Jim Mora: “I understand, but would you solve your chronic shortage if you paid higher wage rates?”
Ken Shirley: “Well, indeed, and all the members I speak to want to, but there’s been a race to the bottom, it’s –
[panelist scoffing (?) noise]
… such a fiercely competive industry…”
Shirley’s admissions are astounding.
His comments appear to be a frank admission that the free market has experienced a spectacular failure on a key point in the Northland logging industry; that if there is a shortage of skilled labour, the price of that labour (heavy-truck drivers in this case) should rise – not fall – to attract skilled labour. That is a basic tenet of supply and demand in the free market system.
As the guru of free market economics, Milton Friedman put it;
“But when workers get higher wages and better working conditions through the free market, when they get raises by firm[s] competing with one another for the best workers, by workers competing with one another for the best jobs, those higher wages are at nobody’s expense. “
And Investopedia described a free labour market thusly;
Assuming there are a large number of employers in a region, or that workers are highly mobile geographically, the wages that a company will pay workers is dependent on the competitive market wage for a given skill set. This means that any company is a wage taker, which is simply another way of saying companies must pay competitive wages in order to obtain workers.
None of which seems to be happening in Northland at present.
To the contrary, logging companies – according to their own spokesperson, Ken Shirley – are engaged in a “a race to the bottom” with drivers’ wages.
To compound the problem, in April of this year, Shirley specifically opposed and condemned outright any attempt to increase the wages of drivers;
“The link between remuneration and road safety is highly questionable and as a recent PWC report highlights, the system will result in a net cost to the Australian economy of more than A$2 billion over 15 years.
It is therefore very concerning that the Labour Party here advocated for the same policy and campaigned on it during the last election.”
National awards and government-imposed orders are not the way to lift industry wage rates or make the industry safer. All they do is saddle the industry with inflexible and time-consuming obligations and additional costs.
Let’s not repeat Australia’s mistake in New Zealand. It has been proven that national awards burden the economy and cost jobs and I hope that Labour and other political parties here will accept that reality and ditch the concept once and for all.”
Shirley’s comments last month are in stark contrast to his public lamentations on Radio NZ.
Not only has the free market failed in one of it’s key tenets – but Shirley is actively opposed to raising wages by any means necessary, to attract skilled, experienced truck drivers.
This should serve as a clear lesson that the innate contradictions of the free market ideology – many of which are little more than articles of faith – will eventually become more and more apparent.
Shirley has inadvertently helped with the slow dismantling of the neo-liberal fantasy.
Appendix1
Unfortunately, knowing how the system operates in this country, it will takes catastrophic events with several tragic deaths, before the government acts on this growing problem.
That’s how we roll in New Zealand.
Over bodies.
.
.
.
.
References
Wikipedia: Ken Shirley
ACT NZ: Welfare and family
ACT NZ: Minimum wage hike whacks regional employers
Parliament: Current MPs – David Seymour
Parliament: Salaries payable under section 8 of Members of Parliament
Radio NZ: The Panel with Peter Elliott and Susan Guthrie
Good Reads: Milton Friedman
Investopedia: Breaking down ‘Demand For Labor’
Scoop media: Government imposed remuneration orders have no place in NZ
NZ Herald: Tourist dies in logging truck crash near Matamata
Additional
Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal: About road safety remuneration orders
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 10 May 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – Dear Leader loses the plot in Parliament
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Thu, May 12, 2016
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor
NZ Herald.
The Prime Minister’s recent responses to revelations from the Panama Papers are becoming more unpredictable and bizarre by the day.
According to John Key, NZ is “only a bit player” when it comes to foreign trusts, even though we are mentioned 61,000 times in the Panama Papers.
John Key’s former lawyer, Ken Whitney, assured the Prime Minister that he had no connections to tax-haven promoter, Mossack Fonseca. The Prime Minister was satisfied with those assurances.
Then we learn that Whitney did indeed have close links to Mossack Fonseca. Which Key still refuses to accept.
Whitney was also part of a group of lawyers, with working connections to Mossack Fonseca, who lobbied Revenue Minister Todd McLay to “persuade” the IRD to discretely drop it’s review of foreign trusts in NZ.
On 11 May, Key’s hysteria forced the Speaker of the House to remove the Prime Minister from the Debating Chamber. This was after Key falsely accused the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Greenpeace of having trusts with Mossack Fonseca.
The Prime Minister has lost the plot on this issue.
