.
.
On 19 March, I reported on the Board members of the so-called “Taxpayers Union”. With one exception, every single member of the Taxpayers Union Board was a current (or recent) card-carrying member or supporter of the National and/or ACT parties.
Recently, one of the Board members of the so-called “Taxpayers Union” – John Bishop – had a letter-to-the-editor published in Wellington’s Dominion Post;
.
.
Bishop’s ideological rant on performance pay for teachers is stock-standard ACT policy – a Party he was closely associated with between April 2000 and August 2002, as a Constituency Services Manager for the ACT Parliamentary Office. His role was described as “developing relationships with key target groups and organising events” – whatever that might mean.
The job was most likely funded through Parliamentary Services. (One hopes that he delivered “value for money”?)
Bishop’s ideological and Party links are nowhere better illustrated than the recent (and on-going) scandal over Judith Collins and the “Oravida stop-over dinner”. When the “Taxpayers Union” finally caved in to pressure to comment on Collins’ trip to China, Bishop wrote with a fair dollop of sophistry;
“ Being involved in political activity makes it tempting to comment on each and every movement in the political dimension. Early on, the Taxpayers’ Union decided that it would focus on instances of waste and extravagance in central and local government spending, and on cases where spending had clearly not achieved its purpose.
Hence we criticised Tony Marriott of the Christchurch City Council for charging a visit to Hooters’ Bar to his council funded credit card. And we decried Transpower for spending over a million dollars on a swept up cafeteria in its building for staff when there are plenty of cafes within easy walking distance.
We also decided that, generally speaking, we would not go after what politicians’ poor performance, bad decisions, and questionable judgements unless there were circumstances to justify our intervention. Much of that is partisan debate and we were simply not going to get involved in every public issue, particularly when there were plenty of others making the same points as we would make.
Yes, that makes us look selective in our criticism, but we have taken on Peter Dunne over the cost of passports, and Len Brown over Auckland’s debt burden. We were also quick to point out that Hekia Parata’s inquiry into the Te Kohanga Reo National Trust asked questions about the wrong body, but we have stood back from the row over Judith Collin’s trip to China.
In the first matter large sums of public money are involved and the misuse of funds is alleged. In the second, the cost of the Collins trip is not large, and her “crime” is not about the misuse of money. It may be a fine distinction, particularly for those who wish to attack us for existing at all, but it is a real one.
Contributors to our blog pages and tip line are constantly urging us to get involved in issues, whether it’s the funding of programmes promoting recreation and sport, the operation of the ACC scheme, the worth of the defence forces, or whatever else is on their minds. We would love to be able to question policy matters, and to test whether a wide range of policies actually deliver on their objectives and represent value for taxpayers’ money.
It’s early days. We only launched in October and we are still reliant to a large degree on volunteer time. Because of that we’re focused on exposing instances of clearly bad, mad and wasted spending – until we have built up our resources to do more. Our record shows that we’re not favouring one party or another. For example, our exposé of the DOC IT cost blowout is precisely why we were established.
Waste and poor spending are our targets, not people and or partisanship.”
Bishop says that “the cost of the Collins trip is not large”.
According to media reports, Judith Collins’ junket to China cost taxpayers $36,000.
Contrast that to Mojo Mathers’ trip to Masterton, to participate in a radio station’s programme for people with disabilities. Cost to taxpayers – an estimated $550, according a NZ Herald story.
Jordan Williams, from the “Taxpayers Union” was scathing on Ms Mathers’ trip;
“ It’s amazing that she has so little to do with her time to actually travel to a community radio that probably has as many listeners as you can count on your hand. The only silver lining is that the time spent travelling to go on the station in the middle of nowhere is less time spent dreaming up new ways to spend tax payers money.”
So according to the “Taxpayers Union”, $36,000 “is not large” – but $550 was worthy of the scorn and wrath of the same, self-proclaimed “champions of the taxpayer”?
Is this what Bishop meant when he asserted; “waste and poor spending are our targets, not people and or partisanship”?
There is little doubt that Bishop and his fellow Board members in the “Taxpayers Union” are little more than a front organisation for the National/ACT parties.
For the media to constantly refer to this group for commentary on issues – on the pretext that the “Taxpayers Union” is some kind of credible, non-partisan, neutral source – is ludicrous and deceiving the public.
Going further, by not explaining and disclosing the “Taxpayers Union’s” ties to National and ACT, the media reinforces suspicions or perceptions that it has become a captured tool; a mouthpiece for the Key government.
It is time that the mainstream media reconsidered it’s policy to seek comment from the “Taxpayers Union” on any and all issues. The “Taxpayers Union” has demonstrated by it’s highly politicised membership and it’s failure at any measure of non-partisanship, that it cannot be trusted to deliver unbiased commentary.
This group is simply no longer credible.
When journalists fail to report the “Union’s” close links to National and ACT, the media is complicit in this dishonest charade.
.
.
References
Taxpayers Union: Who we are
Finda.co.nz: John Bishop Communicator
ACT Party: Confidence and Supply Agreement with ACT New Zealand
Johnbishop.co.nz: Bill English – Minister of Infrastructure
Advisoryboards.co.nz: Curriculum Vitae: John Bishop – Advisory Boards NZ
Taxpayers Union: John Bishop on Judith Collins
TVNZ: Judith Collins faces third week of questioning over Chinese trip
NZ Herald: Green MP’s 800km taxpayer-funded trip questioned
Previous Related Blogposts
A Query to the Taxpayers Union
A Query to the Taxpayers Union – ***UP DATE ***
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)
Other Blogs
The Dim Post: Slightly more thoughts on the Taxpayers’ Union
The Daily Blog – Chris Trotter: Dispelling The Negatives: Judith Collins refuses to cry over spilt milk
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
.
.
= fs =
.
.
Further to an earlier blogpost where I emailed Jordan Williams, at the Taxpayers Union, regarding Judith Collins’ taxpayer-funded trip to China, where she visited a milk importer (Oravida) of which her husband is the sole Director…
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Judith Collins DATE: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:39:48 +1300 TO: "Taxpayers Union" <tipline@taxpayers.org.nz>.
Kia ora, I am aware that your Union recently condemned the cost incurred by Green MP, Ms Mojo Mathers, in a trip she made to Masterton to participate in a radio interview on disabilities. Accordingly, will you be investigating and commenting on the trip made by National MP and Minister, Judith Collins, for her recent taxpayer-funded trip to China? Ms Collins' portfolios include Minister for Ethnic Affairs; Minister of Justice; and Minister for ACC. It is unclear what purpose was served by a trip to China as none of her portfolios relate directly to foreign affairs or trade. Will you also be investigating and commenting on the conflict of interest posed by her visit to Orivida - a Chinese company of which her husband is a Director? This appears to be little more than a tax-payer funded 'junket' and I await your response to this in the light of your critical stance taken regarding Ms Mathers' trip to Masterton. Regards, -Frank Macskasy
.
Mr Williams, from the so-called Taxpayers Union, responded on the same day;
.
.
Several commentators on my previous blogpost suggested that blogs are a part of the media (or “new media”) and that Mr Williams should, accordingly, be responding to my query as if the NZ Herald had contacted him for a comment.
I took note of the suggestions and wrote back to Mr Williams,
.
FROM: "f.macskasy"
SUBJECT: Re: Judith Collins
DATE: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 12:37:51 +1300
TO: "Jordan Williams" <jordan@taxpayers.org.nz>
.
Kia ora Jordan!
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my query, and in
such a timely fashion. That was greatly appreciated.
Regarding your point on the Mojo Mathers issue; I understand
that you stated you did not initiate contact with the
Herald, and that you responded to their query.
As you may be aware, I blog on various issues, including
covering public activities such as Select Committee
hearings; protests; etc.
I am therefore part of the so-called "new media" of citizen
journalists/bloggers, as your colleague, Cameron Slater also
maintains.
Accordingly, I seek a response from you, on behalf of the
Taxpayers Union, on National MP and Minister, Judith
Collins' recent taxpayer-funded trip to China.
It is unclear what purpose was served by a trip to China as
none of her portfolios relate directly to foreign affairs
or trade. Ms Collins' portfolios include Minister for
Ethnic Affairs; Minister of Justice; and Minister for ACC.
Considering that none of her portfolios relate to foreign
affairs or trade, was this trip necessary? What purpose did
it serve, and for who?
What is the Taxpayers Union's response on the
perceived/actual conflict of interest posed by her visit to
Orivida - a Chinese company of which her husband is a
Director?
Does the Taxpayers Union view Collins' trip as little more
than a tax-payer funded 'junket'?
Does the Taxpayers Union consider the $36,000 spent by
Collins on this trip "value for money"?
I look forward to the Taxpayers Union's statement on this
issue.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
.
As at 11.59PM, on 18 March, I have received no further correspondence from Mr Williams, nor from any other representative of the Taxpayers Union. Not even a simple acknowledgement of having received my 16 March email.
It is interesting to note the circumstances surrounding this issue.
I emailed the Taxpayers Union because it had commented – and roundly condemned – Mojo Mathers’ flight from Christchurch to Masterton, to attend a radio interview on the issue of disabilities.
On 2 March, Jordan Williams made this statement on the resulting furore surrounding his remarks on Ms Mathers’ travel;
.
This morning there has been some criticism of my comments in a story on the Herald website about a trip Mojo Mathers took to Masterton from Christchurch apparently just for a short interview on a community radio station.
For clarification:
- The Taxpayers’ Union did not seek media attention on this story. There is no associated press release. The Herald called yesterday evening asking for comment, as happens often.
- The Taxpayers’ Union operate 24 hour media line for comment on taxpayer issues. Yesterday’s call came through to me and I was asked whether it was value for money for an MP to fly 800km for a radio interview on a small community station. I said it was not value for money when the interview could have been done on Skype as well as the comments that are quoted in the story.
- I’ve made no comment about Ms Mathers disability. In fact, if the travel was necessary I would not criticise the spending. But answering questions posed by the Herald, on matter which as far as I know are completely unrelated to her disability, is legitimate.
- Accusations that I (or the Union) sought to go after Mathers are ridiculous. To repeat, we were asked for comment by the Herald who were running the story. The comments would have been the same whoever the MP.
- Accusations that the Taxpayers’ Union are partisan are also silly. I am proud that the Union has gone after National MPs and the current government for expenses, wasteful expenditure and corporate welfare. Seehttp://info.scoop.co.nz/New_Zealand_Taxpayers’_Union
On reflection, I wonder why an MP from a party that prides itself for having a low environmental footprint choose to fly to a radio interview that could have been done on Skype. Perhaps Ms Mathers had other engagements in Masterton. If so, that was not the information provided to me at the time by the Herald reporter.
Jordan Williams.
Note Mr Williams’ statement;
Accusations that the Taxpayers’ Union are partisan are also silly. I am proud that the Union has gone after National MPs and the current government for expenses, wasteful expenditure and corporate welfare
Aside from a handful of press releases aimed at National Minister, Steven Joyce, most of the Taxpayers Unions public comments seemed to target Auckland mayor Len Brown; government departments (whilst not mentioning their Ministers); and strangely, the Labour Party – which is not even in government.
The Taxpayers Union has not commented on Judith Collins’ trip to China, despite there being glaring questions which demand to be asked. Questions such as why a Minister of Justice/Ethnic Affairs/ACC felt the need to spend $36,000 of taxpayers’ money on a junket overseas.
Mr Williams has not deigned to respond to my queries with a comment.
Yet, he was only too happy to launch into a savage excoriation of Green MP, Mojo Mathers, for spending an estimated $500 to speak on an issue that was actually her portfolio – and which, because of her disability, is a matter she is intimately familiar to speak on.
One can only assume that Mr Williams does not wish to be drawn into this issue. The reason is quite apparent.
Jordan Williams is closely connected to the likes of David Farrar, Cameron Slater, and Simon Lusk – all of whom are hard-Right National/ACT supporters and apparatchiks.
Right-wing blogger, David Farrar, is one of the Board members of the Taxpayers Union. His ‘bio‘, however, mentions nothing about his close links to the National Party,
“David is a well known political blogger and commentator. David also owns and manages the specialist polling agency Curia Market Research and has an active involvement in Internet issues. He is an experienced political campaigner and former parliamentary staffer.
“I helped form the New Zealand Taxpayers Union because I believe that New Zealand needs a lobby group to stand up for the rights of taxpayers and ratepayers, and fight against those who treat them as a never ending source of funds”.”
David Farrar’s Disclosure Statement on Kiwiblog;
“Since I joined Young Nationals in 1986, I have been affiliated to, and a member of, the National Party. I do not regard National as always right, but it is the party which I believe gives me the greatest opportunity to achieve the New Zealand I want.
As a volunteer, I established National’s initial Internet presence in 1996 and have held various roles in the party up until 2005. I have three times been a temporary contractor to National HQ, helping out with the campaign in 1999, and also between staff appointments – in 2004 and 2007 for a total of ten months.”
Other Board Members are;
John Bishop; businessman; columnist for the right-leaning NBR; and authored a “puff piece” on National’s Deputy Leader, Bill English; Constituency Services Manager, ACT Parliamentary Office, April 2000 – August 2002, “developing relationships with key target groups and organising events”.
Gabrielle O’Brien; businesswoman; National Party office holder, 2000-2009.
Jordan McCluskey; University student; member of the Young Nationals.
Jono (Jonathan) Brown; Administrator/Accounts Clerk at the Apostolic Equippers [Church] Wellington, which, amongst other conservative policies, opposed the marriage equality Bill.
None of this is mentioned even in passing on the Taxpayers Union ‘Who We Are‘ page.
By now, it should be patently obvious that the Taxpayers Union is little more than a thinly-disguised, right-wing, front organisation for the National Party.
In which case, it would be “counter-productive” of the Taxpayers Union to be criticising Judith Collins’ trip to China. It would be a case of attacking one of their own.
.
.
References
Taxpayers Union: A question of value for taxpayer money
TV1: Key puts Collins on warning, opposition calls for sacking
Fairfax Media: Anti-MMP plan leaked
Taxpayers Union: Who we are
Kiwiblog: Disclosure Statement
Finda.co.nz: John Bishop Communicator
Johnbishop.co.nz: Bill English – Minister of Infrastructure
Advisoryboards.co.nz: Curriculum Vitae: John Bishop – Advisory Boards NZ
LinkedIn: Gabrielle O’Brien
LinkedIn: Jordan McCluskey
LinkedIn: Jonathan [“Jono”] Brown
Newswire.co.nz: ‘Not up to church to dictate on gay marriage’
See Also
NZ Herald: John Drinnan – High-risk PR strategy flies
Sciblogs: Jesus heals — but not cancer! [Equippers Church]
Previous related blogposts
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)
A Query to the Taxpayers Union
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
.
.
= fs =
.
.
A comment by Sally Randell, on The Daily Blog, raised this interesting point;
Why was Judith Collins in China anyway?
She is justice Minister, not trade minister.
Cheers, coz I can’t find it via google
Which is intriguing. Ms Randell is quite correct; Collins has no portfolios that would necessitate an expensive tax-payer funded trip – complete with a coterie of staffers – to travel thousand of kilometres to China. Airline fares. Plus hotel accomodation. Plus meals.
This would have cost thousands of taxpayer’s dollars.
How many hungry children; endangered species protection; or hip operations could this money have paid for?
Accordingly, I wrote to the Taxpayers Union on this matter;
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Judith Collins DATE: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:39:48 +1300 TO: "Taxpayers Union" <tipline@taxpayers.org.nz>.
Kia ora, I am aware that your Union recently condemned the cost incurred by Green MP, Ms Mojo Mathers, in a trip she made to Masterton to participate in a radio interview on disabilities. Accordingly, will you be investigating and commenting on the trip made by National MP and Minister, Judith Collins, for her recent taxpayer-funded trip to China? Ms Collins' portfolios include Minister for Ethnic Affairs; Minister of Justice; and Minister for ACC. It is unclear what purpose was served by a trip to China as none of her portfolios relate directly to foreign affairs or trade. Will you also be investigating and commenting on the conflict of interest posed by her visit to Orivida - a Chinese company of which her husband is a Director? This appears to be little more than a tax-payer funded 'junket' and I await your response to this in the light of your critical stance taken regarding Ms Mathers' trip to Masterton. Regards, -Frank Macskasy.
Ms Mathers’ trip cost taxpayers an estimated $500-$600.
Collins’ junket reportedly cost us $36,000.
It’ll be interesting if Jordan Williams lays into Judith Collins with the same gusto he did with Green MP, Mojo Mathers.
What are my chances?!
.
.
Evidently my “chances” weren’t too flash.
This was Jordan Williams’ response to my query to him;
.
.
Hi Frank,
We commented on Mojo as a result of the Herald calling us and
asking for such. Of course we will do the same if asked.
Regards
Jordan Williams
Executive Director | New Zealand Taxpayers' Union Inc.
.
So… I take it from Mr Williams’ reply that we will not be hearing from the Taxpayers’ Union unless the media asks them to comment? And if the media doesn’t make any requests for comment – we’ll never hear from them at all, ever again?
I do believe Jordan Williams has just demonstrated – with crystal clarity – the pro-National partisanship of his “Taxpayers Union”.
.
.
References
TV1 News: Key puts Collins on warning, opposition calls for sacking
Related
The Daily Blog – Chris Trotter: Dispelling The Negatives: Judith Collins refuses to cry over spilt milk
Previous related blogposts
“It’s one of those things we’d love to do if we had the cash”
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
.
.
= fs =
.
.
For those who are not aware of Jordan Williams, he is a lawyer working in Wellington.
He is also a right wing commentator/activist; anti-MMP campaigner; and party apparatchik for National and ACT. He was closely involved in the Brash coup against ACT-leader Rodney Hide in 2011.
Williams is also a known associate of rightwing blogger and National Party worker, David Farrar; rightwing activist/campaigner Simon Lusk; and convicted criminal (and occassional blogger), Cameron Slater.
Peter Aranyi, of thepaepae blog described Williams thusly, in this well-written piece,
“Based on his track record (fronting the Peter Shirtcliffe/Simon Lusk anti-MMP campaign and Don Brash’s ACT Party leadership coup) I personally see Jordan as a paid political mouthpiece — nothing more, nothing less. He is, it seems to me, merely another lobbyist who, it appears, works for ‘right wing’ figures or interest groups.”
Recently, Williams set up the so-called “Taxpayers Union”, a group which he explained on Radio NZ as being based on a UK version. His group’s objectives include;
“The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is a non-partisan activist group, dedicated to being the voice for Kiwi taxpayers in the corridors of power. We’re here to fight government waste and make sure New Zealanders get value for money from their tax dollar.”
The rest of the group’s aims & objectives reads pretty much like the Act Party’s manifesto (see: What we stand for) – a party that Williams is closely associated with. (Perhaps this is the next neo-liberal Party in the wings…?)
Just recently, under the banner of the “Taxpayer’s Union”, Williams launched an attack on Hone Harawira’s trip to South Africa to attend Mandela’s funeral.
William wrote,
“Reacting to confirmation from Hone Harawira’s office that taxpayers will be footing the bill for the Mana Party leader’s trip to the Mandela service*, Executive Director of the Taxpayers’ Union Jordan Williams said:
“This trip is a slap in the face to taxpayers and particularly Mr Harawira’s electorate, who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of his parliamentary funding.
Mr Harawira already spends more than any other non-ministerial member of Parliament. Earlier in the year the public found out he spent even more than the then Leader of the Opposition.”
Interestingly, Williams made no comment on the fact that Key’s “official” attendance at the funeral included a photographer. Far be it for Dear Leader to attend an event without the obligatory photo-op.
Maybe Mr Williams considers a photographer’s presence more valid than an attendance by someone who was an actual anti-apartheid campaigner – like Hone Harawira?
Williams’ 11 December press release, though, went on to state,
“Originally Mr Harawira told the public that he was footing the bill himself. Now we know that he’s treating the taxpayer funded Parliamentary budget as a travel slush fund.”
This is where Williams’ begins to spin a lie.
A casual check of media reports at the time Harawira announced his plan to attend reveals something closer to the truth;
Mr Harawira said his trip is coming out of his parliamentary leadership fund.
A Mana Party spokeswoman confirmed this morning the trip would be paid for out of Harawira’s leader’s budget.
Mr Harawira hopes to have his trip paid for out of his parliamentary budget but if he can’t, he will fund it himself.
Former Prime Minister Jim Bolger says people questioning the make-up of the NZ delegation going to South Africa for Nelson Mandela’s funeral should learn from the former South African president.
[…]
Mr Mandela could have been the most bitter man in the world when he came out of prison, but he wasn’t, Mr Bolger said.
“The challenge is whether the world will pick up and try to advance the cause which Mandela pursued the whole of his life – greater fairness and equity within society,” Mr Bolger told Breakfast from Pretoria this morning.
And on “Frankly Speaking“, on 7 December, left this comment,
“Whatever strange lens you look at the world through Frank, it’s the ‘office’ of the Prime Minister that will attend. Try a little of Mandela’s concept of forgiving and moving on yourself.
Given 1981 was pretty much a 50/50 split…what would be a grand gesture is if the PM’s office decided to take John Minto to represent the other half of NZ from 81. Then you might think we’ve ALL learned something.”
None of which has stopped Jordan Williams from blatant fibbing, and five days later, John Key joined in with this outrageous comment,
“This is a guy that went to South Africa on a jolly and shouldn’t be billing the taxpayer for it. The bottom line is we took a delegation – whether he likes it or not – that represented, in our view, the right mix. I personally don’t believe there was a role for him to go to South Africa.”
(Were the two public comments related? Considering that Williams is closely connected to the National Party, did Key’s media spin-doctors take their cue from Williams’ 11 December media release?)
Then of course, we had Justice Minister Judith Collin with her infamous Twitter comments, where she ‘tweeted’ that Labour Leader David Cunliffe and Springbok tour protest leader John Minto were “numpties with bells on“.