All New Zealanders are required to pay their taxes.
Why is Key assisting the wealthy to avoid paying their taxes, to their respective countries?
.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Panama Papers hotly debated in Parliament
.
.
.
= fs =
Dodgy tax havens and even dodgier Peter Dunne’s memory
.
.
“To put it bluntly, if the label ‘tax haven’ is being bandied about now as it is, sticks, then that’s extremely damaging. You think of the way we perceive other countries that we’ve historically labelled as tax havens. We don’t view them credibly, and I think that’s the big risk to New Zealand.” – Peter Dunne, TVNZ’s Q+A, 2 May 2016
.
Against a swirling back-drop of revelations surrounding the Panama Papers, Mossack Fonseca, John Key’s lawyer, Ken Whitney, then-Revenue Minister Todd McLay, the IRD dumping a review into foreign trusts, and New Zealand’s reputation for offering secret trusts as part of the tax-haven industry, TVNZ’s Greg Boyd interviewed former Revenue Minister, Peter Dunne for Q+A on 2 May;
.
.
Boyd’s first question to Dunne seemed innocuous enough, setting the basis of the interview. Dunne’s response appeared unremarkable;
Greg Boyd: “When you were in the job, if the IRD had concerns about this country’s international reputation, how seriously would you have taken that?”
Peter Dunne: “Very seriously. And the way it works is that they report on a series of issues that are both current in the New Zealand tax environment or the international tax environment, and clearly the Government would be foolish not to take heed of that advice. I have to say that at the time I was minister, the big issue of concern that was just beginning to bubble related to the Googles and the big multinationals and the share of tax they were paying. The issue of foreign trusts was on the edges of that, but I didn’t receive any specific advice from the IRD at that time that they were a problem.”
To put some context to Dunne’s response above, first bear in mind that Dunne was Revenue Minister across two governments, Labour and National, from October 2005 to June 2013, when he abruptly resigned…
…after an investigation into how a top-secret report on the GCSB was leaked to media pointed to him.
Eighty-six emails were sent between Mr Dunne and Dominion Post reporter Andrea Vance in the lead up to the leak but Mr Dunne turned down requests to make them public.
Edited copies of the emails from Mr Dunne show 44 of them discussed the GCSB report, and he planned to meet with Ms Vance the day before she went public…
But how credible was Dunne’s assertion on last week’s Q+A that;
“…The issue of foreign trusts was on the edges of that, but I didn’t receive any specific advice from the IRD at that time that they were a problem.”
– when in May 2012, New Zealand and Russia had been removed from the European Union banking and corporate “white list” over this country’s frighteningly inadequate money-laundering controls?
.
.
As reported by Fairfax’s Michael Field, Latvia’s Deputy State Secretary on financial policy issues in the Ministry of Finance, Arina Andreicika, stated;
“I would like to inform you that Latvia has intended to exclude New Zealand and Russian Federation from the list of countries whose legal requirements of money laundering and terrorist financing prevention are equivalent to legislation of the European Union.”
Our removal from the EU “white list” had put New Zealand in the same league as the corruption-ridden Russian Federation.
Gareth Vaughan, from Interest.co.nz, reported;
New Zealand’s dumping from the list also comes amid growing publicity around New Zealand registered companies being linked to crime overseas. This includes a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project on how Tormex Ltd, a New Zealand registered company, allegedly laundered US$680 million through a Latvian bank account. It’s just one of many examples of entities exploiting New Zealand’s simple company registration regime. Another is the General Equity Building Society, which claims to hold about US$5.5 billion of equity through unnamed mines, gold, silver and granite ore.
In the same story, Vaughan added,
The World Bank and International Finance Corporation rank New Zealand the easiest of 183 countries surveyed in which to start a business. Commerce Minister Craig Foss told interest.co.nz in April the Government had no plans to tighten company registration rules.
In the previously mentioned Fairfax story, Michael Field reported;
On the Auckland shell company accused of laundering $680m at a Riga bank, Foss said it was removed from the register in 2010 because it failed to file an annual return.
Too late. The damage to our reputation had been done.
In May 2012, when the European Union’s announcement became public, Peter Dunne was still Minister for Revenue. (His resignation after his alleged involvement in the leaking of the GCSB report was still thirteen months in the future.)
In November 2013, then co-leader of the Green Party, Dr Russel Norman, warned;
“Our secretive foreign trust regime and lax company registration requirements are damaging our international reputation. Anonymous shell companies and secret trusts are one of the most common ways of moving tainted money into the banking system.”