So much for understanding and tolerance from the Right.
They should just stick to bullshitting. They’re far better at it ( it’s in their DNA).
Postscript #2
So Jordan Williams has been caught out lying to the media and public? Does that mean he should resign from the “Taxpayers Union”, as David Farrar recently called for Len Brown’s ‘lying’?
“I believe Len Brown must resign as Mayor of Auckland […] But the report makes Clear that Len Brown publicly lied to the media and the public.“
Lying to the media and public?! Terrible that!
Perhaps Len and Jordan can make it a double-act resignation?
.
.
References
National Business Review: OPINION – Brown must resign
Fairfax media: Collins in Twitter war
The Paepae: Left and Right: useful when doing the hokey cokey, but past its use-by date for politics?
Scoop media: Taxpayers Footing the Bill for Harawira’s Mandela Trip
Fairfax media: Hone Harawira heading to Mandela funeral
TV3: Hone Harawira to travel to Mandela’s funeral
TV1 News: Learn from Mandela, says Bolger over delegation debate
Radio NZ: PM criticises Harawira’s Mandela trip
Previous related blogpost
Letter to the Editor: Should Key attend Mandela’s funeral?
Other blogs
The Daily Blog: The audacity of Key’s Hone Harawira dog whistle
The Daily Blog: We did what John Key should have done
International Embarrassment
Huffington Post: New Zealand’s Leader Questioned Over Apartheid Amnesia
.
= fs =
.
.
As the rest of the world was perceived to be “going to hell in a handbasket with an out-of-control pandemic; ructions in Europe as Britain copes with “Brexit” chaos; Trumpism in the United States climaxing with the 6 January mob-led coup attempt in Washington’s Capitol; a deadly resurgent covid19 outbreak in Victoria, Australia (at time of writing); Russia continuing to harass and murder political dissidents with impunity; China cracking down brutally on Hong Kong and it’s Uighur minority; and global temperatures continuing to rise as Humans blithely pump CO2 into the atmosphere – New Zealanders were spectators to our own issues, dramas, and problems…
Media (1 – Clickbait)
We all coped with the Level 4 and 3 lockdowns in our own personal way. Some better than others, with varying degrees of stress.
According to the Ministry of Health website (last updated 25 August 2020), they were fully cognisant of the psychological impact that the threat of covid19; lockdowns; restricted movement and social contact, might have upon the general population;
“We want people to know it is normal to not feel all right all the time – it’s understandable to feel sad, distressed, worried, confused, anxious or angry during this crisis. Everyone reacts differently to difficult events, and some may find this time more challenging than others. The ways people think, feel and behave are likely to change over time – we all have good days and bad days.”
Psychological stress was soon picked up by medical professionals.
In October last year, writing for the NZ Medical Journal, Meisha Nicolson and Jayde Flett reported;
“Although fewer people reported severe experiences of depression and anxiety post-lockdown (5% compared to 8% during lockdown), this reduction mostly occurred in non-Māori/non-Pasifika people. Of those who completed both during and post-lockdown surveys, over half reported no experiences at both time points, while 22% had improved experiences and 13% had worsening experiences post-lockdown.
Experiences of depression and anxiety were common for young people both during and post-lockdown. Almost 60% of young people had some experience of depression or anxiety post-lockdown (57%), 10% being severe.”
In November, Clinical Psychologist for Victoria University of Wellington and Umbrella Health, Dr Dougal Sutherland, commented;
“The data confirms in many ways what was expected: that many Kiwis were distressed and anxious in the midst of the lockdown. However, the study also shows a few interesting twists: about a third of New Zealanders reported significant distress, and rates in younger people (18-34 years) were higher than for older people. Interestingly, rates of distress amongst women and men were quite similar, which is unusual as often women report higher levels of distress.
Although the study couldn’t tell us exactly what about the lockdown people found stressful, it is likely that a combination of health anxiety and worry about the potential economic consequences of COVID-19 played a role. Sadly, more people reported feeling suicidal and there were higher rates of family violence during lockdown too.
Whilst the focus of our response to COVID-19 has now shifted onto the economy and ongoing containment on the virus, this study is a timely reminder that the virus has not only biological, but also psychological consequences. These psychological effects are likely to have a ‘long tail’ and be with us long after the virus has been contained or eliminated. The new Minister of Health will want to pay close attention to studies like this and continue investing in training of mental health professionals to inoculate the country against a future wave of mental health difficulties.”
The mainstream media not only failed to ameliorate the psychological impact of lockdowns (and post lockdowns) – but exacerbated anxiety with a constant, non-stop, daily diet of “human interest” stories. These were almost always focused on expat New Zealanders struggling to get home – often for tragic reasons such as terminal illness;
.
.
The stories were relentless. Day after day, almost always personalised with photos of couples or entire families, they were tragic, heart-breaking, and intensely intimate.
Even Radio NZ was not immune, with “human interest” stories – often with interviews – on “Morning Report” as well as “Checkpoint“.
Even when Returnees has succeeded in coming home, the “human interest” value continued to be exploited; milked of every hint of pathos and frustration;
.
.
It is hard to ascertain how deeply these “human interest” stories impacted on audiences, creating unnecessary anxiety, but it is worth noting this warning on the Covid-19 website;
.
“Looking after your mental wellbeing
You may find it useful to limit your time online. Check media and social media at specific times once or twice a day.”
.
The website for Depression NZ was even more dire with it’s warning to limit media intake;
.
Find a healthy balance in relation to media coverage
.
This blogger acknowledges that it is a delicate balancing act when presenting accurate information to media audiences.
But the personalisation of “human interest” (aka, “sob stories”) was counter-productive and ultimately, harmful. They were “clickbait” to sell advertising (or increase audience share in RNZ’s case), at the expense of our mental well-being and sensationalised at a time when many of us were vulnerable to heightened levels of stress and anxiety.
This blogger at one point last year switched off all devices and instituted a self-imposed, 48 hour, black-out on all media – including RNZ. When I switch off RNZ, you know things are getting bad.
This blogger maintains that there is a vast difference between presenting the public with hard news that make us more informed citizens – and flooding us with a non-stop, unrelenting diet of tragedy that serves no purpose and only heightens peoples’ anxiety.
Contrast the stories above with the measured reporting by TVNZ journalist, Jack Tame, upon his return and quarantine. His reporting was a mix of “human interest” and factual details, but without “ambulance chasing” exploitation of people’s circumstances and/or “First World” complaints;
.
.
Some wit at the Otago Daily Times, noting the preponderence of teeth-gnashing and wailing, had their own ‘take’ on the #nzhellhole stories with this subtle ‘dig’;
.
.
(April fools story or real? Hard to tell the difference!)
And when even the vacuous Kate Hawkesby pens a story that puts things into perspective;
“Yes this week has shown up some potentially glaring issues at the Pullman, but it doesn’t mean all Hotels are doing a bad job. It doesn’t mean the returnees are at fault or doing anything wrong either. Most people are grateful to be here, appreciative of what NZ has achieved, and want to do the right thing.”
– you just know that some Returnees need to get their priorities in order, and the media should look closely at how it amplifies (and exploits) peoples’ frustrations and fears.
Meanwhile, the real stories we need to know are barely covered;
.
.
Underpaid and over-worked MIQ workers apparently don’t attract the eyeballs and/or clicks, as much as families in tragic circumstances.
(Note: The so-called “human interest” stories continue to present day.)
Media (2 – Or, “The RNZ Holiday Silly Season”)
Speaking of RNZ, former producer for RNZ’s “Saturday Morning” for Kim Hill, Mark Cubey on Twitter last December pointed out one of my personal pet peeves when it comes to Aotearoa’s mainstream media;
.
.
Every year, for about a month, RNZ closes down ‘Morning Report‘, ‘Nine to Noon‘, ‘Checkpoint‘, and loses a whole bunch of well known hosts. The end-of-year winding-down of NZ’s flagship programmes began the week before Christmas. After Christmas, main programming is put on hiatus until the third week of January.
First to go is ‘Morning Report‘, which in the week leading up to Christmas is reduced from three to two hours in length. The last three hour episode is on Tuesday 22 December, and the following day, the programme is whittled down to two hours.
From Tuesday, 29 December 2020, the programme is reduced to one hour and in the New Year re-branded ‘Summer Report‘. Episode lengths are one hour (or two, when it was forced to increase it’s duration on 8 January to cover the Washington coup d’état attempt). Programme lengths increased to two hours from Monday, 18 January 2021 to Friday, 22 January 2021.
There was a further special three hour edition of ‘Summer Report’ on Thursday, 21 January 2021 to cover President Biden’s Inuguration.
‘Summer Report‘ remains in-situ until ‘Morning Report‘ resumes, at its normal three hour duration, on Monday, 25 January 2021.
‘Nine to Noon‘ is replaced with ‘Summer Times‘, hosted by Emile Donovan. The show is a more chat-show-like version of the regular ‘Nine to Noon‘ programme. ‘Summer Times‘ runs from 29 December to 22 January this year.
‘Checkpoint‘ – usually hosted by the tenacious and talented Lisa Owen – was missing altogether for a solid month. Only a five minute news report replaced the usual one and a half hour in-depth reporting. On 7 January, RNZ was forced to broadcast a one-hour long “RNZ Checkpoint Special” following the Washing riots and failed coup.
‘Checkpoint’s‘ month-long hiatus is inexplicable. As Mark Cubey pointed out, RNZ effectively “pretends news stops for the NZ summer“.
To the contrary, the world did not close down for the Christmas/New Year period. A pandemic continued to rage around the globe; Brexit was happening and the failure of a UK-Europe agreement came perilously close; and post-Presidential election events in the United States were causing ructions that reverberated around the planet.
At a time when events escalated, RNZ was missing in action.
And not just the state-owned broadcaster. The final episode (end-of-year Christmas party segment notwithstanding) of TV3’s “The Nation” aired on 28 November, and TV1’s “Q+A” on 6 December. Both then closed down, going into summer-hibernation for several months. (Q+A‘s first episode this year aired on 13 February.)
At a time when we most needed in-depth reporting of global events, we were – and remain – poorly served by our three main broadcasters.
It is understandable that producing programmes like ‘Morning Report’ and ‘Checkpoint‘ place high demands on RNZ staff. They all deserve well-earned breaks from the stresses of their work. But it should not be beyond the wit and abilities of RNZ management (with consultation with staff) to create a holiday roster that allows programming to continue as normal. If necessary, RNZ could employ journalism students (on a living wage) as paid interns, on short-term contracts.
It is not acceptable that, for a month, we are denied current affairs programmes by our main broadcasters.
RNZ has a strong, dedicated following of loyal listeners who expect high standards from our public broadcaster. Those expectations do not lessen from late December through to late January. The world does not stop on 24 December and resume at some arbitrary point in time in the new year.
National
National was thrashed at last year’s election.
Overall, they crashed from 1,152,075 Party Votes in 2017, to 738,275 last year, losing 23 MPs in the process.
The causes of their defeat has been well canvassed. Reasons range from in-fighting; three leadership changes; leaks; inconsistent policy-making and fiscal ineptitude; and a current Leader who is – frankly speaking – just downright unlikeable.
All of the above is true.
But there is a more basic reason: National got hit by a virus called covid19 – at least metaphorically speaking.
National fought last year’s election as if it were 2017. They were wedded to their mantra that “National are better economic managers”.
Unfortunately (for National supporters) the economy was only secondary to people’s concerns. For the majority, the main issue of concern – unsurprisingly – was health. More specifically, our health and safety as humanity faced a global pandemic sweeping almost every nation, and which has hospitalised and killed millions.
Almost daily, we were witnessing an out-of-control pandemic raging through Europe, UK, South America, and even the United States – the most advanced and wealthiest nation on the planet. We saw hospitals over-run by covid cases and mass graves being dug in Brazil and elsewhere in South America. In New York, trucks filled with rotting corpses seemed like something out of a post-apocalypse horror/science fiction movie.
In Aotearoa New Zealand, the then-Labour-NZ First- Green coalition moved reasonably quickly (some might argue they should have acted earlier – but hindsight is always 20/20). At one minute to midnight on 23 March 2020, the country moved to Alert Level 3. Two days later, we went to near total lockdown to Level 4. On 29 March, the inevitable happened: we had our first covid death.
As we listened and watched our Prime Minister address the nation on those first evenings, and subsequently thereafter, we must have felt like five million “extras” in the Will Smith movie, “I Am Legend“, or the 1970s British sf tv series, “The Survivors“.
It was unprecedented. We were practically at war. And we were called upon to do our bit: stay home; watch TV. (How difficult could that be?)
It was against this backdrop that National contested the election.
But National was fighting a pre-Covid campaign based on “economic management” and – at one point – a promise of “temporary” tax cuts. Worse still was Paul Goldsmith’s startling explanation that the tax cuts would be paid out of the $14 billion Covid Recovery fund set aside in the event of a second wave hitting the country!
New Zealanders got the message perfectly: National’s priority was the economy.
Voters would have been uneasy. That was not our collective priority. Our main concern was fighting a virus and keeping it out of the community.
Could National be trusted to make that their Number One Focus? At least 1,670,300 New Zealanders thought not.
National has always touted itself to be a pro-business, small-government Party. It’s policies on its own website is unequivocal in that respect. Even their Covid19 policy page was heavility tilted toward the economy;
A National Government will inject some steel into our first line of defence against COVID-19 by delivering robust border systems that will keep the virus at bay and allow our economy to thrive, National Party Leader Judith Collins says.
“The threat of COVID-19 will be with us for years to come and National is committed to safeguarding the health of all New Zealanders, as well as the wider economy.”
And their reference to limiting lockdowns to preserve economic activity also left no room for doubt where their priorities lay;
Preparing a more effective response to future outbreaks, should they occur, allowing lockdowns to be more targeted and shorter in duration.
[…]
Reducing the need for lockdowns could not be more crucial. The first lockdown saw 212,000 Kiwis end up on unemployment benefits with another 450,000 jobs kept alive by wage subsidies. The current lockdown is estimated to be costing Auckland 250 jobs and up to $75 million a day in economic activity.
[…]
“Continuous improvement of our systems is required so that lockdowns become more targeted and effective, with minimal impact on our communities and the economy.”
(See also “Wally of the Year” Award below.)
On 22 September, it was reported that National would relax border controls for economic reasons. Couched in terms of pseudo-safety rhetoric, National’s intentions were plain for all to see;
National have announced that, if elected, they will ramp up the private provision of quarantine to allow workers and long-term tourists into the country.
At an event in Auckland’s Viaduct Harbour deputy leader Gerry Brownlee said Covid-19 would be with us for a long time and the country had to establish safe conditions for skilled and essential workers to re-enter the country.
Allowing workers in the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme to return is at the top of that agenda, but the kind of measures the National Party is interested in exploring would extend to a number of industries with the costs of quarantine paid by industry or by individuals who wanted to enter New Zealand.
“Our horticultural industry, for example, is desperate to fill the worker shortage created by border restrictions that is putting $9.5 billion of the country’s economy at risk,” Brownlee said.
The party would implement a booking system for managed isolation facilities and explore “streamlined” travel arrangements for low-risk countries like Covid-free nations in the Pacific.
And private quarantine facilities were also mooted;
Brownlee said National would work with accommodation providers to create private quarantine arrangements that met or exceeded levels of safety, security, reporting, transporting, training and testing.
But in Victoria private security guards proved to be utterly disastrous;
The failures in Victoria’s “hastily assembled” hotel quarantine are “responsible” for the state’s 768 deaths and 18,418 cases since the end of May, the inquiry heard on Monday.
[…]
“One only needs to pause and to reflect on those figures to appreciate the full scope of devastation and despair occasioned as a result of the outbreak,” counsel assisting Ben Ihle said.
“It was a program which failed to meet its primary objective to keep us safe from the virus.”
[…]
Throughout the course of the inquiry, none of the witnesses, including the premier, Daniel Andrews, said they made the decision to use private security guards for guarding returned travellers.
This was the clear message New Zealanders got from National: they were more focused on economic activity than on keeping the virus out of the country.
On 27 August last year, National issued a press statement outlining it’s small business policy. Covid19 and border controls were not mentioned once.
The UK has had “targetted lockdowns” – half-hearted measures that has resulted (at time of writing) 3,929,835 cases and 112,092 deaths.
This was National’s offering to New Zealanders and we wanted no part of it. Quite simply, most people did not trust National to prioritise our health over someone elses’ wealth.
NZ First
For the second time in it’s twentyseven year long history, NZ First has been thrown out of Parliament by voters. It’s share of the Party vote dropped from 7.2% in 2017 to 2.6% last year. 111,685 voters deserted the Party.
Again, the reasons are varied, but this blogger submits that one specific factor was the cause of it’s Parliamentary demise.
In October 2019, a survey found that 44.5% of NZ First voters would have preferred National as a coalition partner after the 2017 General Election. Only 34.1% opted for Labour.
So the majority of NZ First supporters leaned toward National, not Labour.
Winston Peters and his party chose Labour instead, alienating nearly half their voter-base.
This is the only possible outcome when a political party refuses to disclose it’s preferred coalition intentions to voters so that they can cast their ballots accordingly.
In effect, by not making such a disclosure; by leaving that decision until after the election, NZ First supporters were handing Mr Peters & Co a “blank cheque”.
The remaining 34.1% who supported coalition with Labour were also alienated when NZ First made it clear it was a “hand brake” on their coalition partners.
A prime example was Labour’s attempt to implement a capital gains tax to slow investor speculation in the steadily worsening housing price-bubble. NZ First MP Shane Jones made it crystal clear who was responsible for “killing” the tax;
“The reality is you already had that announcement and none of you rung to thank me for NZ First killing off the capital gains tax.”
NZ First managed to anger both National and Labour-leaning supporters. Quite a feat when you think about it.
It’s demise was inevitable.
Wally of the Year Award
There were several contenders:
But heads above the candidates listed, this blogger nominates Auckland Chamber of Commerce CEO, Michael Barnett.
Mr Barnett’s non-stop carping against lock-downs or calling for watered-down lock-downs, or exemptions for every business and Uncle Tom Cobbly, were in a league of their own;
.
.
In a blogpost on 23 August last year, activist John Minto detailed Mr Barnett’s non-stop carping and misguided attempts to undermine Aotearoa New Zealand’s strategy to eliminate covid19. Had National been in power there is every chance they would have capitulated to Mr Barnett’s increasingly strident demands to weaken lockdowns and allow businesses to operate “as normal”.
The consequences, as shown by other countries, would have been horrific. Hospitals flooded with infected people; ICU wards over-flowing; rising death toll; cemetaries filling up; and Long Covid leaving people suffering debilitating after-effects for months later, perhaps for years to come.
As an agent speaking on behalf of business, he earned his salary. As an agent agitating on behalf of covid19, he excelled.
2020 – But wait, there’s more!
There was more – so much more! – to 2020. But let’s leave something for future (and present) historians to mull over, shall we?
And now, 2021…
.
The concluding fourth chapter of 2020: The History That Was.
.
.
References
The Wall Street Journal: The Covid-19 Death Toll Is Even Worse Than It Looks
Al Jazeera: In post-Brexit UK, quiet ports hide mounting transport chaos
The Atlantic: This is a coup
The Guardian: Victoria hotel quarantine failures ‘responsible’ for Covid second wave and 768 deaths, inquiry told
CNN: Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny dupes spy into revealing how he was poisoned
CNBC: Hundreds arrested in Hong Kong protests, as analysts weigh in on national security law’s impact
BBC: The Uighurs and the Chinese state – A long history of discord
Reuters: Global temperatures reached record highs in 2020, say EU scientists
NZ Herald: Covid 19 coronavirus – Quarantine food so bad guest forks out for Uber Eats every night
Stuff media: Coronavirus – ‘Tantrum’ as level 1 quarantine walks denied
ODT: Travellers angry over Rotorua quarantine
ODT: Family trapped in luxury Auckland hotel for quarantine
Newstalk ZB: Kate Hawkesby – My brother’s having the time of his life in quarantine
RNZ: MIQ nurses speak out – ‘We’re going to get sloppy … we’re tired and stressed’
RNZ: Risky work – MIQ cleaners underpaid and undervalued, union says
RNZ: Mark Cubey (profile)
Twitter: Mark Cubey – RNZ stopping for summer – 21.12.2020
RNZ: Morning Report – Tuesday 22 December 2020
RNZ: Morning Report – Wednesday 23 December 2020
RNZ: Morning Report – Tuesday 29 December 2020
RNZ: Summer Report
RNZ: Summer Report – Friday 8 January 2021
RNZ: Summer Report – Monday 18 January 2021
RNZ: Summer Report – Friday 22 January 2021
RNZ: Summer Report – Friday 21 January 2021
RNZ: Morning Report – Monday 25 January 2021
RNZ: Summer Times
RNZ: Summer Times – All episodes
Stuff media: Election 2020 – ‘Covid-19 election’ confirmed in new poll of voters’ concerns
New York Times: Covid Overload – U.S. Hospitals Are Running Out of Beds for Patients
NZ Herald: Covid 19 coronavirus – Mass graves dug as Brazil hits grim new toll
Reuters: Bodies found in unrefrigerated trucks in New York during COVID-19 pandemic
RNZ: Recap – Coronavirus updates in NZ and around the world on 23 March
RNZ: Coronavirus – Covid-19 updates in NZ and around the world on 25 March
RNZ: Coronavirus – First death in New Zealand from Covid-19
RNZ: Coronavirus – First death in New Zealand from Covid-19
Wikipedia: I Am Legend
Wikipedia: The Survivors
Stuff media: Election 2020 – National a better manager of economy, says Goldsmith
RNZ: National promises $4.7bn in tax cuts in economic and tax policy
Newsroom: National’s plan to let workers and tourists in
The Guardian: Victoria hotel quarantine failures ‘responsible’ for Covid second wave and 768 deaths, inquiry told
Scoop media: National Will Back New Zealand’s Small Businesses
Worldometer: United Kingdom Coronavirus Cases
Stuff media: NZ First voters preferred National to Labour at 2017 election by wide margin
NZ Herald: ‘A handbrake for silly ideas:’ Peters to discuss coalition disagreements in conference speech
Stuff media: NZ First put an end to capital gains tax, Shane Jones claims in post-Budget speech
NZ Herald: Covid-19 coronavirus – National MP Hamish Walker, Michelle Boag admit leaking patient details
NZ Herald: Covid 19 coronavirus – Michael Woodhouse’s isolation homeless mystery man claim debunked
Newshub: Coronavirus – ‘Take me out of God’s waiting room and put me back to work’, business leader begs
NZ Herald: Covid 19 coronavirus – Michael Barnett calls for Auckland to move to level 1.5
National Geographic: Pandemic victims are filling graves on New York’s Hart Island. It isn’t the first time.
Mayo Clinic: COVID-19 (coronavirus) – Long-term effects
Additional
Greenpeace: Five ways NZ will be much better if Jacinda makes good on her promise to Build Back Better
Other Blogposts
The Daily Blog: When will Michael Barnett stop whinging, whining and bleating? – John Minto
Previous related blogposts
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rima)
Life in Level 2: Two Tier Welfare; A Green School; Right Rage, Wrong Reason
2020: Post-mortem or Prologue?
2020: The History That Was – Part 1
2020: The History That Was – Part 2
2020: The History That Was – Part 3
.
.
Acknowledgement: Jeff Bell
.
.
.
= fs =
.
.
As the rest of the world was perceived to be “going to hell in a handbasket with an out-of-control pandemic; ructions in Europe as Britain copes with “Brexit” chaos; Trumpism in the United States climaxing with the 6 January mob-led coup attempt in Washington’s Capitol; a deadly resurgent covid19 outbreak in Victoria, Australia (at time of writing); Russia continuing to harass and murder political dissidents with impunity; China cracking down brutally on Hong Kong and it’s Uighur minority; and global temperatures continuing to rise as Humans blithely pump CO2 into the atmosphere – New Zealanders were spectators to our own issues, dramas, and problems…
ACT
The not-so-surpising winner from last year’s general election, ACT increased it’s Party Vote from 13,075 in 2017 to 219,030 and adding nine more MPs to David Seymour’s up-to-now-One-Man-Band operation.
But before ACT supporters and other sundry right-wingers and free-marketeers rejoice with little Happy Dances, it bears remembering that their resurgence came – for the most part – from a dysfunctional National Party.
ACT’s success came from cannibalising it’s larger counterpart, much like the Green Party’s support (11.06% Party Vote) in the 2014 general election came at ther expense of their Labour cousin (27.48% Party Vote).
Oh, and gun-nuts who – like children throwing a temper tantrum at having to surrender their lethal toys – went looking for a sympathetic, slightly-bonkers, “uncle” who would pander to their sense of spoiled entitlement.
The combined right wing vote for National and ACT collapsed from 44.9% in 2017 and 47.15% in 2014, to 33.2% last year. Hardly cause for celebration for ACT Party strategists.
There was no resurgent right. Only a sloshing-around of disaffected National supporters, gun nuts, and assorted climate change denying numpties.
Unless Mr Seymour is blinded by his (temporary) electoral gains, he and his colleagues must be nervously aware that his fortunes are possible only while National is a lame-duck party in turmoil, with an unelectable Leader.
Election 2020
MMP was designed primarily for two purposes:
Last year, voters in Aotearoa New Zealand had other ideas as covid19 changed the rules by which our economy; tourist industry; international travel, and even social patterns operated.
As will be explored under the heading “National”, approximately two thirds of voters not only supported the current goverrnment’s action to protect Fortress Aotearoa – but seemed determined to keep Judith Collins and the National Party well away from anything resembling power.
Housing
Aotearoa New Zealand has had housing problems since colonisation became a ‘thing’ in this country. Reading an account of housing shortages in the late 1930s/40s could be taken almost word-for-word for our current housing situation;
Meanwhile, full employment with higher wages and overtime meant increased demand for existing houses. In 1942 the shortage was officially estimated as 20 000. Workers came to the cities for war jobs, wives came to be near their husbands in camps. With prices rising and expected to rise still further, house buying was both a sound investment and a tempting speculation, though rent controls curbed quick fortune-making to some extent. At Wellington, where sites were limited, building costs high and where government employees had multiplied rapidly during the past few years, the demand was particularly strong. As early as February 1941, a Wellington land agent stated that flats had come to stay, that but for the Fair Rents Act land agents could sell 70 per cent more houses than they were selling and that low deposits of £200 or £300 were becoming scarce. In November 1941, an agent declared, ‘We are not facing a first-class housing crisis. We are past that stage’; another spoke of an avalanche of buyers and of house dealers buying for cash, renovating cheaply and making £400 to £500 on each deal.
In July 1942, another agent said that if he had them, he could let 30 houses or flats in two or three hours, a state of affairs which he feared was going to be chronic. Already, those concerned with the rehabilitation of servicemen were troubled by the gap of several hundred pounds between the value of a house and its inflated ‘scarcity value’.
At Auckland in May 1942 there was talk of a boom; land agents for several weeks had been exceptionally busy and house values were rising. A suburban home, which 12 months earlier would have changed hands at £1,300, sold for £1,525 within 24 hours of being placed on the market; a house sold by the builder for £1,750 was sold again six weeks later for £2,500. There were many cash sales and otherwise the minimum deposit was often one-third of the purchase price. In Dunedin sales were brisk, with houses long regarded as unsaleable changing hands. At New Plymouth, prices which 12 months earlier would have been far too high were paid without hesitation; 60 persons had applied to rent one house; 46 wanted a small house at £1 5s a week, 16 applied for another at £2 2s a week.
It can reasonably be argued that the housing crisis in the late 30s/40s was due in large part to a post-Depression economic lag, and shortage of raw materials and labour as we faced the onslaught of Nazi German and Imperial Japanese war machines.
But it then follows that there is little reason why – in an age of plenty and 21st century automation – we are eighty years later faced with a similar crisis.
Whatever the reasons – and we are well versed with most of them – housing remains one of the top three priorities for the Labour government.
One of the alleged reasons for our housing shortage has been the RMA which has been blamed for slowing down or stifling permitting and construction of new housing.
We should be wary of throwing out, wholesale, the Act. It has protections that deter inappropriate urban “development” that we may come to regret, as instanced by one particular block of flats on Mt Victoria, Wellington.
Urban sprawl is also an unintended consequence to uncontained development. By 2019, around 200 horticulture growers in Auckland had ceased to operate as their fertile land was re-zoned “Residential”. This included some of the best volcanic arable land in and around Pukekohe.
As grower David Clark pointed out in June 2019;
“I used to farm that block. That was a very highly productive bit of soil, that.
The previous National government passed it all off as a special housing area and we lost all of that [land]. That’s a shame. That should never have happened.
It was good productive elite soil, but it’s not now. You can never get it back once all that infrastructure and housing’s gone on there. It’s gone forever.”
Horticulture New Zealand CEO, Mike Chapman, warned;
“It makes sense to protect growing hubs close to our main population centres. They not only provide food that contributes to the physical health of New Zealanders, but also jobs, and vibrant businesses and communities.
Food and housing are competing for land and water. We need both, so now is a good time to be smart about long-term planning for food security and domestic supply.
We will not always be able to source food from other countries. Look at the extremely hot summer the northern part of the world is having and the impact it is having on food production because of drought.”
The result of losing arable land to urban sprawl would inevitably result in rising food prices, advised Deloitte New Zealand in a report commissioned by HortNZ.
Environment Minister David Parker took note of a problem that could rapidly spiral into a potential food-crisis;
“I was particularly troubled by how much of our urban growth is occurring in our irreplaceable highly productive land. Even in a country as lucky as New Zealand we only have limited quantities of these high-class soils.
We have to ensure we have enough land to build the houses people need, but we must protect our most productive areas too.”
As with all human activities, we should cautiously wary of unintended consequences.
Ballooning housing prices are forcing first home owners to pay ever-increasing amounts to get a roof over their heads.
Whereas the median house price in Aotearoa New Zealand for a property was $495,000 in 2017, by 2020 the median price had risen to $725,000.
In Auckland, media houses prices surged from 800,000 in 2017 to $1,000,000 last year.
For first home owners these stratospheric prices are barely manageable because of historically low interest rates.
This constitutes a silent time-bomb that will detonate when/if interest rates start to rise again. It will result in forced mortgagee sales the likes of which we have not seen since the housing market collapse in the USA in the 2007/08 Global Financial Crisis;
Simultaneously, the US government of the day under President Bill Clinton elected to begin running budget surpluses. This had the effect of reducing the stock of US government-issued “safe assets” as the state began to pay down its debt. This created an incentive — though not the obligation — for the private sector to meet this demand for “safe assets” by creating some of its own. Thus we come back to mortgage securities.
The authors’ of the latest paper write that “the boom in securitisation contributed to channel into mortgages a large pool of savings that had previously been directed towards other safe assets, such as government bonds”. As Frances Coppola points out, this misstates what was actually going on. The inflow of capital was not “channelled” into the US mortgage market but, rather, it created the demand that gave banks a reason to continue extending mortgage loans into the system.
And here’s where the story gets really interesting. The more credit the banks provided through the mortgage market, the more money consumers had available to pay for goods and services (including, for example, clothes and toys produced in China). This spending then fed the current account surpluses in emerging markets, which flooded back into the US in search of safe assets that would provide a steady stream of income.
So the credit market created what looked like a self-fulfilling cycle where banks issued mortgages, that money was spent on goods and services in the US, which provided the cash for emerging economies to buy the mortgage-backed securities that were then created. Glad that’s clear.
And this is what happened — real home prices increasing by roughly 40% to 70% between 2000 and 2006…
[…]
…the scale of the housing boom had already increased the system’s vulnerabilities, and had been exacerbated by the Clinton administration’s decision to run budget surplus. In the end as borrowers were maxing themselves out, a hit to future incomes was almost inevitable and with it a correction in the housing market.
The full article above by Tomas Hirst is worth reading because there are ominous similarities between the late 2000s and what is happening now in our own housing market: too much money sloshing around, looking for safe investments, and a bubble that must ultimately burst.
Fast forward to last year;
Housing unaffordability is on the rise again, with implications for wealth inequality and deprivation. This is compounded further by the cascading economic effects of the global pandemic and unconventional manoeuvres in monetary policy that are pushing house prices higher.
If/when interest rates begin to rise, the time bomb will detonate and the housing “market correction” will be harsh.
The government-of-the-day will be forced to intervene directly, taking over debt. Otherwise the alternative will be too terrible to contemplate: images of families forced out of their homes to live in – ?
Greens
The Green Party increased its share of the Party Vote from 2017 to 2020, from 6.3 to 7.9%, increasing its Parliamentary seats from eight to ten. Unlike ACT’s cannibalising the centre-right vote from National, the Greens actually grew the centre-left vote overall.
It could be said that this was achieved by riding on the “coat tails” of a popular Prime Minister.
This blogger rejects that.
The Greens are the conscience of Parliament, if not the whole country. They are deadly serious on the critical challenges that confront us as a nation, whether it be global – apocalyptic changes caused by rising CO2 and methane levels and all its dire consequences – or social problems of a spiralling-out-of-control housing crisis and social inequality.
As our climate warms; weather patterns become more energetic; ocean acidification worsens; and ice continues to melt, more and more people are understanding that this crisis can no longer be ignored or put off to another day.
With Labour’s commanding majority in the House, it is a curious contradiction that the government needs the Green Party more than ever to maintain a solid, unwavering focus on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
Without the Greens, Labour risks relaxing into a cruising “business-as-usual” mode.
And we are well past anything resembling “business-as-usual”.
Labour
There is a reason for Labour’s stunning election victory last year…
It would be fair to say that the Labour-led coalition govt was tested in more ways than most governments have been in the past. The Whakaari/White Island eruption; the 15 March terrorist atrocity in Christchurch; and then covid19 hit the world.
For most people, the lockdown on 25 March was the only possible response. With no vaccine, the virus required a sledgehammer to fight it and – except for essential workers – we were told to stay home.
This blogger has documented his own personal experiences through the “Life in Lockdown” daily diary.
Not since the 1918 influenza epidemic has Aotearoa New Zealand been confronted with such an event. There was no Instruction Manual; we were learning as we went along.
Essential services stayed open; supermarkets (food); service stations (fuel); and chemists (medication). Some, like hardware stores operated a restricted service for tradespeople only, for emergencies (burst water pipes, electrical problems, etc).
Some were obviously taking the mick;
Weight-loss company Jenny Craig is defending its decision to continue operating during the lockdown, following public criticism from one of its own regional managers.
Several of the company’s employees have been touch with E Tu Union to express their frustration at the company for continuing to operate and claiming it is an essential service.
The company has since sent a statement to RNZ, saying it strongly believes it is an essential service.
Others were treating it casually, like an extended holiday. And for a tiny minority, their sense of bloated entitlement seemed to outweigh the potentially lethal nature of the crisis;
Police have become involved in a stand-off between irate residents on Great Barrier Island / Aotea and boaties anchored up in their waters for the lockdown.
The chair of the Great Barrier / Aotea Local Board, Izzy Fordham, said an estimated 50 boats were anchored in one harbour alone.
She said they were a burden on limited resources and police were investigating.
“Us locals were all trying to do the right thing, stay home, live within our bubble because if we get to the stage where we have community transmission of this disease and this sickness, goodness knows what it will do to our island.”
Fordham said the boaties were being “totally irresponsible” because they could spread coronavirus.
Even a Minister of the Crown was caught out in a class act of entitlement and plain stupidity.
But for the most part, we did as the Prime Minister cajoled us: stay home (unless an essential worker or buying essential needs); exercise locally; stay in our own bubbles.
There were “hic-cups” of course.
New Zealanders were astounded to learn that, for a long time, flight crews were exempted from quarantine after returning from international destinations;
The airline’s crews who fly internationally continue to be exempt from the strict 14-day quarantine rules for people returning to New Zealand from overseas – with the exception of Los Angeles flights.
On Monday the airline confirmed crew members had been forced to self-isolate after some staff allegedly disregarded physical distancing rules during a layover in Vancouver.
Documents obtained by Checkpoint show increasing unease and fear among flight crew staff about the exemption from isolation or quarantine, and the risk it poses to colleagues and the public.
Air New Zealand is currently operating 16 return international services a week. At the end of May it plans to add three return services a week to Shanghai to that schedule.
Then we gobsmacked to learn that MIQ front-line workers were not being tested regularly (or at all!) for covid transmission from Returnees, despite being on the pandemic battlefield frontline, and despite assurances from Ministry officials that this was a priority;
So, did the Ministry of Health ever attempt to implement a plan to test all asymptomatic border-facing workers? That remains unclear – ministry officials on Thursday refused to answer Newsroom’s detailed questions on the subject.
And MIQ staff in critical – and dangerous positions – were left without the most basic of protective equipment for their wellbeing;
Nurses at managed isolation and quarantine facilities are threatening to stop work if the government does not ensure they have access to appropriate safety equipment.
New Zealand Nurses Organisation industrial services manager Glenda Alexander said some but not all MIQ sites had a good supply and distribution of the high-quality N95 masks, and used the test fit process to ensure the masks were properly fitted.
“In other facilities they are still using the surgical masks and we are saying ‘no, that is not appropriate given the growing body of evidence that says that the virus can be transmitted through airborne contact’.”
But we muddled through.
With an equal mix of dedication from heroic front-line workers; good science from epidemiologists and other scientists; a strong collective effort by most Kiwis to “do the right thing”; and a truckload of good luck, we dodged the viral bullet on numerous occassions.
Though, as Dr Siouxsie Wiles has pointed out recently, some of our behaviour could be more cautionary. Sadly, as is the New Zealand way of doing things, something has to go wrong before we will act to remedy a critical gap in our defences.
On the non-pandemic battlefront Labour has had its wins and losses.
Touted as making the tax system fairer, the CGT proposal by the Tax Working Group (TWG) was dumped when coalition partner, NZ First, pulled the hand brake on the suggested reforms (see “NZ First” below), skidding 180 degrees to a full stop. As the TWG stated in it’s Final Report;
Group Chair Sir Michael Cullen says our system has many strengths but there is a clear weakness caused by our inconsistent treatment of capital gains.
“New Zealanders earning just salary and wages are taxed on their full income but we have several situations where you can earn income from gains on assets and not be taxed at all.
“All members of the Group agree that more income from capital gains should be taxed from the sale of residential rental properties. The majority of us on the Group, by a margin of 8-3, support going further and broadening that approach to include all land and buildings, business assets, intangible property and shares.
“We have judged that the increase in compliance and efficiency costs is worth it if we can reduce the biases towards certain types of investments and improve the fairness, integrity and fiscal sustainability of the tax system.”
A CGT would also have been one further “bullet in the arsenal” to contain skyrocketing housing prices.
But with NZ First actively opposing meaningful tax reforms, PM Ardern was forced to dump the proposal.
Curiously, the Prime Minister not only rejected CGT during the term of the coalition government – but for the entire duration of her leadership;
“Under my leadership, we will no longer campaign for, or implement a capital gains tax – not because I don’t believe in it, but because I don’t believe New Zealand does.”
Not only has she locked her party, and any future Labour-led government while she is PM, but she has played well and truly into the hands of National and their property-owning base, as journalist Henry Cooke pointed out with grim, relentless logic;
Yet Ardern wanted the issue off the table for upcoming elections and staked her career on the promise – much like Key when he said he would resign before raising the super eligibility age.
But National are never going to stop attacking Labour on tax. Ruling out CGT just opens the door for National to ask Ardern to rule out every possible other tax in existence, and when the Prime Minister is smart enough not to handcuff herself forever, National will tell voters that the party is keen to fish into your pockets.
Labour’s second greatest achievement (after successfully leading us through the Covid Crisis) has been to out-do National as a sound steward of the economy. Three successive polls last year (here, here, and here) snatched the crown for economic management from National and placed it firmly on Labour.
However, in dumping the CGT, it has allowed itself to be out-manouvered by the Tories and their whining, asset-bloated, propertied-class backers. It has also shown that it is willing to allow unfairness in the tax system that, as the TWG estimated, could have raised roughly $8 billion over the first five years.
A missed opportunity Labour will regret for a long time.
Part of Labour’s plan to assist the economy through all stages of the covid lock-down was to implement a special COVID-19 Income Relief Payment. As this blogger reported on 3 September last year (re-published here from a previous blogpost);
On the 26 of May, Welfare Minister Carmel Sepuloni introduced the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill. As RNZ reported;
The government is introducing a new relief payment for those who have lost their jobs due to Covid-19, while they find new employment or retrain.
The payment would be available for 12 weeks from 8 June for New Zealand citizens or residents who had lost their job as a impact of the virus since 1 March.
Those who apply would be required to actively seek suitable work, and take steps towards employment, including making use of redeployment or training.
It will pay $490 a week for those who lost full-time work and $250 for part time workers – including students.
The payments will be untaxed.
People with working partners may also be eligible, as long as their partner is earning under $2000 per week.
The new “income relief payment” was essentially a beefed-up unemployed benefit for workers losing their jobs due to the covid19 epidemic. It would be administered by the Ministry for Social Development.
It was passed in the House, through all three readings, in one day. Six days later, it was given Royal Assent.
The “income relief payment” differs from the usual unemployment benefit in two major areas:
The Covid Unemployed are apparently an elite, special group of beneficiaries for whom the regular payment of $250.74 – without the hassle of employed partners – was beneath their dignity.
This blatant discrimination did not go un-noticed by beneficiaries support groups and other former Green Party MPs.
[…]
As an RNZ story reported, pointing out the blinding obvious;
[University of Auckland sociologist Louise] Humpage said the early findings suggested that benefit levels need to rise.
“I think there is general consensus that benefits are too low at present and I think this Covid-19 payment is a reflection that it’s actually too low for most people.”
What an eye-rolling, unsurprising conclusion.
The two-tier benefit system – primarily benefitting middle-New Zealand – was something we might have expected from the previous National-led government. It would have been a “cunning plan” that former Social Welfare minister, Paula Bennett, might have concocted to protect middle class workers who lost their jobs and who had little inkling what surviving on welfare was really like.
The last thing National would have wanted is the middle class developing an empathetic understanding of the misery of surviving on unemployment welfare,
For Labour to promote such a scheme can only be described – at best – as misguided. At worst, it was a betrayal.
According to Kāinga Ora (formerly Housing NZ) 2016/17 Annual Report, the organisation owned (or “managed”) approximately 63,000 properties.
By 2020, that number had increased to 66,253, according to Kāinga Ora’s 2019/20 Annual Report.
The number is still far short of the 69,173 properties owned or managed by that organisation, according to their 2008/09 Annual Report.
But it is moving in the right direction, albeit at a unacceptably slow pace. The new build of state houses is certainly not keeping pace with the high numbers on the waiting list, as many families are forced out of the housing market with astronomical house prices leading to equally astronomical rents.
Labour is gradually undoing the mass sell-off of state houses wrought by the previous National government. (National, meanwhile, admitted it was wrong to sell off state housing, has promised no further sale of properties should it regain power – “except to state house tenants“.)
In this area, Labour can and must do better. State housing is their “bread and butter” for existence, as National’s is to support their mates in the business community.
If Labour cannot build the state houses we need, the inevitable question then arises: what good are they?
Alongside closing our borders and the lockdowns, the other weapon in our arsenal to fight the pandemic was the Covid-19 Wage Subsidy. Basically it paid up to 80% of employee’s wages during the lockdowns (the subsidy is no longer being offered).