Yet, only months earlier, as the full implications of the EU’s moves were becoming clear, evidently then-Revenue Minister Peter Dunne “didn’t receive any specific advice from the IRD at that time that they [foreign trusts] were a problem“.
Is it Dunne’s assertion on Q+A, really credible;
“…The issue of foreign trusts was on the edges of that, but I didn’t receive any specific advice from the IRD at that time that they were a problem.”
No, it is not credible.
As far back as October 2012, Dunne was certainly aware of the problem of secret trusts in New Zealand;
.
.
The Herald report goes on to state;
Mr Dunne today dismissed the idea that New Zealand was a tax haven for foreign trusts.
“The key identifying characteristics of tax havens are secrecy and lack of transparency. Those are simply not factors here in New Zealand. Our legislation for taxing trusts is fully transparent.”
Dunne’s dismissive attitude toward tax havens and foreign trusts is starkly summed up in this excerpt from 60 Minutes on TV3’s website;
.
.
However, Dunne’s defensive assertions were made to look foolish and mendacious when Herald reporter, Matthew Backhouse , added;
The trusts must be registered with Inland Revenue, but are not required to pay tax and their ownership is effectively anonymous.
At the time, our esteemed Dear Leader also supported New Zealand’s involvement in secret foreign tax trusts;
Prime Minister John Key was today unconcerned by Mr Dunne’s comments.
He had not seen the 60 Minutes interview but Mr Dunne would have been using “the absolutely correct technical terms”, he said.
“Tax evasion is completely against the law. Tax avoidance means that it’s a responsibility of your accountant to actually look to minimise your tax as best you can within the bounds of the law.”Mr Key said servicing foreign trusts in New Zealand was a strong and legitimate business that employed a lot of professionals and added to the New Zealand economy.
“It’s a very sensible place to house a trust.”
It is difficult to believe Dunne’s assertion that he “didn’t receive any specific advice from the IRD at that time that they [foreign trusts] were a problem“.
Especially as revelations on 60 Minutes clearly revealed that a problem with tax evasion existed; trusts were central to the rorts; and Dunne was responding to it.
Even Key referenced foreign tax trusts as he rushed to defend his then-Revenue Minister;
Key who said Dunne was right. “He’ll be using the absolutely correct technical term. There are two things, going back to my days at university – tax evasion and tax avoidance. There is actually quite legitimate business in New Zealand for servicing foreign trusts”.
In response to Dunne’s denials, Labour’s then-Revenue spokesperson, David Clark, showed amazing prescience when he warned;
“We are in danger of losing our hard-one reputation as an ethical and respectable country. Peter Dunne’s relaxed attitude to overseas tax avoidance and National’s failed attempts to create a foreign funds hub shows the Government has no concerns about us becoming the Cayman Islands of the South Pacific.”
And Dunne is now telling us that he did not know that foreign trusts were a problem?
In 2012, Dunne stated;
“The key identifying characteristics of tax havens are secrecy and lack of transparency. Those are simply not factors here in New Zealand. Our legislation for taxing trusts is fully transparent.”
The legislation may be “transparent”.
John Key, Todd McLay, and Peter Dunne are not.
.
.
.
References
TVNZ: Q+A – Peter Dunne Interviewed by Greg Boyed (video)
Radio NZ: Further revelations don’t blunt PMs faith in lawyer
TVNZ: Q+A – Peter Dunne Interviewed by Greg Boyed (transcript)
Wikipedia: Peter Dunne
Southland Times: Taxing Times – New Minister of Revenue still has work to do
NZ Herald: Key’s Government
TV3 News: Peter Dunne resigns as minister
Fairfax Media: New Zealand removed from EU ‘white list’
Radio NZ: NZ struck from EU list over money-laundering controls
Scoop media: Foreign trusts earn New Zealand tax haven status
Tax Justice: Financial Secrecy Index 2013
NZ Herald: Dunne dismisses tax haven suggestions
TV3 News: Govt rejects tax haven claim
Scoop media: Dunne evades tax haven questions
Additional
Liberation: New Zealand cartoons about tax, transparency and the Panama papers
Dept of Internal Affairs: AML/CFT Act and Regulations
NZ Herald: Fran O’Sullivan – Key chases luck o’ the Irish
Converge: New Zealand – A Tax Haven For Super-Rich Foreigners
Previous related blogposts
When National is under attack – Deflect, deflect, deflect!