It meant that while most of the economy was frozen, businesses could still pay their staff. It relied heavily on borrowed money by the government, but one way or another, there would be a cost as the pandemic impacted on our country.
It seemed to have worked.
Prior to covid19, our unemployment stood at 4.2%. for the March 2020 Quarter.
By the September Quarter, that figure had reached 5.3%.
(Note: the June 2020 Quarter reported a fall in unemployment to 4.0%. These results are misleading, caused by the way Statistics NZ calculates unemployment. During lockdown, the data was badly skewed.)
Many businesses have since re-paid the subsidy as their accounts are better than expected following the lockdowns. One, in particular, The Warehouse, suffered bad publicity when it took the wage subsidy and then made hundreds of staff redundant whilst posting a $44.5 million profit. After considerable public and political pressure, The Warehouse announced it would repay the subsidy.
The most high-profile recipient of the wage subsidy was the so-called “Taxpayers Union“. Ostensibly a group opposed to government subsidies and “profligacy”, the TU applied for, and recieved, $60,000 in taxpayer-funded subsidy;
.
Source acknowledgement: The Paepae.
.
Predictably, the “Union” became the subject of considerable on-line derision and merciless mocking on various social media platforms. It was one of the few funny moments in the tragedy that is covid19.
Aside from saving jobs and businesses, the Wages Subsidy reminded us that far from keeping the State “out of our lives” as neo-liberals have been calling for since the 1980s – the State was our united defence against the forces of nature – in this case a deadly viral pandemic. Only the State could marshal the expertise; the financial resources; the human power; and co-ordination necessary to save lives. Only the State, through our elected representatives, could motivate and encourage people to act together and do the right thing for the greater good.
Collectivism suddenly became desirable; the neo-liberal vision of small government, not so much.
Contrast our success with that of the United States which has glorified small government and the cult of the individual. Or Sweden, which adopted a hands-off approach. Their death rates are currently 496,033 and 12,428 respectively.
New Zealands death rate still stands at 25.
Now we begin to understand the deep, under-lying reason for Labour’s stunning election results last year. For all our criticisms (of which there are plenty and well-justified), they damn well earned it.
As Senior Researcher in Politics at Auckland University of Technology,
“In times of upset, people yearn for normality — and Ardern’s Labour Party was awarded a landslide for achieving something close to this.
[…]
This leaves us with the longstanding conundrum of what the Labour Party is and what it really stands for these days. Ardern and her colleagues are not ideologues, but no politics is without ideology — a system of ideas, values and beliefs that orients its efforts.”
If the primary priority of the current Labour-only government is to be “responsible managers” of the economy then they will be jostling for that position with their Tory counterparts. It will be a precarious position to occupy, as National’s fall-from-grace after Steven Joyce’s and Paul Goldsmith’s stuff-ups during the 2017 and 2020 election campaigns proved with dramatic effect.
Whilst being “responsible managers” is a good reputation to hold, in itself that is not Labour’s raison d’etre. Their existence, like the Green Party and ACT, is to effect change.
Labour is the party that initiated State housing; implemented unemployment and domestic purposes benefits; removed homosexuality and sex work from the Crimes Act; cut diplomatic ties with apartheid South Africa; moved Aotearoa New Zealand to be nuclear free; brought in equal pay for women legislation; and many other progressive social and economic reforms.
For the current Labour government to squander their majority in Parliament is to turn their backs on their 105 years of proud history and waste the mandate they have been given.
If Labour is too timid to act on climate change; unaffordable housing and homelessness; rampant inequality and discrimination against minorities; child poverty and low income for welfare beneficiaries; as well as guard the country against covid and act as sound stewards of the economy, then the legitimate question must arise in voter’s mind; why vote for them?
Re-election for the sole purpose of re-election is not reason enough.
.
References
The Wall Street Journal: The Covid-19 Death Toll Is Even Worse Than It Looks
Al Jazeera: In post-Brexit UK, quiet ports hide mounting transport chaos
The Atlantic: This is a coup
The Guardian: Victoria hotel quarantine failures ‘responsible’ for Covid second wave and 768 deaths, inquiry told
CNN: Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny dupes spy into revealing how he was poisoned
CNBC: Hundreds arrested in Hong Kong protests, as analysts weigh in on national security law’s impact
BBC: The Uighurs and the Chinese state – A long history of discord
Reuters: Global temperatures reached record highs in 2020, say EU scientists
Electoral Commission: New Zealand 2020 General Election – Official Results
Electoral Commission: New Zealand 2017 General Election – Official Results
Wikipedia: 2014 New Zealand General Election
The Spinoff: Future Act MP held ‘climate hysteria skeptics’ meetings at high school
Victoria University: The Home Front Volume II Chapter 17 — More Shortages
RNZ: New Zealand’s most fertile land dug up for housing
Stuff media: $5.50 lettuces if fertile Pukekohe land turned into houses
Canstar: NZ property trends emerging in 2017
Scoop media: Auckland Median House Price Hits $1m Mark In October; 9 Other Regions & 28 Districts Hit Record Median Prices
Business Insider: How A US Housing Boom Became A Global Financial Crisis
The Conversation: With a mandate to govern New Zealand alone, Labour must now decide what it really stands for
Electoral Commission: New Zealand 2017 General Election – Official Results
The Guardian: Climate crisis – 2020 was joint hottest year ever recorded
Stanford News: Stanford researcher reveals influence of global warming on extreme weather events has been frequently underestimated
NIWA: Ocean acidification—what is it?
Carbon Brief: New climate models suggest faster melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet
Geonet: Whakaari/White Island
Wikipedia: Christchurch mosque shootings
RNZ: Jenny Craig defends stance as essential service
RNZ: What it means to break Covid-19 lockdown rules
RNZ: New Zealand lockdown – Great Barrier-Aotea residents irritated by boaties on shores
RNZ: Air NZ silent about Covid-19 cases as staff fears grow over quarantine exemption
Stuff media: Coronavirus – How the Government botched border testing for Covid-19
RNZ: Covid-19 – MIQ nurses threaten to stop work if N95 masks not supplied
RNZ: ‘Dumb good luck’ no outbreak after Covid-19 community case – health expert
Newshub: Siouxsie Wiles slams Air NZ for still serving food
Tax Working Group: Tax Working Group delivers Final Report
NZ Herald: PM Jacinda Ardern has ruled out implementing a Capital Gains Tax while she is at the helm of Labour
Stuff media: Capital gains tax – Jacinda Ardern took a lifeboat off a ship she could have saved
Newshub: Newshub-Reid Research Poll: Kiwis trust Labour more than National to run the economy
TVNZ: Kiwis now trust Labour more than National to repair the economy, poll suggests
Parliament: Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill
RNZ: Relief payments for people who lost jobs due to Covid-19 announced
MSD: Jobseeker Support cut-out points (current)
RNZ: Covid income relief payment recipients fare better than those on the dole, survey finds
Kāinga Ora: 2016/17 Annual Report
Kāinga Ora: 2019/20 Annual Report
Housing NZ: Annual Report 2008/09
Stuff media: Public housing waitlist cracks 20,000 with over 2000 new households in a single month
Stuff media: National Party admits it sold too many state houses
Stuff media: Election 2020 – National promises to sell state houses, but this time only to tenants
Work and Income: Covid-19 Wage Subsidy
Statistics NZ: Unemployment rate at 4.2 percent in March quarter
Stuff media: Record jump in jobless rate to 5.3%, but NZ set to avoid unemployment disaster
The Spin-off: Why the hell has New Zealand’s unemployment rate just gone down?
RNZ: Ryman to repay $14.2m for wage subsidy
RNZ: The Warehouse Group wage subsidy repayment – Taxpayers pleased
Newshub: Coronavirus – Taxpayers’ Union gives up ‘ideological purity’, accepts $60,000 in taxpayer wage subsidies
Worldometer: Covid 19 – USA
Worldometer: Covid 19 – Sweden
National party: Restoring New Zealand’s Prosperity – Responsible Economic Management
ODT: Opinion – Joyce’s ‘fake news’ fiscal hole backfires
Stuff media: Election 2020 – National’s fiscal hole appears to double to $8 billion as Paul Goldsmith denies double count mistake
NZ History: State housing – The first state house
Te Ara: Family welfare
Stuff media: Homosexual Law Reform 30 years on – what was life like for the gay community pre-1986?
Parliament: Prostitution law reform in New Zealand
Te Ara: Political leaders – David Lange’s tour of Africa
MFAT: Taking a nuclear-free policy to the world
MSD: New Zealand Conference on Pay and Employment Equity for Women
Additional
Greenpeace: Five ways NZ will be much better if Jacinda makes good on her promise to Build Back Better
Other blogspots
The Daily Blog: When will Michael Barnett stop whinging, whining and bleating? – John Minto
Previous related blogposts
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rima)
Life in Level 2: Two Tier Welfare; A Green School; Right Rage, Wrong Reason
2020: Post-mortem or Prologue?
2020: The History That Was – Part 1
2020: The History That Was – Part 2
.
.
Acknowledgement: Sharon Murdoch
.
.
.
= fs =
.
.
April 12: Day 18 of living in lock-down…
The news today sounds good; “only” eighteen new cases. The lowest so far in a week. However, with testing far lower than usual because of the Easter Weekend, the fear is that the low number is misleading and we simply haven’t picked up more. Tuesday’s 1pm “presser” will give us a clearer picture hopefully.
Sunday is my one day off and aside from a few activities, I plan to do – nothing. At 9am I watch Jack Tame present the week’s Q+A. Guests today are Dr Ayesh Verrall, an Infectious Diseases Physician and senior lecturer at the Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine in Wellington. She shares her knowledge and insights on covid19 and what we might expect from the contagion.
She is followed by Chris Hipkins, Minister for Education, on how schools will gradually re-open. There is talk of children observing the 2 metre rule. I shake my head at the naiveté of this. The only kids who isolate others are cliques who happen to be ostracising their chosen target-of-the-day. Anyone who things kids will observe the 2 metre rules when many adults forget or can’t be bothered, don’t understand young people.
There is discussion surrounding foreign students (or lack thereof) and how schools and Universities will cope without their income. Jack Tame ask if government will pick up the tab for the shortfall.
The question should be why we ever allowed education to be corporatised and turned into a commodity in the first place. Oh yeah, tax cuts. Well, I think the fragility of relying on overseas students to top up our education funding has been exposed for the rort that it is.
Chris Hipkins may have let slip that the government intends to drop down to Level 3 Alert at some near stage by pointing out that “going from Level 4 to Level 3 doesn’t mean things get back to normal”.
Chris Hipkins is followed by James Shaw with discussion on planned water reforms. Evidently Federated Farmers want reforms put on hold because of the current crisis and it’s putting too much pressure on their members.
Wait, what?
But, but, but… I thought farmers were already doing the water reforms themselves?!
.
.
James Shaw was asked about deferring the election from 19 September to November. His wise response: it’s up to the Electoral Commission to decide, not politicians. Which sounds fairly reasonable considering that bother NZ First and National want to defer the elections for purely venal, self–serving reasons the good of the country, of course. *rolls eyes*
James Shaw was adamant that climate change was still a threat that must be tackled as urgently as before. He pointed out the massive costs to future generations of not just paying back the colossal debts incurred by the pandemic crisis, but also damage which will inevitably flow from climate change. Double hit to our children.
The panellists consisted of fellow Daily Blogger and Auckland City Councillor, Efeso Collins, and NZ Herald financial journalist, Fran O’Sullivan.
Efeso Collins pointed out the folly of lifting the lock-down too early and the resurgence of covid19 in countries where they had had prematurely.
Fran O’Sullivan was having none of businesses whinging that the government should be drawing up plans for them for the lifting of the lock-down. She told them to do their own planing and they should be doing it now. She was adamant that businesses have a responsibility for planning and not to rely on central government laying down the rules. (Oh, the irony…)
Fran O’Sullivan said that Simon Bridges and the National Party will have to re-calibrate their economics policy, in the light of the massive damage inflicted by the pandemic.
Efeso Collins agreed with Winston Peters that the election should be postponed to 21 November.
Both agreed that Prime Minister Ardern should have sacked David Clark on the spot.
After Q+A, some light lunch with feijoas off my tree; and then take the car to fuel up at the local Waitomo outlet.
Then a look at what’s been happening in the media…
RNZ reported a poll carried out by Research NZ that showed the over-whelming number of New Zealanders would agree to extending the lock-down by a further two weeks if it were necessary;
Agreed they would: 60%
Disagreed: 14%
Didn’t know: 26%
Sixtypercent showed a high level of support.
The poll also disclosed;
…87 percent felt most New Zealanders were observing restrictions on movement. This week it has fallen to 79 percent.
“What that’s telling me is that more New Zealanders are thinking that other people are not observing the restrictions. Perhaps that’s got to do with some of the media coverage we are seeing.”
In relation to police getting tougher, 85 percent agreed and 72 percent said a 10pm curfew should be introduced to restrict any unnecessary travel.
When it comes to other people not observing the restrictions, it’s hardly surprising with the statistics released by Police;
847 breaches of the Covid-19 lockdown rules, comnprising of,
109 prosecutions
717 warnings
21 youth referrals
Those are disturbing numbers. Especially as they appear to be an increase from last week; “367 breaches on April 8, with 45 prosecutions and 309 warnings“.
What should be even more troubling is how many are escaping detection? If even one percent of those 847 breaches carried a covid19 infection, that’s potentially up to eight people wandering around spreading infection.
Worse still is Police time and resources being wasted by self-indulgent idiots, not just breaching lock-down, but holding full-on parties;
.
.
And then, this fiasco and example of stunning moronic behaviour;
.
.
It appears from various media reports that not only are people flouting the life-saving lock-down, but are taking the piss when it comes to the Police;
“Over the duration of the lockdown period, police have received thousands of reports relating to Alert Level 4 restriction breaches and police have been following up this information, with enforcement action being taken in some instances.”
Glossop said officers cannot attend every job but priority is given to jobs where there is an immediate risk to people or property.
Vehicles were in the car park, where people often leave their cars before doing a loop track in the nearby Department of Conservation reserve.
Ged Blackbourn, who lives nearby, said he had seen the car park full at times. Police had occasionally visited to drive people away, but it quickly filled up again, he said.
When Police follow through on only 109 prosecutions out of 847 breaches – a 13% enforcement/prosecution rate – what else do they expect the idiot to do? Of course they will persist in flouting the rules.
Let me point out that if I’m 10kms an hour over the speed limit on the motorway and I get “pinged” by a radar van or police in a car, the ticket/prosecution rate is: 100%.
I do not get a warning. Not “advice” on how to drive safely. The ticket is issued without discussion.
Wouldn’t it be great if I could speed at 110kph if I’m late to work, knowing there was only a 13% chance I’d get prosecuted if caught?!?! So why treat the flouters of the lock-down any different?!
Maybe I’m not privileged enough. Like these guys;
.
.
Note this bit: “Officials are begging people who aren’t already on Auckland city’s islands to stay where they are.”
So if rule breakers are white Middle Class boat-owners, officials have to “beg” them to comply with the rules?
When is the last time WINZ/MSD “begged people” when it came to questioning their welfare entitlements?
If I may misquote from “Cool Hand Luke“;
.
.
If/when we beat covid19, it will be no thanks to these people.
Next item on the agenda: the so-called “Taxpayers Union”, a thinly-disguised front for the National/ACT Party. The TU is calling for salary cuts in the state sector;
Campaigns Manager Louis Houlbrooke said “We’re asking the public sector to fairly share the burden of the economic crunch by cancelling all pay hikes until the economy has recovered. We’re also asking elected officials, public sector CEOs*, and their leadership teams** to take a 12-month twenty percent pay cut.”
“A temporary salary reduction for those paid the most in the public sector would be a prudent and compassionate response to the pressures faced by households and businesses across New Zealand. Business leaders predict unemployment to rise to around ten percent in the coming months, and private sector bosses are taking financial haircuts to limit the impact on lower earners.”
“The average public sector salary is around a third higher than that of the private sector. They also have the luxury of far higher job security. A twenty percent pay cut is a small sacrifice in these extraordinary times when so many New Zealanders are losing their jobs.”
Which is so ironic that it beggars belief. It was only 36 years ago that neo-liberalism swept through Aotearoa; state assets were privatised; and a corporate ethos introduced into government departments and local bodies. The parroted justification given by the Right when discussing high salaries for the State sector and Local Body bosses is that they have to compete with the corporate sector.
The Right introduced corporate-style “market rates” for state sector/local body bosses. Not anyone else. They did this.
Indeed, this was the very point of the State Sector Act 1988.
And now a bunch of Right wingers who have just accepted state funding – money from the tax payer —
.
.
–have the colossal cheek to complain about bloated state sector salaries?! Their hypocrisy, like our Universe, is boundless. They are not to be taken seriously; they are charlatans. [Hat-tip: Martyn Bradbury]
Meanwhile to cap off a day when we should have been celebrating the decline (hopefully) of a microscopic foe, this reminds us that where there is brilliance – there is also crass dumbness;
.
.
— which – bizarrely – is the polar opposite to what he wrote on 23 March;
.
.
Curious.
Are there two Gareth Morgans with differing opinions? (Poor cats!)
Has he been sipping one shandy too many, perhaps?
Or maybe, like Bob Jones, he’s just plain losing/lost the plot…?
As before, I am reminded that what I fear most is not a highly contagious virus that has killed over 109,000 people…
… but the irrationality of some of my fellow human beings.
But to end on a lighter note, I offer this witty piece from Andrew Gunn;
.
.
Current covid19 cases: 1,330
Cases in ICU: 5 (1 critical)
Number of deaths: 4
.
.
.
References
Mediaworks/Newshub: Big improvement by dairy farmers to protect waterways, says report
RNZ: Most New Zealanders willing to extend Covid-19 lockdown ‘pain’ – survey
TVNZ: More than 800 breaches of Covid-19 lockdown rules with 109 prosecutions
TVNZ: Six people arrested for fighting at Auckland party during lockdown
Fairfax/Stuff: Ambulance stuck in sand after vehicle rolls at Foxton Beach during coronavirus lockdown
Mediaworks/Newshub: Coronavirus – Boaties ignoring lockdown orders slammed as ‘pirates’
Scoop: Campaign Launched – Public Sector Pay Cuts For COVID-19 Relief
NZ History: The 1980s – 1988 – key events
Mediaworks/Newshub: Coronavirus – Taxpayers’ Union gives up ‘ideological purity’, accepts $60,000 in taxpayer wage subsidies
Twitter: Gareth Morgan – lock down – 12 april 2020
Twitter: Gareth Morgan – lock down – 23 March 2020
Fairfax/Stuff: Somewhere on the road between Tauranga and Wellington, a Zoom meeting
RNZ: Covid-19 wrap – What happened on 12 April, Easter Sunday
Must Read
Elemental: Hold the Line
Democracy Now: Madrid’s Ice Rink Turned to Morgue as Spain Exceeds China in Coronavirus Deaths
Other Blogs
The Daily Blog: The Taxpayers’ Union, the great champions of the free market are taking Government Money
Previous related blogposts
The Warehouse – where everyone gets a virus
Life in Lock Down: Day 7 (sanitised version)
Life in Lock Down: Day 8 (sanitised version)
Life in Lock Down: Day 16 – Bad Friday
.
.
Acknowledgement: Sharon Murdoch
.
.
= fs =
.
.
Recent revelations that the National Party may have benefitted from a deal involving a resort hotel in Niue, by receiving a $101,000 donation has been in the headlines since 18 April, when Radio NZ’s political reporter, Benedict Collins, broke the story;
.
.
In October 2014, New Zealand’s Scenic Hotel Group announced it had “secured” the Matavai Resort in Niue.
The Niue Tourism Property Trust, whose trustees are appointed by Mr McCully, carried out what the minister said was a fully commercial process to find a company to run the resort.
The month before, Mr Hagaman, Scenic Hotel Group’s founder, had donated $101,000 to the National Party, making him National’s biggest living financial donor in 2014. Only a man who had died and left his estate to National gave more.
Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully Photo: RNZ
But Mr McCully said there was no link between the contract and the donation.
Radio NZ further reported;
Scenic Hotel managing director Brendan Taylor said Mr Hagaman didn’t know the company was in the running for the Matavai Resort contract.
“Earl wasn’t actually even aware that we were negotiating in Niue, because basically that was me and I had it all in-house until such time that we knew we had been awarded the contract.
I did get [Earl’s wife] Lani Hagaman to sign the contract because I wasn’t actually available to do it, but apart from that Earl really had no involvement in Niue whatsoever.
His donation is something he did purely from a personal situation, and basically the hotel company and what Earl does from a personal point of view we kind of keep separate.”
It simply defies credulity that the two events are not somehow connected – especially when, as Radio NZ discovered that “RNZ News could find no record of Mr Hagaman having ever made a large donation to the National Party before“.
It also beggars belief that Scenic Hotel managing director, Brendan Taylor, is asserting that “Earl wasn’t actually even aware that we were negotiating in Niue” when Brendan Taylor got “Lani Hagaman [Earl’s wife] to sign the contract”?!
As the story began to gain traction elsewhere in the msm, National Party president, Peter Goodfellow, said he “ would be making no further comment about the donation“.
Three days later, on 21 April, our esteemed Dear Leader, John Key, attempted to close down the growing scandal;
Mr Key, speaking in China, said today that, while he hasn’t followed the issue closely, he’s not at all concerned.
“People make political donations and that’s well and truly disclosed.
“But actually Scenic Hotels have been operators for a very long period of time, that’s a management contract from what I can see in Niue – there’s nothing untoward there.”
It is intriguing that even though Key says “he hasn’t followed the issue closely, he’s not at all concerned“.
How can he be “not at all concerned” if “he hasn’t followed the issue closely“?
This is not the first time that National has been revealed to have benefitted from donations made by businessmen who have been closely involved in commercial activites with this government.
In early 2011, National was roundly criticised for spending millions on thirtyfour new BMW limousines at a time when the country was experiencing recession after the Global Financial Crisis.
At first, Key denied all knowledge of the purchase, claiming he had been “kept in the dark” over the multi-million dollar upgrade;
.
.
But our esteemed Dear Leader, John Key, did know, as was revealed four days later in late February, 2011;
.
.
However, the BMW scandal becomes more serious than Key merely ducking responsibility and patently lying when he denied all prior knowledge of the limousine upgrade.
In May 2011, it was revealed that the suppliers of the BMWs had made a $50,000 donation to National prior to the vehicle-purchase. As reported in the NZ Herald at the time;
A private BMW dealer has rubbished the suggestion that a $50,000 donation from his company to the National Party had anything to do with the Government’s new fleet of BMW cars.
[…]
Labour’s internal affairs spokesman, Chris Hipkins, revealed that the BMW dealer’s donation came two days after a July 2010 meeting between Mr Key’s chief-of-staff, Wayne Eagleson, and the Department of Internal Affairs, which approved the BMW upgrade.
It was a month after a function that Mr Key attended at Auckland BMW dealership Team McMillan.
Radio NZ reported;
Prime Minister John Key says he has no responsibility for a $50,000 donation made to the National Party by a BMW dealership the day after the Government renewed its VIP transport contract.
[…]
Bob McMillan, the owner of BMW Team McMillan, says the claim he donated money to National the day after the party agreed to a contract for ministerial cars is ridiculous.
As senior Labour MP, Trevor Mallard said at the time;
“They sat down with Ministerial Services and agreed to a renewal of [the BMW] contract, and two days later $50,000 went to the National Party. If that was overseas, we would say it was corruption…”
Mr McMillan’s denial of any link between his donation of $50,000 to National, in return for the contract for the limousine up-grade sounds remarkably similar to Scenic Hotels managing director, Brendan Taylor, denying any link between Earl Hagaman’s $101,000 donation to the National Party and his company securing the contract with Matavai Resort.
To compound matters, the BMW dealership at the center of the donations scandal then expressed an interest in acquiring the soon-to-be-replaced government limousines (to re-sell, at a profit);
.
.
Whether or not the purchase went ahead is unclear.
In 2010 and late 2011, another apparent conflict of interest was reported when Shanghai Pengxin put in a bid for the Crafar dairy farms. Shanghai Pengxin, under various guises, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the National Party;
.
.
.
A full analysis of the links between Oravida, Crafar Farm purchase, and the National Party was reported in a previous blogpost here; Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua).
Whilst details are hard to confirm by the very nature of these highly secretive deals – many made informally – the questions arising from these (and other) murky ‘arrangements’ is sufficient to underscore a recent downgrading of our Transparency International Corruption Perception Index;
.
.
We have had sufficient number of glimpses into dubious activities that hint at corrupt practices. Even fourth place on the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index may be wildly optimistic.
As the Saudi farm-bribe and use of GCSB to spy on behalf of Tim Groser has shown, National is not averse to employing dodgy practices and dirty deals to enrich itself or what it perceives may “benefit” the country (and consequently it’s re-election chances).
There are simply too many coincidences to ignore the inescapable conclusion: it is my considered opinion that National has benefitted financially from several commercial/government transactions.
Our political system has been tainted with corruption.
.
.
Addendum1
As at 21 April, the so-called “Taxpayers Union” – a self-appointed group of “watchdogs” to protect public interest from political corruption and waste of taxpayers’ money, had made no comment on the Niue Scandal;
.
.
The “Taxpayers Union” had condemned the Universal Basic Income; had a ‘go’ at Maori Iwi; lambasted Labour; criticised MoBIE; and several other attacks on perceived “wrong-doing”.
But not a peep on the Niue scandal.
But considering that the “Taxpayers Union” is made up of National Party apparatchiks and supporters, that is hardly surprising.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Call for inquiry into Niue resort contract
Radio NZ: Contract not linked to donation – Scenic Hotel
NZ Herald: Labour questions $101,000 National donation and Niue resort management contract links
Radio NZ: PM not worried about Niue resort deal
Fairfax media: Ministers knew of BMW buy-up last year
Fairfax media: PM signed papers relating to BMWs
NZ Herald: Dealer denies donation link
Radio NZ: PM rejects claim donation linked to BMW upgrade
Transparency International (NZ): Corruption Free? NZ drops again
Fairfax media: Auditor-General had doubts Saudi sheep deal was legal
NZ Herald: GCSB spies monitored diplomats in line for World Trade Organisation job
Additional
Scoop media: BSA decision – One News on Sale of BMWs
Newzealandinc: McMillan family sells half stake in Team McMillan to Tim Cook’s Collins Asset
Previous related blogposts
Know your Tory fellow travellers and ideologues: John Bishop, Taxpayers Union, and the NZ Herald
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Toru)
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)
Farms, politicians, and emails
A Query to the Taxpayers Union – ***UP DATE ***
User Pays: the eventual conclusion
.
.
.
.
.
= fs =
.
.
Prologue
As reported in a previous blogpost last year (Steven Joyce – Hypocrite of the Week);
Fun Fact #1: Student loan stood at $14.235 billion, as at 30 June 2014 – up from 9.573 billion in 2008.
*Up-date* – Student loan stood at $14.837 billion as at 30 June 2015 – up from $14.235 billion in 2014.
Fun Fact #2: As at 30 June 2013, 721,437 people had an outstanding student loan, registered with Inland Revenue. That’s roughly 16% of the population.
Fun Fact #3: Approximately 1.2 million people – roughly a quarter of the population – have taken out student loans.
Fun Fact #4: Students have borrowed $20.119 billion of which $9.157 billion has been collected in loan repayments. More than 415,000 loans have been fully repaid.
Fun Fact #5: $1.031.7 billion in loan repayments were received, $22.2 million less than last year. The total number of students completing formal qualifications reached 144,000 in 2013 – a decrease of 0.6% from 2012. The number of people enrolled in tertiary education has dropped, from 504,000 in 2005 to about 420,000 (in 2014).
Fun Fact #6: The student fees/debt system began in 1992. Prior to that, students had access to Bursaries and Student Allowances and tuition fees were minimal.
Fun Fact #7: “The median borrowing increased – from $7,441 in 2013 to $7,708 in 2014. The median loan balance also increased – from $13,882 in 2013 to $14,421 in 2014. Both were driven by higher fee borrowing: fees are rising and students are more likely to take more expensive courses. In the 2014 academic year, 72.4% of eligible students took out a loan, down from 73.8% in 2013… The number of borrowers in default has declined slightly on 2013/14, but the amount in default has increased.”
Fun Fact #8: On 17 May 2013, National announced new legislation would give the IRD powers to arrest loan defaulters at “the border” (ie, airports) if they are “about to leave or attempt to leave New Zealand after returning from overseas”.
Fun Fact #9: On 18 January this year, the first person arrested at the border for non-payment of a student debt was a 40-year-old with an outstanding debt that, with interest, had ballooned from $40,000 to $130,000.
Fun Fact #10: The Prime Minister, John Key, and Tertiary Education Minister, Steven Joyce, both received near-free tertiary education, paid nearly entirely by the New Zealand taxpayer.
Sources: Ministry of Education, Beehive, NBR, and The Wireless
Some Recent History: 1972 – 1992
Prior to 1992, tertiary education at Universities was mostly free, with minimal course fees. On top of which, a student allowance plus part-time paid employment, was usually sufficient for students to graduate with minimal debt hanging over them.
This allowed graduates to start their adult lives, careers, and families with only as much debt as they chose to take on. This was usually in the form of a mortgage and business start-up costs (if they elected to be self-employed).
Those that earned more in a professional capacity, paid a higher rate of tax. This ensured that those who stood to gain the most, financially, from a near-free tertiary system, paid more in taxation. This – in part – assisted funding for future generations to move through the tertiary education system.
Those that did not achieve high income-brackets could contribute in other ways.
When National’s Ruth Richardson became Finance Minister in 1990, the social contract between generations “paying it forward” was broken. University fees were increased; student loans were made available to cover payment for increasing user-pays;
.
Prime Minister Jim Bolger and Finance Minister Ruth Richardson make their way to the House of Representatives for the presentation of the 1991 budget. Richardson was from the radical wing of the National Party, which promoted individual liberty and small government. This was reflected in the budget, which severely cut government spending, including on welfare. Richardson proudly proclaimed her plan as the ‘mother of all budgets’, but such was its unpopularity among voters that it – along with high levels of unemployment – nearly cost National the next election.
.
Ironically, Ruth Richardson herself was a beneficiary of New Zealand’s then near-free tertiary education system. In 1972, she graduated from the University of Canterbury with a Bachelor of Law (Honours). She immediately went to work – debt-free – for the NZ Department of Justice (NZ).
She has made herself a Limited Liability Company, ostensibly to minimise her tax “liabilities”. According to her website, her husband is General Manager of “Ruth Richardson Ltd”.
Some Recent History: 1986 – 2010
Though the tertiary education system was far from perfect – for example polytechnics could charge higher student fees – it offered near-free higher education and taxpayers were ultimately beneficiaries of a system that produced doctors, engineers, scientists, and other skilled professionals to take New Zealand into the 21st Century.
Even those who went overseas in pursuit of lucrative work gained valuable experience which benefited the country as a whole, upon their return.
Unfortunately, the social contract between generations was broken as the Lange-Douglas Labour Government implemented neo-liberal policies that included user-pays as a new concept upon which to base State/individual transactions.
Labour did not implement user-pays in tertiary education – but it laid the fertile ground for the following Bolger-Richardson National government to radically change University funding for course fees.
For the right-wing Labour (of the 1980s) and National, smaller government meant tax-cuts, and from 1986 there were no less than seven cuts to taxation;
1 October 1986 – Labour
1 October 1988 – Labour
1 July 1996 – National
1 July 1998 – National
1 October 2008 – Labour
1 April 2009 – National
1 October 2010 – National
Each cut to taxation has meant less revenue for the government and resulted in either reductions to social services, and/or increases in user-pays.
The ballooning of “voluntary” school fees to over a billion dollars since 2000 is the clearest example yet of tax-cuts making way for the covert rise in user-pays for what is supposedly “free” schooling in this country.
The under-funding of schools and desperate need for parents’ “donations” has become such a pressing problem that Patrick Walsh, of the Principals Association of New Zealand, has openly suggested that the ideal of free education should be abandoned;
“I think the basic principle is you undertake a study … of what it costs to actually run a school, all the operational costs including staffing, and you either fund it to the level it actually costs, or you say the pie isn’t big enough to support that and we will now allow schools to charge parents for some of the services.”
Perhaps Walsh has a point. It would at least acknowledge the current semi-user-pays system as a reality, rather than fooling ourselves with dishonest and quaint notions of “school donations”. Only then might New Zealanders clearly comprehend how we have arrived at a toxic mix of tax-cut bribes and implementation-by-stealth of user-pays in education, and other state services.
Education is not the only state service suffering from lack of adequate funding, as recent media reports from Canterbury and Waikato DHBs indicate. The increasing waiting times for public operations, and painful suffering of people with debilitating medical conditions, is a telling indicator that our health care system is ailing through lack of funding.
A September 2012 Treasury paper, “Average Marginal Income Tax Rates for New Zealand, 1907-2009“, revealed;
In 1900 tax revenues were approximately 8% of GDP. They rose to 28% of GDP during WWII and to a high of 37% in 2006. Currently tax revenues make up around 29% of GDP.
.
.
Taxation has fallen – as have once-free services which New Zealanders took for granted. At the same time, population growth has put pressure on (reduced) government revenue and spending.
In 1984 the population stood at 3,175,737 (as at 1981 Census).
By 2013: our population had swelled by over a million to 4,242,048 (as at 2013 Census).
We are spending less, for more people, to meet expectations that are simply unrealistic after seven tax cuts.
Rather unsurprisingly, the consequences of successive tax-cuts have been predictable, and well-reported in the media;
According to the most recent data, taken from the 2013 Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook, 44,000 Kiwis – who could comfortably fit into Eden Park with thousands of empty seats to spare – hold more wealth than three million New Zealanders. Put differently, this lists the share of wealth owned by the top one per cent of Kiwis as 25.1 per cent, meaning they control more than the bottom 70 per cent of the population.
New Zealand’s wealthiest individual, Graeme Hart, is ranked number 200 on the Forbes list of the world’s billionaires, with US$7 billion. That makes his net worth more than the bottom 30 per cent of New Zealanders, or 1.3 million people.
The Progressive Response
January 31st marked a giant step Kiwi-kind that – if endorsed by voters – could prove to be the the first nail-in-the-coffin for user-pays.
Labour leader, Andrew Little, announced a policy that, while seemingly radical in the 21st century, was common-place policy in this country pre-1980s.
.
.
Little proposed;
“… that the next Labour government will invest in three years of free training and education after high school throughout a person’s life.
[…]
Three years of free skills training, of apprenticeships or higher education right across your working life.”
He then pointedly explained not just where the money would come from – but that bribes in the form of successive tax-cuts had under-mined our once-proud cultural expectations of state-provided services;
“The money is there – the Government just has it earmarked for tax cuts. We will use that money instead to invest in New Zealand’s future.”
In effect, this would be a massive admission of failure in user-pays, and the beginning of rolling back thirty years of New Right doctrine.
The Neo-Libs Strike Back
The response of the National Party and it’s front-organisation, the so-called “Taxpayers’ Union“, has been utterly predictable.
From Tertiary Education minister, Steven Joyce, came these two ‘clangers’ via Twitter;
.
.
Judging by the angry responses on Joyce’s Twitter account, his comments were more provocative and self-defeating, than achieving any ‘hits’ on Labour’s policy-announcement.
John Key fared little better after his jaw-dropping gaffe on this issue;
.
.
Aside from the usual tactic of playing on low-paid workers’ dire plight to criticise free education (or free anything provided by the State), links were quickly drawn to Key’s on-going assault on waitress Amanda Bailey, in Auckland’s Rosie Cafe;
Prime Minister John Key has drawn a barrage of criticism after questioning if Labour’s fee free study policy was fair on waitresses who would be paying tax to subsidise students.
His comments also drew a quick response from some critics on social media who drew the link with Key’s repeated pulling of Auckland cafe waitress Amanda Bailey’s ponytail.
Key’s rhetorical question attempted to paint free tertiary education as unfair on low-paid workers;
“How much should the waitress.. how much of her taxes should go to a student who will absolutely earn a lot more?”
The question could equally be put;
“How much should the waitress.. how much of her taxes should go to…”;
But the main question should be;
“How much should the waitress.. how much of her taxes should go to paying for tax-cuts for the top 1% of New Zealanders.”
When National cut taxes for high-income earners in 2010, and raised GST from 12.5% to 15%, this was essentially a transfer of wealth from low-income earners to the uber-wealthy. Low income earners pay disproportionately more in GST than the wealthy.
People like Ruth Richardson can structure their tax-affairs by registering as a limited liability company (or using Trusts and other accounting trickery) – which allows her to claim back on GST – this puts the rest of us at a distinct disadvantage.
Other companies such as Facebook and Apple have made big profits in New Zealand, but paid minimal tax. Facebook paid $23,034 in 2013/14 (out of alleged revenue of just $846,391), whilst Apple paid $5.5 million in 2012/13 (out of $571 million revenue).
As for criticisms from the so-called “Taxpayers Union” – this is a front-organisation for National. It’s organisers are party apparatchiks from National and ACT;
Jordan Williams is closely connected to the likes of David Farrar, Cameron Slater, and Simon Lusk – all of whom are hard-Right National/ACT supporters and apparatchiks.
Right-wing blogger, David Farrar, is one of the Board members of the Taxpayers Union. He has been a member of the National Party since 1986, as his candid Disclosure Statement on Kiwiblog reveals.
John Bishop; businessman; columnist for the right-leaning NBR; and authored a “puff piece” on National’s Deputy Leader, Bill English; Constituency Services Manager, ACT Parliamentary Office, April 2000 – August 2002, “developing relationships with key target groups and organising events”.
Gabrielle O’Brien; businesswoman; National Party office holder, 2000-2009.
Jordan McCluskey; University student; member of the Young Nationals.
Jono (Jonathan) Brown; Administrator/Accounts Clerk at the Apostolic Equippers [Church] Wellington, which, amongst other conservative policies, opposed the marriage equality Bill.
See: A Query to the Taxpayers Union – ***UP DATE ***
Publishing criticisms from the “Taxpayers Union” is simply another PR statement from National, masquerading as independent analysis.
People’s Exhibit #1 – The Case for Key’s and Joyce’s Hypocrisy
Undeniably the worst aspect of National’s condemnation of free tertiary education rests with our esteemed Dear Leader, John Key, and Tertiary Education minister, Steven Joyce.
Both men were recipients of free, tax-payer-funded, University education.
In Key’s case, his was obtained at Canterbury University, from 1979 to 1981;
.
.
Has Key re-paid any of his University education? One suspects the answer is a firm “no”.
And with seven tax cuts, neither did he pay for it with taxation, as high-income earners paid less and less since 1986 – five years before graduating.
In Joyce’s case, as first reported on 6 August 2015, in a previous blogpost;
Steven Joyce, born: 1963.
After completing a zoology degree at Massey University, Steven started his first radio station, Energy FM, in his home town of New Plymouth, at age 21 (1984).
Student Loan system is started: 1992.
Joyce completed his University studies and gained his degree eight years before the Bolger-led National government introduced student fees/debt in 1992.
One wonders how Joyce reconciles his free tertiary education – as well as benefiting from seven tax-cuts, along with John Key – with justifying National’s issuing warrants-to-arrest for loans defaulters;
“Just because people have left New Zealand it doesn’t mean they can leave behind their debt. The New Zealand taxpayer helped to fund their education and they have an obligation to repay it so the scheme can continue to support future generations of students.”
Key and Joyce never paid for their free University tuition.
Yet they expect other New Zealanders who followed in their foot-steps to pay for theirs.
Or face arrest.
What does it say about us as a nation, when we elect hypocrites as our elected representatives, who bludge of the tax-payer?
If this does not fly in the face of New Zealanders’ values of fairness and giving everyone a fair go – then we are not the same people we once were.
Postscript
Tweet from Steven Joyce, condemning Labour’s policy for free tertiary education;
.
.
Can we take it from the Tertiary Education Minister that his own university education “achieved absolutely nothing”?
.
.
References
National Business Review: Budget 2015 – student loans – does the government dare to act?
Ministry of Education: Student Loan Scheme Annual Report 2014
Beehive.govt.nz: Celebrating student support under Labour
Ministry of Education: Student Loan Scheme Annual Report 2015
The Wireless: Getting by on a student budget
IRD: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Act 2014 – Arrest at border
Fairfax media: Joyce defends student loan crackdown
Fairfax media: Student loan arrest could prompt others to address debt
NZ Herald: ‘I don’t think I’m a criminal’
Teara.govt.nz: National Party – The ‘mother of all budgets’
Statistics NZ: Annual unemployment rate has increased from 1987
Ruth Richardson NZ Ltd: Ruth Richardson CV
Ruth Richardson NZ Ltd: Home page
Fairfax media: ‘Free’ education cost set to mount to more than $1 billion
Fairfax media: ‘Human scandal’ as Christchurch elderly refused access to surgeries
Fairfax media: ‘Painful wait’ for surgery
NZ Treasury: Average Marginal Income Tax Rates for New Zealand, 1907-2009
NZ 1984 Yearbook: 3A – General Summary – Increase of population
Statistics NZ: 2013 Census Usually Resident Population Counts
Oxfam NZ: Richest 10% of Kiwis control more wealth than remaining 90%
Radio NZ: Labour’s announcement welcomed and slammed
Andrew Little: State of the Nation speech
Twitter: Steven Joyce
Twitter: Steven Joyce
Fairfax media: John Key draws flak after questioning why waitresses’ taxes should fund students
NZ Herald: Govt backtracks on limo statements
NZ Herald: Complaints laid against Murray McCully over Saudi farm deal
Radio NZ: Saudi abattoir deal will proceed – PM
Fairfax media: NZ government shells out $11m on New York apartment for UN representative
Fairfax media: NZ diplomat involved in decision to buy $6.2m luxury Hawaiian mansion
Otago Daily Times: Smelter gets Meridian, Govt lifeline
Rio Tinto.com: Rio Tinto announces a 10 per cent increase in underlying earnings to $10.2 billion and 15 per cent increase in full year dividend
NZ Herald: GST rise will hurt poor the most
Fairfax media: Time to pay some tax, Facebook?
NZ Herald: Apple’s NZ unit coughs up 0.4pc tax
Kiwiblog: Disclosure Statement
Sunday Star Times: Politics – John Key – A snapshot
Wikipedia: Steven Joyce
National Party: Steven Joyce
Fairfax media: IRD monitoring 20 for possible arrest in student loan repayment crackdown
Additional
Salient: A short history of tertiary education funding in New Zealand
NZ Herald: Minister to students – ‘keep your heads down’
Other bloggers
The Daily Blog: John Key said WHAT about waitresses’???
The Daily Blog: Why does Steven Joyce hate education so much?
Previous related blogposts
A Query to the Taxpayers Union
A Query to the Taxpayers Union – ***UP DATE ***
Know your Tory fellow travellers and ideologues: John Bishop, Taxpayers Union, and the NZ Herald
It’s official: Political Dissent Discouraged in NZ!
Shafting our own children’s future? Hell yeah, why not!