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 6 May 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett revealed
.
.
TVNZ’s Q+A on Sunday 24 April featured an interview with Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett. Her responses were further evidence that National was increasingly unable (or unwilling) to cope with the growing threat of climate change.
Posing a series of surprisingly incisive questions and follow-ups, the ever-youthful-looking Jack Tame held Minister Bennett to account in a way that few other interviewers have done;
.
.
Up untill now, Jack Tame’s presence in the US focused mainly on the theatrics of the Hollywood entertainment industry or the equally-theatric Presidential primaries. They were for the most part light, breezy stories – even with the increasingly bizarre and somewhat menacing nature of the rise and rise of Lex Luthor Donald Trump, as the potential Republican candidate.
However, on this occassion, Tame’s Q+A interview was a masterful deconstruction of Minister Bennett’s waffle, revealing how woefully unprepared for Tame’s skillful probing she really was.
As the thirteen minute segment progressed, it rapidly became apparent that, aside from platitudes and rhetoric, Bennett had no real answers or any actual, meaningful commitment to addressing New Zealand’s increasing emissions of greenhouse-gas pollution of our atmosphere. It was as it she were still Social Welfare Minister, patiently explaining how National would be “helping” solo-mums with contraception, all the while sounding like an overly-concerned, benevolent, tough-loving nana.
In fact, not since 2 May 2015 – when Corrections Minister Sam Lotu-Iiga was interviewed and demolished by seasoned interviewer, Lisa Owen, on TV3’s The Nation – has a government minister had their ineptitude so publicly paraded for the entire country to witness (if they so decided to tune in on a Sunday morning, at 9am.
Unfortunately, we should not be surprised that National is luke-warm on the looming crisis of climate change. Despite making very clear promises, National has broken one of it’s prime committments to the Emissions Trading Scheme – to eventually include agriculture.
The time-line to this act of duplicity clearly illustrates National’s early promises and then reneging;
13 May 2007
In a speech by then Opposition-leader, John Key;
“In particular I’m going to speak about the biggest environmental challenge of our time: global climate change.
The National Party will ensure that New Zealand acts decisively to confront this challenge.
The scientific consensus is clear: human-induced climate change is real and it’s threatening the planet. There are some armchair sceptics out there, but I’m not one of them…
… National is committed to growing our economy. Confronting climate change will be a vital part of the policy mix for fuelling that growth…
… In the decades ahead, peoples’ perceptions around climate change will affect the brand image of New Zealand and its exports. New Zealand must take credible steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or risk becoming a trading pariah…
… National will have policies that reflect the fact that living on a diet of carbon will be increasingly bad – bad for the world and bad for our economy. We will have policy that encourages ‘climate friendly’ choices like windmills, hydro power and tree planting, and reduces the desire for ‘climate unfriendly’ behaviours, like burning coal…
… National will bring all Kiwis – industry, energy producers, farmers, mums and dads – closer to a shared and well-understood goal. We need to be united in our pursuit of a ’50 by 50′ target.“
8 April 2010
Prime Minister John Key rejects demands to amend the Emissions Trading Scheme before it takes effect on the energy and transport sectors in July despite calls from business groups, farmers, and ACT.
Key tells reporters at the launch of the Global Research Alliance’s inaugural meeting on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions,
“I’d say it’s unlikely it would be amended.”
6 June 2010
Climate Change Minister Nick Smith announces that whether or not agriculture comes into the emissions trading scheme in 2015 will depend on technological advances and what other countries do.
9 November 2011
Environment Minister Nick Smith announces,
“… It is not in New Zealand’s interests to include agricultural emissions in the ETS yet.“
2 July 2012
Then-Climate Change Minister, Tim Groser, announces four amendments to the Emissions Trading Scheme;
- Keeping the ‘one-for-two’ obligation in place until after this year. This means participants in the scheme will continue to surrender units for half the carbon they emit;
- Maintaining the $25 ‘fixed-price option’ until at least 2015, which caps the price firms will face if carbon prices begin to rise internationally;
- Introducing off-setting for pre-1990 forest land owners, and allocating the full second tranche of compensation where off-setting is not taken; and
- Leaving agricultural emissions out of the ETS until at least 2015.
20 August 2012
National introduces “Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2012”, which will remove agricultural emissions indefinitely, and will,
“remove a specified entry date for surrender obligations on biological emissions from agriculture”.