Hon. Paula Bennett, Minister of Hypocrisy
Budget 2013: How NOT to deal with Student loan defaulters
Budget 2013: Student debt, politicians, and “social contracts”
Steven Joyce – Hypocrite of the Week
Anne Tolley’s psycopathy – public for all to see
Letter to the Editor: Steven Joyce – Hypocrite of the Year
The Mendacities of Mr Key # 15: John Key lies to NZ on consultation and ratification of TPPA
.
.
*Note: For New Zealand audiences, simply replace “Social Security” with Superannuation, and “Medicare” with public health system.
.
.
.
= fs =
.
.
Labour’s recent policy announcement regarding re-introducing free tertiary education met with predictable knee-jerk hysteria from the Right;
.
.
Though why the media still seeks comment from the so-called “Taxpayers Union” escapes me, as they are a well-known front-group for the National Party, and are run almost exclusively by National and ACT party apparatchiks.
National’s Tertiary education minister, Steven Joyce, was somewhat frothy-mouthy with his panicky tweeting;
.
.
.
Which prompted me to write letters to the editor to remind New Zealanders of a certain salient fact…
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Sun, Jan 31, 2016
subject: Letters to the editor.
The editor
Dominion Post.
Immediatly after the release of Labour’s new tertiary education policy, which promised three years of free education, National’s Minister for Tertiary Education, Steven Joyce tweeted,
“Labour Party wants to take more than a billion dollars a year off taxpayers to achieve absolutely nothing #desperate”
Which is an irony, considering that Steven Joyce received a free university education, courtesy of the New Zealand taxpayer, before user-pays was implemented in 1992.
Even more ironic is that whilst National is unleashing the Police to arrest graduates who have not re-paid their student loans, neither Steven Joyce nor John Key have ever repaid their free University educations.
The only ones desperate are Joyce, Key, and other National ministers, who have rorted the system; gained personal benefit; and now displaying a level of hypocrisy that can only be described as breath-taking.
.
-Frank Macskasy
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Sun, Jan 31, 2016
subject: Letter to the editor.
The Editor
NZ Herald
.Soon after Labour leader Andrew Little released their “new” policy advocating free tertiary education for the first three years, National’s own Tertiary Education Minister was quick to respond on Twitter;
“Labour more desperate than we all thought.Stealing massively expensive InternetMana policy on “free tertiary education from last election”
Which is astounding, for two reasons;
1. New Zealand once had free tertiary education and was readily affordable until seven tax cuts since 1986 gutted taxation-revenue, making social services less affordable and increasingly more user-pays.
2. Both John Key and Steven Joyce benefitted from a free tertiary educatyion. Yes, folks, Both Key and Joyce had their University tuition paid by the taxpayer. Neither men have ever repaid a single cent of their education.
Now Joyce is issuing comments on social media condemning the concept of free education? The same free education he personally benefitted from?!
The man’s hypocrisy is boundless.
Education was wasted on him.
.
-Frank Macskasy
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Labour’s announcement welcomed and slammed
The Daily Blog: Why does Steven Joyce hate education so much?
Previous Prize Hypocrites
Identifying a hypocrite in three easy steps.
Judith Collins – Hypocrite of the Week
Key & Joyce – competing with Paula Bennett for Hypocrites of the Year?
Steven Joyce – Hypocrite of the Week
.
.
= fs =
.
.
Despite Twitter trying to close down Rawshark/Whaledump2, the hactivist has released emails between far right loony blogger, Cameron Slater – and lawyer, “Taxpayers Union” organisor, National Party apparatchik, and one of Slater’s cabal – Jordan Williams.
The first email, dated 24 January 2012, shows Williams approaching Slater and making enquiries about his fees;
.
.
A thousand a week?!
$20,000 every three months?!
Dayum, cousin Jethro, whodathunk propaganda work could be so lucrative!?
Slater also writes that “some pay with advertising, some with product“.
Does that include Katherine Rich from the Food and Grocery Council paying Slater with as much sugar as he can eat?! As Rich is very much an advocate for maximising profit from unhealthy, sugary foods,
Food and Grocery Council chief executive Katherine Rich rejects outright the call for a tax on sugar. She says it has been tried overseas in different forms and failed to do more than collect more money from citizens for Governments.
“In the last couple of years some have advocated for sugar taxes while others have called for fat taxes. Add them together and all you get is more expensive food at the supermarket.”
She says tobacco taxes had cut rates of smoking because they were so high.
“Imagine what tobacco-style taxes would do to the price of food. Sugar taxes would seriously adversely affect those on low incomes and hit a lot of popular supermarket items such as jam and honey. Last year the University of Otago put jam and honey on a “Need not” list and received a lot of negative comments from the general public.”
Equally Rich does not favour regulations imposing labelling rules on the food industry. The council has been involved with a new transtasman labelling scheme, which featured a star system. “We’re sure it’s on the right track.”
On The Jackal’s blog, the blogger reports on a previous dump of emails, showing Katherine Rich’s relationship with Whaleoil associate, Carrick Graham. Theirs was an orchestrated hate-campaign to undermine critics of the alcohol, tobacco, bad food, and sugary soft drink industries.
As a Radio NZ report stated,
Newly released hacked emails appear to show that Ms Rich was in contact with WhaleOil blogger Cameron Slater and public relations executive Carrick Graham who were attacking public health advocates and critics of food companies.
Little wonder that Green MP, Kevin Hague has called for Rich to resign from the government Health Promotion Agency;
“Katherine Rich, Carrick Graham and Cameron Slater have all been involved in a systematic undermining of health promotion in New Zealand. She cannot tenably remain on the board of that organisation.”
Back to the emails. Even Jordan Williams remarked on the amount that Slater claimed to be raking in from his “clients”;
.
.
– though as the response from Slater immediatly following showed, Williams appears none-to-bright when it comes to sending a reply to the correct recipient! *Doh!*
Never mind, Jordan, a self-deprecating *bugger* covers such stuff -ups;
.
.
Now note Slater’s response below, where he refers to Mark Hotchin;
.
.
This is obviously a sly reference to one of Slater’s clients – Mark Hotchins – which was referenced in previous Whaledump releases and covered by the msm at length;
.
.
Note Patrick Gower’s statement-question;
The key question now is whether the campaign was funded by Mr Hotchin to help him escape charges.
Reading the email exchange between Williams and Slater, another thought crossed my mind – I hope Slater has declared all his income to the IRD? Even payment “in kind” can be liable to be taxed.
If the IRD decide to sniff around, not all the Key’s Men and Horses will be able to save the Whale from being harpooned for (possible) tax evasion.
.
References
Twitter: Whaledump2 – Jordan Williams
NZ Herald: PR men say Dirty Politics claims don’t hurt
NZ Herald: Time to end the weight
Radio NZ: Food council boss won’t resign
TV3: Whale Oil quiet on Hotchin allegations
IRD: Income and expenses
Previous related blogposts
Other blogs
The Jackal: Who is Katherine Rich?
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
.
.
The following statement was issued on 14 August by Mana Movement leader, Hone Harawira;
.
“When Cameron Slater says about Kim Dotcom ‘I have lots on him…death by a thousand cuts…wait till you see what comes out in coming weeks on that fat c***t’, you have to ask whether this is the same Cameron Slater that Prime Minister calls a close friend”.
“The release of the book Dirty Politics is a game-changer that I sincerely hope results in the current government being voted out of office”, said Harawira. “Questions about secret deals done between nasty and malicious bloggers with direct access to the Prime Minister’s office and their role in undermining the democratic process, demand answers.”
“And although John Key and his cronies want to make this all about Nicky Hager’s credibility, the fact is that Hager is a credible investigative journalist who is meticulous in his work and has never been proven wrong. What this whole ugly episode is about … is dirty politics.”
“Prime Minister John Key himself has spoken often of his closeness to Cameron Slater who is mentioned throughout Dirty Politics for trying to derail my campaign, looking for ‘dirt’ on the Internet Party, and a whole host of attacks against Kim Dotcom, including one rant which reads “I hope the bastard is sweating between his fat rolls…I have lots on him…death by a thousand cuts…wait till you see what comes out in coming weeks on that fat c***t.”
“Really Mr Prime Minister – is this guy Cameron Slater really a close friend of yours? Did you know what your good friend has been up to? Did you approve any of it?”
“Or are you going to let your senior press secretary, Jason Ede, take the hit for all this, because his name keeps cropping up as well.”
“And while we’re dropping names, perhaps you can explain to the public some of the comments attributed to other people closely associated with your office, whose names also crop up throughout Dirty Politics, people like David Farrar who was Publications and Information Manager within the Prime Minister’s Office, Judith Collins who is the current Minister of Justice, ACC and Ethnic Affairs, Jordan Williams, Executive Director of the New Zealand’s Taxpayers Union, and Cameron Slater himself, Whale Oil Blogger, and close friend of the Prime Minister.”
“This book is a damming expose on how the Prime Minister’s Office operates, and shows the true side of National’s ‘attack politics’ that gives real weight to the description of Key as the ‘Smiling Assassin’.”
“I congratulate Nicky Hager for showing the country the underbelly of National Party politics, and showing how digging dirt on their opponents has become more important for National than feeding hungry kids or building houses for the homeless.”
Hone Harawira,
MP, Te Tai Tokerau
Leader, Mana Movement
Well said, Mr Harawira.
I concur with each and every word.
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
. 
.
A shroud of secrecy surrounds isolation facilities used by Air New Zealand international flight crews. Until recently, Aucklanders were not even aware that Air NZ had begun to use hotels in the CBD to isolate returning flight crews.
Furthermore, it was revealed that returning Air NZ were leaving their rooms to exercise outside of their isolation CBD hotels by jogging through Auckland’s busy central-city streets,
Newshub journalist, and formerly with Radio NZ, Zac Fleming, uncovered the story;
.
.
As reported by Zac Fleming;
Air crew were originally staying at the Ramada Hotel at Auckland CBD and Manukau, but switched to the Grand Windsor on Auckland’s Queen Street on Friday.
After the switch, they were told by Air New Zealand via a staff bulletin: “As per the MoH guidelines you will be able to leave the hotel for up to 90 minutes of exercise per day.”
This means the crew returning from the US over the weekend could have checked into the Grand Windsor and then left and gone for a run through the middle of downtown Auckland.
It would not be the first time returning flight crews had been given permission to exercise outside their isolation facilities.
From an Air New Zealand web-page dated 19 August 2020, flight crews were allowed to venture out for up to an hour each day in several “medium risk” overseas cities;
Air New Zealand has worked closely with Ministry of Health officials in implementing the measures in place today. High, medium or low risk destinations are set by the Ministry of Health and this risk matrix is reviewed regularly. Measures include:
[…]
For medium risk layovers, including Narita, Hong Kong, Shanghai
[…]
In a web page document dated 24 December 2020 – and which is still publicly visible – the Ministry of Health issued these guidelines for returning aircrew;.
Aircrew are only permitted to leave their place of self-isolation:
[…]
• to do any outdoor exercise (except at any shared exercise facility, such as a swimming pool
[…]
Aircrew are not permitted to leave their place of self-isolation for anything other than the reasons described above. Any time aircrew leave their place of self-isolation for these reasons, they must maintain physical distancing and wear PP Eat all times.
Moh: Requirements for air crew ordinarily resident in New Zealand to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection and transmission (24 December 2020)
Additional requirements for aircrew who travel internationally on designated ‘higher-risk’routes and for pilots undergoing flight simulator training in Australia
[…]
4. Aircrew are only permitted to leave their place of self-isolation:
[…]
• to do any outdoor exercise (except at any shared exercise facility, such as a swimming pool)
[…]
Aircrew are not permitted to leave their place of self-isolation for anything other than the reasons described above. Any time aircrew leave their place of self-isolation for these reasons, they must maintain physical distancing and wear PPE at all times.
The guidelines are complex, attempting to cater for every possible situation flight crews will experience overseas.
And it was reported on 22 January, this year;
Until Monday [January 22], [Air New Zealand] aircrew had the choice to self-isolate at home in New Zealand.
TVNZ has reported that every week about 80 pilots and cabin crew on high-risk flights are now being driven to a hotel where a private healthcare team tests them for Covid-19.
If they test negative, they can leave after 48 hours.
[…]
“We’re not going to have security on the door. We do trust the airlines to follow the rules,” Covid Response Minister Chris Hipkins told 1 News.
[…]
The ministry said the hotel where the aircrew stay, which they would not name or identify its whereabouts, is not managed isolation/quarantine (MIQ) facility.
However, aircrew are required to follow isolation requirements, which includes staying in their rooms until the result of their test is available. Meals are delivered to their rooms during this time and they are permitted to exercise outside provided they maintain social distancing and wear personal protective equipment (PPE).
[…]
1 News said it had been told some cabin crew were suspected of breaking self-isolation at home and [Minister Chris] Hipkins was aware of the claims.
“It’s difficult to respond to anecdotes rather than actual evidence that people haven’t been following the rules,” he said.
It was then first revealed on 9 February this year that returning flight crews had switched from a Manukau isolation hotel, to the Grand Windsor in down Auckland’s Queen Street;
Air New Zealand crew were allowed to leave a quarantine hotel to exercise on the streets of Auckland’s CBD for nearly three weeks, Newshub can reveal.
Up until three weeks ago, the airline’s crew could isolate at home for 48 hours after an overseas trip, but on January 18 it became mandatory for crews who had been to the United States to isolate in hotels – because it’s deemed a high-risk country.
Despite the ‘high-risk’, Ministry of Health guidelines were still allowing them to leave their hotel to exercise for up to 90 minutes a day.
The Ministry of Health says it was only aware of and gave guidance for Air New Zealand staff to leave a hotel in Manukau to exercise, and its guidelines did not allow for staff to leave a CBD hotel to exercise.
Air crew were originally staying at the Ramada Hotel at Auckland CBD and Manukau, but switched to the Grand Windsor on Auckland’s Queen Street on Friday.
After the switch, they were told by Air New Zealand via a staff bulletin: “As per the MoH guidelines you will be able to leave the hotel for up to 90 minutes of exercise per day.”
This means the crew returning from the US over the weekend could have checked into the Grand Windsor and then left and gone for a run through the middle of downtown Auckland.
In response, the airline’s attitude to the problem was;
AirNZ does not believe there was a problem in crew having been allowed to leave the Ramada for three weeks between January 18 and February 5.
But there clearly is a problem.
In March last year, Aotearoa New Zealand moved from Level Alert 2 to Level Alert 4 within four days. On 11.59pm on 25 March, the country was under a State of Emergency.
However, nature and the viruses it produces wait for no-one and our rules do not not apply. On the same day Aotearoa New Zealand moved to Level Alert 2 on 21 March, a wedding and reception at Bluff was held the same day. An Air NZ flight crewmember attended – a person infected with covid19.
Air NZ issued a comment at the time;
“Air New Zealand’s employee, as all operating cabin crew, adhered to the Ministry of Health’s guidance which includes hygiene and PPE measures.”
The “Bluff Cluster“, as it became known, resulted in 98 people becoming infected, including one fatality. (Note: this blogger does not attribute any blame to the AirNZ flight crew member, who was following rules at the time. The entire country had yet to learn the lesson that covid19 was about to teach us.)
Eight months later, another Air NZ flight crew member was found to be infected;
Air New Zealand is investigating after one of its crew members tested positive for Covid-19 in China.
The staff member tested negative to the virus in New Zealand on November 18 but on arrival in Shanghai on November 22 returned a positive test.
Air New Zealand said the person was well and had no symptoms of Covid-19 – all other crew have returned negative results.
Other cases followed;
.
.
By 22 April, Air NZ confirmed that thirty of it’s workers had been infected with the virus.
The cry for more stringent testing and isolation protocols came from Air NZ staff themselves;
.
Covid-19 testing, isolation needs urgent attention – Air NZ staff
Air New Zealand staff say there are a multitude of loopholes in the airline’s border controls – and Covid-19 testing and isolation requirements need urgent attention.
The Health Minister today met with Air New Zealand to discuss ways to tighten Covid-19 restrictions, after saying he was concerned with their procedures.
While returning travellers must undergo strict 14-day isolation requirements, the air crews bringing them home are largely exempt.
One person working on Air New Zealand’s international flights told Checkpoint there had been unease for sometime among crews about the current rules, which mean only those returning from America are required to self-isolate, have a Covid-19 test on day two and continue to self-isolate until that test comes back negative.
“I think there’s a multitude of loopholes, and some of them are due to the way the airline operates but also unfortunately, I believe that the loopholes and the vulnerabilities at the border, are due to the way things have been designed by Ministry of Health rules.”
He recently returned from a long haul flight which was not to America, so he is not required to self isolate.
“However, I’m doing that, because… it’s the right thing to do. So I am managing the quarantine at home.
“But many crew have difficulty with that, they might have flatmates or they might have the situation so that they cannot physically isolate at home without putting people at risk.”
.
Air NZ crew remain at risk while they are not required to isolate for 14 days, as are all other Returnees and essential workers permitted to enter the country. Air NZ management state that there are not sufficient crew to staff aircraft if they were isolated for the full two weeks.
Instead, if air crew are returning from high-risk destinations such as Los Angeles, they are required to self-isolate in a hotel for only 48 hours;
One staff member has told Newshub the airline is putting “profit before people” and staff are “afraid” as a result.
[…]
Air NZ crew returning to Aotearoa have to enter managed isolation, just like the passengers they are transporting, but are allowed to leave if they return a negative test after 48 hours.
However, crew on the domestic MIQ flights are only required to wear standard facemasks, and aren’t isolated or tested for the virus once they finish their shift.
Once the MIQ flight is over, the domestic crew is then stood down for a period of 48 hours.
Air NZ’s Chief Medical Officer Dr Ben Johnston confirmed that while the crew aren’t allowed to work in the air for that period, they are free to do what they want.
However, any shortage of air crew can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of Air NZ management:
Around 380 of the cabin crew on the 787s are being made redundant...
“There are people in the quarantine facilities right now so pretty much on the day they get out of that two week quarantine will then be made redundant, so this is the last two weeks of their job at Air New Zealand is sitting inside a hotel waiting to see if they’ve got Covid.”
This has impacted on other higher-risk Air NZ flights requiring volunteer crews;
Some of those hotels are located in Rotorua, Wellington or Christchurch and to get to them, the returnees fly out of Auckland on flights including specially chartered Air New Zealand turboprop services.
Despite working alongside the same inbound international passengers as their long-haul colleagues, the crew on the turboprop domestic flights aren’t protected by the same restrictions or protocols as those who work on flights from overseas.
Air NZ crew returning to Aotearoa have to enter managed isolation, just like the passengers they are transporting, but are allowed to leave if they return a negative test after 48 hours.
However, crew on the domestic MIQ flights are only required to wear standard facemasks, and aren’t isolated or tested for the virus once they finish their shift.
[…]
The MIQ flights were originally staffed on a voluntary basis. But due to the health risks and the likelihood of earning less money, many Air NZ staff have declined to work on the special flights.
[…]
In an email to staff that has been seen by Newshub, Air NZ said the reason the flights would now be rostered like any other flight was because they were running out of volunteers.
“While we have always been supportive of these flights being crewed on a volunteer basis, the challenge we now have with only having a limited amount of crew volunteering, means that potentially some of these crew would lose overnight duties and the associated allowances,” the email reads.
However there have also been alleged instances of staff breaches of strict covid protocols;
Air New Zealand says it’s investigating after allegations a flight attendant breached Level 3 lockdown to fly as a passenger from Auckland to Wellington.
A former Air New Zealand flight attendant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told 1 NEWS multiple complaints have been made to the airline after a flight attendant allegedly flew from Auckland to Wellington on August 15th to visit a friend.
Level 3 rules stipulate people leaving Auckland should only be doing so under very specific circumstances, for example doing essential work, or returning home.
The former flight attendant said she and some current staff are “disgusted” by the alleged behaviour.
“She had disclosed to operating crew on the flight NZ691 on 15 August that she was flying down to operate a duty however the crew checked the passenger manifest and noticed she was on leisure travel.”
“I am disgusted at this abuse of privilege at putting others at risk when many Aucklanders and New Zealanders are working so hard to abide by lockdown.”
“It makes me so sad as I know many fellow crew who have lost their job and would never even consider abusing power as she has and putting our national carriers reputation at a huge risk.”
Bearing in mind that isolation for returning air crews is not as lengthy as other Returnees, and essential workers permitted to enter the country, it came as a shock that Air NZ had changed it’s isolation facility from Manukau to central Auckland;
Some Air New Zealand crew members arriving back in New Zealand are isolating at Auckland’s Hotel Grand Windsor [on Queen Street, downtown Auckland], with taxpayers footing the bill.
[…]
New Zealand-based aircrew arriving into the country from “higher risk” Covid-19 destinations as part of their work duties are required to enter 48 hours’ self-isolation at a hotel. They must return a negative test before they can leave isolation.
San Francisco and Los Angeles are currently classed as “higher risk” routes, while deaths from Covid-19 in the US exceed 450,000.
Around 70 pilots and 18 cabin crew return each week from these destinations, an Air New Zealand spokeswoman said.
[…]
Air New Zealand began using this facility on February 5 as its previous hotel couldn’t accommodate the number of crew required to isolate under new health guidelines.
Meanwhile, changes have been made after it was revealed by Newshub that Air New Zealand crew were able to leave an isolation hotel to exercise on the streets of Auckland’s CBD for almost three weeks.
The guidance given to crew has since been clarified, with the crew advised to stay inside and spare rooms at the Grand Windsor being transformed into gyms.
The Ministry of Health was unaware of the change in isolation facilities until the media began asking questions;
Newshub can reveal the Ministry of Health (MoH) had no idea our highest-risk airline crew had stayed at a hotel in the middle of Auckland’s CBD until we reported it last week.
Air New Zealand didn’t tell the Ministry the high-risk crew were there – so the Ministry thought they were staying in Manukau and near the airport.
[…]
“That clearly imposes risk of transmission,” University of Otago epidemiologist Dr Michael Baker told Newshub.