National’s repudiation of it’s 2007 committment to include agriculture was complete. Despite a clear promise by our esteemed Dear Leader, agriculture was permanently omitted from the ETS.
As I pointed out in October 2012;
During National’s four years in office, they have broken several promises and the weakening of the ETS is simply one more on the list. It also further highlights John Key’s ability to say one thing – whilst knowing full well that he has no intention of fulfilling committments, or will do completely the opposite.
An editorial in the Dominion Post, on 20 April, was no less scathing in it’s condemnation of National’s inertia;
The Government’s climate change policy has been a failure and will have to be rebuilt. There needs to be a fundamental change in the Emissions Trading Scheme, the subject this week of a damning report by the Gareth Morgan Foundation. But other changes are also needed.
[…]
Bennett concedes, however, that the ETS was “not perfect”, and is now being reviewed. In fact the ETS has been a fiasco. What’s more, it continues to cast its dirty shadow.
The Government has banned the purchase of foreign credits, but it could still use the bad credits to meet its climate change targets up to 2020.
It must not do so. Instead, it needs to revamp the whole scheme, starting by ending the subsidies it gives to polluters such as the oil industry. The “one for two” scheme introduced in 2009 allows businesses to pay only half the cost of their greenhouse gas emissions.
It also needs to reverse its decision to keep agriculture, which produces half the country’s emissions, out of the ETS. National argues that making farming pay for its pollution would be unfair because there is no workable way yet of reducing animal emissions and our export industry should not be penalised.
Farmers, however, are not exempt from the country’s global environmental duties, and will also respond to economic signals – even if this is a pledge to bring agriculture into the scheme within, say, five years
Jack Tame’s superb interview on 24 April merely confirms pathetic National’s track record on this issue and it now appears that Minister Bennett will simply follow in the footsteps of her do-nothing-predecessors, Ministers Smith, Groser, et al.
Bennett certainly has no intention of adopting any of the bold, radical – but much-needed – policies as advocated by Professor Jim Skea, co-chairperson of the IPCC Working Group III, and interviewed by Radio NZ’s Kathryn Ryan on 27 April;
.
.
Listen to the two interviews and judge for yourself which person is seriously committed to combating climate change – and which person is a politician who has plenty of empty platitudes to offer, but little else.
In her previous role as Social Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett had much to say about welfare-fraud.
Her empty words on addressing climate change is a fraud on a much grander, and ultimately vastly more destructive, scale.
.
.
.
Postscript1: Memo to TVNZ
Jame Tame’s interview with Minister Bennett reveals a young man with considerable journalistic skills. He should be given every opportunity to make full use of his under-utilised talents.
TVNZ (and TV3) should maximise the talents of their journalistic and production staff by shifting Q+A and The Nation to prime time viewing slots during the early evening.
Why hide excellence early on weekend mornings, where it is not easily appreciated and valued by the general public?
.
.
.
Postscript2: Memo to Paula Bennett
Ms Bennett, your performance on 24 April was a dismal failure. You are either unwilling to seriously confront the challenges of climate change or, apparently, you are in way over your head on this issue.
Either way, you should resign your Climate Change portfolio. This job is too important to be left to your glib inanities.
.
.
.
References
TVNZ: Q+A – Climate Change Paris Agreement signed
NZ Herald: NZ’s greenhouse gas emissions soar
Fairfax media: Beneficiary contraception plan ‘intrusive’
Scoop media: John Key Speech – Climate Change Target
NZ Herald: ETS changes ‘unlikely’ despite pleas
NBR: ETS may exclude agriculture – Climate Change Minister
Interest.co.nz: National would phase in ETS obligations for transport, electricity, industrial sectors; Will review Agriculture in 2014
Beehive.co.nz: Government announces ETS amendments
Parliament: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2012
Dominion Post: Editorial – Big changes are needed in the Government’s climate change plan
Radio NZ: How do we wean ourselves off fossil fuel ? (alt. link) (audio)
Previous related blogposts
Johnny’s Report Card – National Standards Assessment y/e 2012 – environment
John Key – more pledges, more broken promises?
As predicted: National abandons climate-change responsibilities
National ditches environmental policies
ETS – National continues to fart around
National – what else can possibly go wrong?!
National’s moving goalposts on climate change targets
“The Nation” reveals gobsmacking incompetence by Ministers English and Lotu-Iiga
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 April 2016.
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 