[…]
“This current system seems to have these major weaknesses in terms of people being allowed out to exercise during that period,” [Dr Michael Baker] says.
“We need them to keep flying so we’re working very closely with them to make sure they can keep flying,” Hipkins adds.
As pointed out above, Air NZ’s isolation hotel was the Ramada. A second hotel remains un-named, and its location unknown. In an email to this blogger on 17 February, Air NZ Communications (public relations) confirmed;
Air New Zealand aircrew were previously using two hotels in Manukau to complete hotel self-isolation after returning from high risk destinations such as Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Attempts by this blogger to uncover the name of the other airport have been unsuccessful, with strong secrecy surrounding it’s location. The oft-quoted reason has been fears that isolation hotels used by airlines would be harassed by a mob or that the privacy of airline crews somehow threatened. However this has not been the case of the new isolation facility at Hotel Grand Windsor in Auckland CBD. Nor has this been “an issue” for Returnees and essential workers granted entry visas.
In the same email, the AirNZ Comms spokesperson said;
Under the MoH guidance our crew completing hotel self-isolation after returning from a high-risk destination are unable to leave the hotel premises to exercise. Instead, aircrew have been provided an area within the hotel to get fresh air and complete low impact exercise – they are required to book the space to ensure they can achieve physical distancing and wear masks while they exercise.
Air New Zealand aircrew were previously using two hotels in Manukau to complete hotel self-isolation after returning from high risk destinations such as Los Angeles and San Francisco. Under the previous health order aircrew were permitted to leave hotel premises for a short period to exercise provided they wore a mask and physically distanced.
Air NZ flight crew are no longer permitted to leave their isolation facility.
As at publication of this story, an email to Minister Chris Hipkins has not received a response (aside from an automated acknowledgement). In the email, this blogger requested the location of any isolation facility/ies used by Air NZ.
Why is the location of Air NZ’s isolation facilities – both past and current – a matter of interest?
The recent cluster of covid19 centers around a worker from LSG Sky Chefs, a company situated in Māngere, not far from Auckland International Airport.
The Auckland August Cluster, last year, was an outbreak of covid19 involving a worker from Americold in Mt Wellington. There is an Americold branch in Māngere near the Auckland Airport. A series of maps puts all three into context;
.
Americold:
.
LSG Skychefs
.
And Auckland International Airport:
.
The close proximity of Americold to Auckland International Airport could be considered a coincidence.
But add LSG Skychefs to Americold and the International Airport – and there’s a pattern.
The only two missing pieces remain;
Missing Piece 1: Is/was there a second Air New Zealand Isolation facility within the LSG Skychefs – Americold – Auckland International Airport precinct? What was it’s location? And if it did exist; did isolating Air NZ flight crew members take their exercise outside the facility “as per the MoH guidelines you will be able to leave the hotel for up to 90 minutes of exercise per day”?
Missing Piece 2: Did an employee from Americold Mt Wellington (where covid infections were detected) have direct contact with the Māngere Branch, thereby placing themself at “Ground Zero”?
What we do know is that the “index case” of the Auckland August Cluster was a “person in their 50s who lives in South Auckland”, according to MoH.
Americold NZ’s Managing Director, Richard Winnall, insisted that the “Index Case” man’s position at the company meant he did not leave the office and he had not been in contact with employees at any of the three other local branches in Auckland, according to an ODT report.
And yet, “Index Case” contracted the virus from someone.
There has been suggestion that the strain of covid (B.1.1.7) detected in the worker at LSG Skychefs may have been infected by a Returnee who had a similar strain and passed through a MIQ facility in December last year. Whilst Dr Bloomfield did not outright dismiss the possibility, he thought it unlikely;
“Whether there was a potential link from that case through one of the guests who may have left through to our cases that we found on the weekend seems very unlikely because of the time period and what would need to have happened to create that epidemiological link while at the same time we were finding no other cases out in the community.”
Instead, Dr Bloomfield suggested;
“The airport precinct seems the most likely route of infection of our original case and we just need to get to the bottom of how she may have been exposed… “
Though the worker was near the “airport precinct”, she apparently had no direct proximity with crew, Returnees, or other travellers;
The LSG Sky Chefs employee works in a team of nine in the company’s Māngere catering and laundry facility.
She is responsible for washing and ironing linen, napkins, blankets and sheets from incoming flights.
Despite earlier suggestions, it has been clarified the woman does not handle international aircrew’s uniforms. She also has no face-to-face contact with crew or travellers, nor access to the airport.
Which, if true, would suggest that if the worker did not place herself into a risky situation – then someone else was in proximity to her.
It is a fact that Air NZ flight crew are not required to isolate for 14 days as are Returnees, sports people, entertainers, or essential workers. They are only required to “return a negative test after 48 hours”.
University of Otago Medical School epidemiologist, Sir David Skegg, has questioned reliance on the 48 hour test;
“Of course a single negative test does not prove that a person is not infected, especially early in the course of their illness.”
Dr Ashley Bloomfield also admitted that tersting was not 100% reliable;
“First of all because the tests do have a false negative rate of somewhere around 20 to 30 percent but also because it’s part of our departure planning for people to confirm that they don’t have the virus.”
False negative results have been reported on the Ministry of Health website. On 20 September last year;’
The second imported case reported today is a man in his 20s who arrived from India via Singapore on September 12. He returned a negative test for COVID-19 around day 3 of his stay in managed isolation at the Grand Millennium. The man was moved to the Auckland quarantine facility as a close contact of a confirmed case, retested, and has returned a positive result.
Had this man been an Air NZ flight crew member, he would have been tested on Day Two of his isolation. If a negative result returned, as above, he would have been allowed to return to the community.
It would be interesting to know how many false negative returns are made after Day Three of Returnees in MIQ.
On the latest LSG Sky Chefs cluster, Sir David Skeggs suggested;
“I think the most likely thing, and obviously this is speculation, is that this woman was infected by one of her colleagues at work who has been going airside … and perhaps was in contact with someone who in transit who was infectious but wouldn’t have been tested here in New Zealand.
“But, of course, if it was someone passing through the airport, we may never find a link with the original case.”
He added;
“I don’t think we should see this as a surprise, I’ve been saying this all along. There will be more lockdowns in 2021 I’m afraid.”
The last two cases have proven Sir David correct. But more troubling is that the outbreaks all seem to involve Auckland International Airport directly or (as in Americold’s case) indirectly.
The government’s decision to exclude AirNZ from quarantining airflight crews for the full 14 days – which Dr Bloomfield has described as “The Gold Standard” – seems to fly in the face of the Ministry’s own pronouncements.
It is obvious that Air NZ has been allowed to operate withouit the restrictions faced by other industries. Especially those industries clamouring to bring essential workers into the country.
It should be remembered that Air NZ is currently 52% owned by the government. There would be disastrous repercussions if it collapsed because it could no longer operate with even minimum profits.
Executive Director of Board of Airline Representatives New Zealand (BARNZ), Justin Tighe-Umbers, may have been speaking on behalf of the government when he made it clear where his priorities lay;
Executive director Justin Tighe-Umbers says New Zealanders shouldn’t be fearful of the risk from air crew, but should be worried about the economy.
“They should be worried about the economic shock if airlines pull out of the country should conditions become too stringent for them to operate.”
The Ministry of Health was even more explicit in government support for unrestricted air travel;
Because of the importance of maintaining international air routes, New Zealand-based international air crew are mostly exempt from a 14 day isolation or quarantine period as long as they meet certain conditions – both in flight and during layovers
Unfortunatelty, Air NZ’s privileged position to avoid full quarantine for it’s flightcrews – even as it made hundreds of it’s staff redundant – may be a cost borne by the rest of this country’s businesses and workers who lose their jobs.
Covid Response Minister Chris Hipkins may have been uncannily prescient last year when he said;
“I’m meeting with Air New Zealand today to make sure that that’s as tight as a drum. I’m not 100 per cent convinced that it is at the moment. I’m going to be absolutely boring into that. There’s no time for rest here. I’ve been doing this job for seven weeks. Every single day I’ve woken up thinking about Covid-19.”
If the next outbreak of covid19 is in the same area as Auckland International Airport, Americold, and LSG Sky Chefs, the the conclusion will be inevitable: there is a gap in our borders.
A gap big enough to fly an airplane through. A plane with a koru on it’s tail.
Additional Notes
12 Feb (page up-dated 13 Feb)
The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Order 2020 requires routine testing of specified aviation workers for COVID-19.
You are required to continue testing once every 7 days if you are:
You are required to continue testing once every 14 days if you are:
Workers can be exempt if an aircraft has not arrived at the affected airport from a location outside New Zealand for a period of at least 14 consecutive days.
[…]
Because of the importance of maintaining international air routes, New Zealand-based international air crew are mostly exempt from a 14 day isolation or quarantine period as long as they meet certain conditions – both in flight and during layovers.
The Minister of Health has agreed that this exemption to the Air Border Order now includes non-operating air crew returning to New Zealand on a flight after performing in-flight duties (repositioning crew).
[…]
The Director-General has now designated Los Angeles and San Francisco as higher risk routes. This designation is available on the New Zealand Gazette website
[…]
Because of the importance of maintaining international air routes, New Zealand-based international air crew are mostly exempt from a 14 day isolation or quarantine period as long as they meet certain conditions – both in flight and during layovers.
.
.
References
Newshub: Coronavirus – Air NZ crews allowed to leave quarantine for exercise in Auckland CBD
Newshub: Ministry of Health had no idea Air NZ’s highest-risk crew were staying in Auckland CBD hotel
Air New Zealand: Air New Zealand provides clarity on safety precautions for staff
NZ Herald: Covid 19 coronavirus – International Air New Zealand aircrew must now isolate in hotels
Stuff media: Coronavirus – Air NZ steward linked to Bluff wedding cluster ‘deeply upset’
Scoop media: Nation Steps Up To COVID-19 Alert Level 2
RNZ: Coronavirus – Covid-19 updates in NZ and around the world on 25 March
NZ Herald: Covid 19 coronavirus: -Air NZ steward ‘deeply upset’ by Bluff coronavirus outbreak
Ministry of Health: COVID-19 – Source of cases – Cluster Details
Stuff media: Covid-19 – Air New Zealand crew isolating after testing positive in China
Newshub: COVID-19 – Air New Zealand crew member who tested positive visited six Auckland shops
NZ Herald: Covid 19 coronavirus – Eight Air New Zealand staff test positive for the virus
NZ Herald: Air New Zealand air crew member tests positive for Covid-19
ODT: Air NZ crews hoping to stall redundancies
RNZ: Covid-19 testing, isolation needs urgent attention – Air NZ staff
Stuff media: Transit passengers and air crew are considered possible Covid-19 sources. How are they kept safe?
Newshub: Air New Zealand crew claim they’re being ‘forced’ to work on COVID-19 quarantine flights
RNZ: Covid-19 – Anxious wait for Air NZ staff in isolation
TVNZ: Air NZ investigating allegations of lockdown breach by flight attendant
NZ Herald: Covid 19 coronavirus – Air NZ crew isolation arrangement ‘under review’
Newshub: Ministry of Health had no idea Air NZ’s highest-risk crew were staying in Auckland CBD hotel
ODT: Covid 19 – Money company, cool store at centre of outbreak
Stuff media: Covid-19 – Kiwis face months-long wait to come home as border controls are tightened
RNZ: Checkpoint – Potential Covid-19 link to MIQ weeks ago highly unlikely – officials (audio link)
RNZ: Covid-19 – LSG Sky Chefs employees ‘following all the rules’ – union
MoH: COVID-19 – Aviation sector
Wikipedia: Index Case
MoH: 4 cases of COVID-19 with unknown source
Newsroom: Questions raised over international aircrew rules
ODT: ‘There will be more lockdowns’: Otago expert unsurprised by outbreak
MoH: COVID-19 media update, 1 July (transcript)
Air New Zealand: Frequently Asked Questions – Who owns Air New Zealand?
TVNZ: Air NZ investigating allegations of lockdown breach by flight attendant
MoH: COVID-19 – Aviation sector
Additional
The Spinoff: The ultimate guide to New Zealand quarantine and managed isolation hotels
Stuff media: Covid-19 – A guide to managed isolation hotels, and what to do if things go wrong
MIQ: Facility locations
NZ Herald: Auckland students fly out to Otago despite lockdown
Previous related blogposts
Life in Level 1: Reinfection – Labour’s kryptonite
Life in Level 2: The Curious Case of the Very Invisible Virus
.
. 
Acknowledgement: Guy Body
.
.
= fs =
.
.
.
National has added to it’s list of expensive election year bribes. Not content with offering $10.5 billion on new roads (which is additional to an estimated $12 billion to be spent on seven roads in National’s “Roads of National Significance” plan) – the Nats have promised to increase their HomeStart grant by $10,000. First home buyers would get $20,000 to buy an existing house or $30,000 for a newly constructed property.
The election year bribe has been condemned by both Left and Right. Political commentator, Chris Trotter pointed out the bleedin’ obvious;
“ You’ve had nine years to come up with a policy like this and you leave it until the last 13 days in an election campaign to make such an announcement.
This is a further sign of National Party desperation.
If a government wants to do something, the money is there. If National says they’ll find the money, I’m sure they will, but the question is why has it taken so long?
I think that’s a perfectly fair question, the timing is what is most remarkable. ”
But as Newsroom reported when National began to offer home-ownership subsidies in an over-heated housing marlet;
Treasury warned the Government in 2013 that increasing first home buyer subsidies would undermine the Reserve Bank’s efforts to slow down the housing market, force an early Official Cash Rate hike and push up house prices.
According to Newsroom, in 2014 Treasury pointed out what should have been obvious to the Nats – a party that should be well-versed in supply and demand rules;
“[Welcome Home Loan and KiwiSaver withdrawal schemes] may undermine the power and credibility of the Reserve Bank’s proposed use of restrictions on high Loan to Value Ratio mortgages, depending on up-take.
Experience with homeowner grants in Australia suggests that such programmes tend to push prices up in a supply constrained environment by supporting greater demand, rather than improving affordability.
The Kiwi Saver Home Deposit Scheme increases the cash available to homebuyers for deposits. Increasing eligibility may encourage buyers to take on more debt/seek more expensive houses. This could exacerbate house price pressures.”
Nothing better highlights National’s failure to constrain housing prices, pushed up by rampant speculation and unplanned migration , than having to throw tax-payer’s money at the problem. (Obviously not content with putting a sheep farm in the middle of the Saudi desert, costing taxpayers at least $11.5 million.)
National’s favourite holographic coalition partner, ACT’s David Seymour, also put the boot into National’s election year gift calling it out for what it is – a policy failure and a baked election bribe;
“ It’s an admission of National’s failure to fix the fundamentals of our housing crisis. Instead of getting homes built, they’re trying to soothe home buyers’ pain with a bribe.
Only a few months of flat price growth has scared National into propping up investors’ capital gains with taxpayer money. ”
However, David Seymour is not above throwing tax-dollars around as election year bribes when it suits his own electoral re-election agenda;
The ACT Party says it would bring in bulk funding for teacher salaries, offering schools $93,000 per teacher but only if they abandon collective agreements.
At its campaign launch this afternoon, ACT leader David Seymour said he wanted to give schools the power to decide what individual teachers earn.
The party would do this by introducing bulk funding, where schools could opt out of the centralised payroll system and collective agreements.
Seymour was blunt in his desire to see teacher’s unions undermined and destroyed;
“ACT’s policy will address these pressures. And because it comes with the proviso that schools leave the union contract […] It’s frankly a disgrace that teacher unions would reject a billion dollars in new funding in order to protect the status quo that denies kids the education they deserve. ”
Seymour couldn’t explain where the money for the outright bribe for teachers to abandon their voluntary union participation would come from. He simply dipped his fingers into government coffers;
Party leader David Seymour said that the Government surplus of $3.7bn meant the party could promise to pay principals $975 million, to pay good teachers an extra $20,000 each, without cutting services or raising taxes.
It is not just National that is showing increasing signs of desperation. When a right-wing political party that supposedly espouses individual freedom of choice offers tax-payer funded bribes for people to quit an organisation they have voluntarily opted to join – then we begin to understand that the entire neo-liberal paradigm is under threat.
Will David Seymour offer our hard-earned tax money to other people to quit organisations he doesn’t agree with?
.
.
Māori Party co-leader Marama Fox; Green Party leader James Shaw; ACT Party leader David Seymour; and United Future’s new leader, Damian Light participated in TVNZ’s Multi Party Debate on 8 September.
Only NZ First’s Winston Peter’s – in a hissy-fit of unbridled ego – refused to take part. Peters’ reasoning could be called weak at best’
“…I was astonished, on a general inquiry late Tuesday, to be told by them that neither Labour nor National had ever accepted the invitation.”
Though why Peters believed that the two major parties – National or Labour – would participate in a Minor Parties Debate is unclear.
Anyway, despite Peters’ toy-tossing tantrum, “minor” parties they may be, but their presence in Parliament will often determine the government, and influence policy.
During the debate, the Resource Management Act was made the scapegoat by ACT leader, David Seymour, for the failing of the neo-liberal system to satisfy market demand for housing.
The moderator asked Seymour if his electorate of Epsom would accept higher-density housing developments if the RMA’s urban protections were removed. Seymour replied;
“ Oh, they’ve already accepted it [higher density housing]... People have already accepted it.”
Green Party Leader, James Shaw, then issued a startling challenge to David Seymour;
“ We could make Epsom a RMA free zone and see what happens.”
Seymour ducked the challenge, changing the subject.
For good reason.
There would be blue-blood in the streets of affluent, leafy, upper middle-class Epsom if high-rise developments suddenly filled the skyline.
An example of what Epsomites might expect if ACT got it’s way and the RMA was abolished or significantly weakened to allow unfettered urban development can be found in the Wellington suburb of Mt Victoria.
Amongst the single, two-story, and occassional three-story homes is a massive high-rise block of apartments called Melksham Tower. The building was constructed around 1975, prior to the passing of the Resource Management Act in 1991 (ironically by the then Bolger-led National Government).
Melksham Tower around 1975 with locals protesting;
.
.
Melksham Tower, currently. Note the height of the ten story building and surrounding house(s);
.
.
Victoria University’s Salient magazine reported local public opposition to the development;
A newly completed block of high-rise flats in Mt. Victoria has become the focal point in a struggle between private developers and local residents.
The local residents, led by the Mt. Victoria Progressive Association, are angry about the construction of Williams Development Holdings’ new 10-storey Melksham Towers building, which was originally given a council permit on the basis that it would be a block of flats.
[…]
Residents have mounted a vigorous campaign against the tower block itself, but the main attack has been focused on the roots of the problem—the inability of a community to have any say in the development of their area. The campaign started from general meetings of the Progressive Association and a small group of people went from door-to-door in the area discussing Mt. Victoria’s development and the significance of Melksham Towers.
The response was such that a demonstration of 70 residents gathered outside the tower block recently to show their disapproval of what has been described as ‘a human filing cabinet’. They also discussed what steps could be taken to prevent the construction of any similar structures.
[…]
The struggle between the interest of private developers and local communities will continue as long as people are told that area planning is perogative of those experts ‘who know best’. But, even if the Mt. Victoria residents have been too late to stop the construction of the Melksham Towers monstrosity, they have been successful in building a much closer community which is more aware of the injustices that surround it and the forces that control it. As one resident said: ‘The protest has only just begun.’
If David Seymour takes up James Shaw’s challenge, the good people of Epsom could “share the pleasure” of Mt Victoria’s citizens of learning the hard way what unfettered development has in store for them.
Would Seymour accept that challenge?
For Epsomites, ‘The protest will have only just begun’.
.
.
On 4 September, during TV3’s Leader’s Debate, National Party Leader and soon to be ex-Prime Minister, Bill English, sprung a surprise on the people of New Zealand. English committed his administration to committed to raising 100,000 children out of poverty in the next three year Parliamentary term;
“ There’s two things you need to do, one is lift incomes the other is get inside the very toxic mix of social issues which we know are family violence, criminal offending and long-term welfare dependency. We’ve got the best tools in the world now to support rising incomes with cracking the social problems.”
All we have to do is party-tick National and give him that fourth term in Parliament. Simple as, bro!
Which raises some interesting and obvious questions;
But worse still – how seriously can we take Bill English’s “committment” when National Ministers have excused their failings to meet their own goals by labelling them as “aspirational” only;
.
.
When Minister Tolley was challenged on TV3’s The Nation why welfare numbers were still high, she replied;
“ It’s a very aspirational target.”
“Aspirational” – National’s way of setting ambitious goals (especially at election time), and then shrugging when things don’t eventuate.
I wonder if National’s campaign for re-election is also… “aspirational”?
.
.
According to ACT’s Beth Houlbrooke, the poor should not be allowed to breed;
.
.
The sub-text of Houlbrook’s assertion is clear and simple; poverty is the fault of the poor. Obviously they are incapable of enjoying the benefits of the neo-liberal, free-market system and have chosen to remain – poor. So after thirty-plus years of the “Revolution”, the peasants cannot recognise the paradise put before them by the likes of Roger Douglas, Ruth Richardson, et al.
In which case, if ACT believes so deeply that “parents who cannot afford to have children should not be having them” – then it should be prepared to make that Party policy and legislate accordingly.
I therefore call upon ACT Leader, David Seymour, to publicly announce that his party will be putting forward legislation to ban low-income families from having children. He can advise the public how much people must earn before the State will issue a permit to breed.
Of course, that still leaves the thorny problem of what to do with children of parents who lose their job(s); become bankrupt; lose their business, and must rely on welfare.
One response to ACT’s announcement offered a possible ‘solution’;
.
.
I look forward to how ACT will sell this policy to the public.
.
.
References
Fairfax media: National announce $10.5 billion roading plan
Radio NZ: National pledge to add $10k to HomeStart
Fairfax media: National to double Home Start Grant for existing houses
Newsroom: Election 2017 Live – National doubles first home grant
NZ Herald: Editorial – Saudi sheep deal leaves bitter taste
Scoop media: National pumps up house prices with HomeStart bribe
Radio NZ: ACT promises bulk funding if schools drop union contracts
Scoop media: Broken union model creating third-world staff shortages
Fairfax media: ACT says it will give schools $20k more per teacher, if they abandon union contracts
ACT Party: Principles
Mediaworks: Winston Peters pulls out of minor parties debate
Wikipedia: Resource Management Act 1991
Victoria University: Salient – Volume 38, Number 14. June 20, 1975 – Photo of Melksham Tower, Mount Victoria
Victoria University: Salient – Volume 38, Number 14. June 20, 1975 – Mt Vic On The Move
Mediaworks: Newshub Leaders Debate – Bill English commits to poverty target
Fairfax media: National drops to 39 in new bombshell poll, Labour remains ahead
Fairfax media: Government won’t commit to a poverty target because it’s too ‘difficult’ – John Key
NZ Herald: Bennett slammed over child poverty claim
Mediaworks: Paula Bennett disputes UNICEF poverty report
NZ Herald: Anne Tolley – Government’s benefits target ‘very aspirational’
Scoop media: On The Nation – Lisa Owen interviews Bill English, Anne Tolley and Hekia Parata
Twitter: ACT Party – Poor shouldn’t have kids
Twitter: Wendy Smith responds to ACT
Additional
Other Blogs
The Standard: Nat/ACT don’t think poor people should have kids
Previous related blogposts
Election ’17 Countdown: The Promise of Nirvana to come
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (tahi)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rua)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (toru)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (wha)
.
.
.
.
.
= fs =
.
.
.
The leaking of Winston Peter’s superannuation over-payment is well known. Also known is that Ministers Paula Bennett and Anne Tolley were briefed by Ministry of Social Development and State Services Commission, respectively, on Peters’ private details regarding the over-payment before it was leaked to the media and made public knowledge.
Also briefed – though it is unclear why, as he was not a warranted Minister of the Crown – was political appointee, Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson.
Evidently the only person in the entire country not briefed was the Prime Minister, Bill “Double Dipper from Dipton” English.
Bennett, Tolley, and Judith Collins have all denied any involvement in the leak.
Paula Bennett was adamant;
“I don’t actually go around the back scuffling around doing leaks. I actually, if I’ve got something to say, I say it directly and up front and kind of bluntly. “
Which is true, in a Bizarro World kind of way. In 2009, when Bennett mis-used her Ministerial powers to reveal personal details of two solo mothers on the DPB, it was done in a very public manner.
However, Bennett never apologised publicly for the breaking of the two women’s privacy. And she stubbornly insisted she would do it again;
Asked if she would do the same thing again, Bennett said “it would depend on the circumstances”.
Perhaps Judith Collins, who disclosed a State servant’s name and personal information to a right-wing blogger, was involved in the leaking of Peters’ situation?
Prime Minister John Key has conceded it was “unwise” for Judith Collins to give Cameron Slater a public servant’s name, job title and phone number which was then used in an attack post on his Whale Oil blog.
However, John Key says no disciplinary action will be taken against the Justice Minister because the action pre-dated the final warning he gave Ms Collins over the Oravida scandal.
Mr Key says he still stands by the Justice Minister.
“I think the passing of private information, in terms of phone numbers, I think that’s unwise. It’s unwise of a Minister. Look in the end it’s one of those things,” Mr Key says.
Collins also refuse to accept she had done anything wrong – despite being forced to resign in 2014;
“I absolutely and strongly deny this and any suggestion of inappropriate behaviour. I am restrained in clearing my name while I am still a Minister inside Cabinet and I believe the right thing to do is to resign as a Minister so I am able to clear my name.
I have asked the Prime Minister for an Inquiry into these serious allegations so that my name can be cleared. I will, of course, cooperate with any Inquiry.”
Only Minister Tolley has not been accused of a direct privacy violation of any individual(s) – at the moment. However, MSD is know to leak like a sieve and it was MSD that briefed the Minister regarding Winston Peters.
One thing is for certain; some Ministers are not averse when it comes to leaking personal details of individuals who run foul of this government.
They have ‘form’.
Postscript
Recent revelations that blogger and activist, Martyn Bradbury, has had his private bank details scrutinised by Police shows how little National and its state agencies respect the privacy of individuals.
.
.
Especially those who dare criticise the current regime.
.
.
Meet Anneka Carlson, ACT’s New Plymouth candidate and number seven on their Party List;
.
.
Carlson is seventh on the list and would enter parliament if ACT gained 5 per cent of the party vote.
The 28-year-old never dreamt of being a politician but standing for ACT in her home town “just feels right.”
“It was meant to happen.”
Parliament needed people with life skills and her life experiences would help stand her in good stead if she is elected, she said.
The former West Auckland police officer owned her own business in New Plymouth, is a North Taranaki SPCA board member, and ran fitness programmes for cancer support groups.
She is also completing a business studies degree extra-murally at Massey University.
“I’m fairly young, and I’m surprised to be high on the list because I’m a bit of political newbie, but I’ve already seen lot of things from working in the police.
All well and good – engaging young New Zealanders to enter politics should be encouraged. It should never be the sole “happy hunting grounds” for Baby Boomers seeking to feather their own nests, at the expense of younger generations.
Unfortunately, there are times when youth counts against a candidate. Such as when Ms Carlson lamented ACT’s lack of public support;
“It makes me wonder why people don’t know more about ACT in New Plymouth.”
It should be no surprise to anyone that Ms Carlson wonders why ACT is not supported more at the ballot box. It’s not because “people don’t know more about ACT“.
Quite the contrary – most New Zealanders middle-aged and over – are very clear about ACT and what it stands for. After all, we lived through ACT-style so-called “reforms” in the late 1980s and into the 1990s.
That is why ACT is not well supported except by a tiny minority of unreconstructed wealthy, privileged extremists. (Aka, the One Percent.) At 28, Ms Carlson would be oblivious to all this.
But at least Ms Carlson understands how privileged she is as a middle-class pakeha from an economically well-supported background. As she herself admitted;
“I’ve come from a fairly privileged upbringing…”
At least Ms Carlson has a measure of self-awareness. Given time and experience she may understand how that privileged upbringing gives her a head start in life that is denied many others.
She may even experience that critical Road-To-Damascus revelation that ACT’s market-driven ideology has made matters much, much worse since 1984.
I suggest the next cuppa tea she has is not with David Seymour, but Jim Bolger.
.
.
.
A recent Horizon Poll released on 1 September reconfirms the rise of Jacinda Ardern’s popularity with voters;
Jacinda Ardern has a 6% lead over Bill English as preferred Prime Minister among definite voters.
Among the 860 adult respondents who are both registered to vote and 100% likely to vote, Ardern leads English by 43% to 37%.
Among all of the 960 respondents to the August 11-15 Horizon Research poll Ardern leads 45% to 32%.
Winston Peters is preferred Prime Minister by 15% of all respondents and 14% of definite voters.
James Shaw, the Green Party leader, is preferred by 2%, and David Seymour of ACT and Te Ururoa Flavell of the Maori Party each by 1%.
Coincidentally, English’s current popularity at 37% is similar to Key’s Preferred Prime Minister ratings before he stepped down as Dear Leader Prime Minister. By May last year, Key’s PPM rating had fallen to 36.7% – continuing a steady downward trend.
Which means Ms Ardern is now more popular than John Key was, prior to his resignation.
.
.
Queensland’s Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, has announced a major step back from neo-liberalism’s prime enabler, globalism, by announcing that the State government would prioritise local businesses for contracts. The aim is to create more local jobs.
Ms Palaszczuk was unapologetic in renouncing globalisation;
“ Our new procurement strategy is unashamedly a ‘Buy Queensland’ one. No longer will we be constrained by free trade agreements that have seen jobs go off-shore or interstate.
Wherever possible, one regional and one Queensland supplier will be invited to quote or tender for every procurement opportunity offered. Preference must be given to local subbies and manufacturers on significant infrastructure projects of $100 million or more.
This money comes from Queensland taxpayers, it is only right we spent it in a way that benefits Queensland businesses and workers as much as possible.”
According to the SBS report, Queensland spent A$14 billion per annum on supplies, services, plus A$4 billion building and maintaining State infrastructure.
Ms Palaszczuk made a valid case for buying-local when she pointed out “this money comes from Queensland taxpayers, it is only right we spent it in a way that benefits Queensland businesses and workers“.
The prime role of a government in a Western-style democracy has always been (or should be!) to protect and enhance it’s citizens. Creating an environment where local jobs flourish is part and parcel of that dictum.
Governments are not “in business” to create jobs in other countries at the expense of their own workers.
ExportNZ’s Executive Director, Catherine Beard, was predictably hostile;
“ The ‘Buy Queensland’ promotion should be about encouraging Aussies to buy their local product, just like ‘Buy NZ Made’ encourages New Zealanders to buy Kiwi-made. It’s OK to encourage your people to buy local, but it’s not OK to mandate State Government weightings that amount to protectionism.
The protectionism in Queensland’s policy is completely contrary to Closer Economic Relations between New Zealand and Australia.”
In plain english, Ms Beard is fine with “it’s OK to encourage your people to buy local,” but “it’s not OK to mandate State Government weightings that amount to protectionism” because it harmed the interests of her members.
Tough. It’s about time globalisation began to be rolled back instead of continually exporting jobs and entire businesses to off-shore jurisdictions where labour is cheaper and easily exploitable because of lax (or unenforced) labour laws.
We need fair trade, not so-called “free” trade. “Free” trade is not free when we, the tax-payers, have to foot the bill to pay for welfare, because workers became unemployed after their jobs were exported to China, Vietnam, Pakistan, Fiji, etc, or cheaper (and often shoddier) goods imported to unfairly compete with locally-made products.
Queensland’s Premier understands this. She wants jobs created for her own workers – not in some other country. Especially when those workers in other nations won’t be paying tax in Queensland.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Timeline – Winston Peters’ superannuation overpayments saga
NZ Herald: Beehive knew of Winston Peters’ super payments weeks ago
Mediaworks: Paula Bennett says she doesn’t go ‘scuffling around doing leaks’
Fairfax media: Bennett won’t rule out releasing beneficiary details
Mediaworks: Collins ‘unwise’ to pass information to Slater
NZ Herald: Statement from Judith Collins
Fairfax media: Government backs down over collecting individuals’ data until security confirmed
Fairfax media: Former promotional ‘hype girl’ keen to get more dancing to ACT’s tune
Fairfax media: Tick party vote for ACT to bring quality candidates into parliament, leader says
Fairfax media: The 9th floor – Jim Bolger says neoliberalism has failed NZ and it’s time to give unions the power back
Fairfax media: Hamilton social service providers dispute PM’s ‘almost’ no homeless claim
Horizon Poll: Ardern preferred Prime Minister with 6% lead
Mediaworks: Newshub poll – Key’s popularity plummets to lowest level
SBS: Qld govt to prioritise local businesses
Scoop media: Trade Ministers need firm hand over Queensland
Other Blogs
Martyn Bradbury: My case against a secret NZ Police investigation that breached my privacy and my civil rights
Previous related blogposts
The slow dismantling of a Prime Minister – downward slide continues
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (tahi)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rua)
.
.
.
.
.
= fs =
.
.
Fun Fact #1: “According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.” – NASA, Earth Observatory
Fun Fact #2: “Atmospheric CO2 concentration started to increase at the time of the Industrial Revolution and has been increasing rapidly since 1900. This increase is in proportion to the usage of fossil fuels. Therefore, reducing consumption of fossil fuels in order to reduce CO2 emissions has become a crucial countermeasure for global warming.” – Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Fun Fact #3: In 2011/13, China had 78 million cars. In 2014, there were 154 million cars in China. By 2015, that number had risen to 172 million. A year later, another 28.3 million were sold, taking the figure to around 200.3 million private cars. By 2050, the estimated number of private vehicles in China is estimated to be between 464.9 to 557.7 million.
Fun Fact #4: “The global number of cars on the road and kilometers flown in planes will nearly double by 2040 […] Cars are projected to reach the two billion mark by 2040.” – World Economic Forum
Fun Fact #5: “A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.” – US Environmental Protection Agency
.
Until recently, Canadian-American businessman, engineer,and inventor, Elon Musk was an Advisor on Donald Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum.
.
Elon Musk
.
Musk’s appointment to this Forum on 14 December last year joined the likes of;
A formidable Who’s Who of American capitalism’s “Captain’s of Industry”.
Trump’s propaganda website, “Great Again” stated;
Members of the Forum will be charged with providing their individual views to the President — informed by their unique vantage points in the private sector — on how government policy impacts economic growth, job creation and productivity. The Forum is designed to provide direct input to the President from many of the best and brightest in the business world in a frank, non-bureaucratic and non-partisan manner.
Trump was more effusive;
“ You’re doing well right now and I’m very honored by the bounce. They’re all talking about the bounce … Anything we can do to help this go along, and we’re going to be there for you. And you’ll call my people, you’ll call me. It doesn’t make any difference. We have no formal chain of command around here.”
Musk’s appointment to the Forum had been unforeseen, as he had voiced criticisms of Trump and his victory at the elections;
The announcement came as a big surprise to many, considering Musk has been very critical of Donald Trump before and after the election. Before Trump became President-elect, Musk said in an interview with CNBC that the Republican nominee was “not the right man for the job” and that “he doesn’t seem to have the character that reflects well on the States.” After the business tycoon won more electoral votes than Hillary Clinton, Musk also lamented that the outcome “not the finest moment in our democracy in general.”
Before the election took place, Musk also stated that Hillary Clinton’s economic and environmental policies were better. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering Musk has made much of his fortune from harnessing renewable energy. He’s also a proud advocate of environmental sustainability. Trump, on the other hand, believes climate change is a “hoax” invented by the Chinese.
Musk holds strong views regarding human civilisation’s impact on the planet’s environment;
“ We’re running the most dangerous experiment in history right now, which is to see how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere … can handle before there is an environmental catastrophe.” – 17 April 2013
“ We are going to exit the fossil fuel era. It is inevitable. Right now we have an incentive structure that is designed to slow it down [transition from fossil fuels]. If countries decide to do a carbon tax or cap and trade, and it is real and not watered-down and weak, I think we can see a transition that is in the 15 to 20 years time frame as supposed to 40 to 50 years time frame. By putting a price on carbon, we are fixing a pricing error in the market. Any price will be better than the close to zero we have right now. ” – 2 December 2015
“ Burning oil is like taking furniture from your house and setting it on fire for heat.” – 1 July 2016
“By definition, we must at some point achieve a sustainable energy economy or we will run out of fossil fuels to burn and civilization will collapse. Given that we must get off fossil fuels anyway and that virtually all scientists agree that dramatically increasing atmospheric and oceanic carbon levels is insane, the faster we achieve sustainability, the better.” – 20 July 2016
“ CO2 isn’t exactly pollution, but it does cause warming and slight acidification of water if very large quantities are dug from deep underground and added to the surface cycle. The problem is the age-old tragedy of the commons. The common good being consumed is atmospheric and oceanic carbon capacity, which currently has a price of zero. This results in an error in market signals and far more CO2 is generated than should be. We won’t ever go to zero CO2, but the rate over time should be dropped far below what it is today.” – 26 January 2017
Musk’s views are clear. They are also in direct stark contrast to Trump’s own, stated belief, that global warming was a “hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to hobble American industry“. By participating in Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, Musk appears to be an optimistic believer in being inside the enemy’s tent pissing out, rather than vice versa.
At best, it was a naive belief.
On 27 May, Trump used his favourite medium to announce that he was going to… make an announcement;
.
.
On 28 May, rumours began to circulate that Trump had already made up his mind and was going to make good on his threat to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord;
President Trump has privately told multiple people, including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, that he plans to leave the Paris agreement on climate change, according to three sources with direct knowledge.
Publicly, Trump’s position is that he has not made up his mind and when we asked the White House about these private comments, Director of Strategic Communications Hope Hicks said, “I think his tweet was clear. He will make a decision this week.”
The same report claimed that “… the EPA staff are quietly working with outside supporters to place op eds favoring withdrawal from Paris“. Evidently, the more unpopular/unreasonable a political decision is, the more ‘spin’ is required to ‘massage the message’ and lull the masses back to sleep.
Trump’s appointee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and fellow climate-change denier, Scott Pruitt, had been advocating since April for the US to withdraw from the Paris Accords;
Scott Pruitt, the head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, has said that the US should back out of its commitment to the Paris climate agreement, the landmark plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions in a bid to limit global warming to below 2˚C.
This follows President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to cancel the agreement, with a decision on whether he will do so expected within the next month.
“It’s a bad deal for America,” Pruitt told cable news show Fox & Friends last week. “China and India had no obligations under the agreement until 2030.”
Pruitt was being willfully disingenuous (ie; lying his head off);
“That statement is either deliberately misleading or woefully uninformed about what the Paris agreement is and what it does,” says Alden Meyer at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
China and India have already taken action to reach the goals they set for 2030, and China has committed to cutting its greenhouse gas emissions by a higher percentage than US commitments. “Pruitt is really off the mark here,” Meyer says. “It’s very clear that China is going to overachieve its Paris objectives.”
Han Chen of the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York says that China implemented its first mandatory national cap on coal consumption last year and added three times as much wind capacity as the US in 2016.“China already suspended over 100 planned or under-construction coal projects last year,” says Chen. “Meanwhile, the Trump administration wants policies that favor highly polluting fossil fuels. It’s no question which country is more ambitious on climate action at the moment.”
On 31 May, just days before Trump was due to officially announce what the entire world already knew, Elon Musk issued his own announcement;
Tesla CEO Elon Musk threatened Wednesday to stop advising President Donald Trump if the White House withdraws from the Paris climate accords.
Asked on Twitter what he would do if Trump pulled out of the landmark global deal to curb emissions, Musk said…
.
.
Musk, who also founded SpaceX, is on Trump’s manufacturing jobs council, his strategic and policy forum, and his infrastructure council. Musk has defended his role advising Trump in the face of some criticism from anti-Trump activists, arguing that they should want his voice in the discussions to offer views that differ from those of the president’s other advisors.
Sure enough, on 2 June (New Zealand time), Trump did not fail to disappoint an entire planet of 7.3 billion humans;
.
.
Without any hint of self-awareness of irony, Trump stated;
“ The United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction, on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.”
Trump’s arrogance was such that even the North Korean leadership (who are also a signatory to the Paris Accord) was moved to say the right thing at the right time;
A spokesman for the North Korean government described the move as the “height of egotism and moral vacuum seeking only their well-being even at the cost of the entire planet, according to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).
“[The US] is ignorant of the fact that the protection of the global environment is in their own interests,” the spokesman added.
“The selfish act of the US does not only have grave consequences for the international efforts to protect the environment, but poses great danger to other areas as well.”
Following on from Trump’s announcement, Elon Musk made good on his warning that he would not be a collaborator to any undermining of the Paris Accord;
.
.
Musk further tweeted;
Under Paris deal, China committed to produce as much clean electricity by 2030 as the US does from all sources today
Musk was correct. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, declared China’s intention to persevere with the Paris Accord;
“ Climate change is a global challenge. No county can place itself outside of this. At the same time, we will continue to resolutely be a protector and promoter of the global climate system process, proactively participating in the multilateral climate change process. We are willing to work with all sides to jointly protect the Paris agreement process, promote the actual rules and regulations of the agreement in follow-up talks and effectively enact them, and promote global green, low carbon, sustainable development.”
China has strong motivation to reduce atmospheric pollution generated by human industrial activity;
China had fought previous attempts by foreign governments to limit carbon emissions, claiming it should be allowed the same space to develop and pollute that industrialized nations had.
But with its capital often choked by smog and its people angry about the environmental degradation that rapid development has wrought across the country, Beijing has become a strong proponent of efforts to halt global warming.
The consequences of runaway climate change could be devastating for China, it’s people, and it’s economy. According to Climate Scientist, Benjamin Strauss;
“ Roughly a quarter of the world’s people who live on land at risk from 4C warming are living in China. That is more that twice as many as who live on vulnerable land in Europe and the US combined. The Shanghai region by itself has more than 20 million people living on land that could be lost. ”
Spokesman for the Russian Federation, Dmitry Peskov, added his country’s voice to endorsing the Paris Accord;
“ President Vladimir Putin signed this convention when he was in Paris. Russia attaches great significance to it. At the same time, it goes without saying that the effectiveness of this convention is likely to be reduced without its key participants.”
Meanwhile, many Trump supporters; alt. right purveyors of lies and conspiracy-theories such as ‘Infowars‘ and ‘Brietbart‘; and assorted right-wing conservatives like Anne Coulter and Mark Levin were falling over each other in their scramble to praise their Dear Leader for taking the planet closer to ecological melt-down. The American Right seem to be the only ones supporting Trump.
Ironically, big corporations have parted company with Trump and the American Right, siding instead with the science community;
Major U.S. corporations and leading business figures are raising an eleventh-hour appeal to President Donald Trump, urging him to not pull the country out of the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change.
[…]
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff tweeted Wednesday an image of an earlier joint open letter from over 20 top companies based in the U.S. or having business stateside, in which they made a business case that the U.S. should remain a part of the accord.
.
.
In the face of an intransigent anti-science cabal that now occupies the White House, aided by Republicans in control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the rest of Planet Earth has no choice but carry working to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, nitrous oxide, and methane).
People of influence such as Elon Musk must now reassess their options.
By fortuitous coincidence, one option is already available to Musk and is stated on his Tesla website;
Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.
Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.
[…]
Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis. By the same token, it means the market is enormous. Our true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.
We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform.
Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard.
Musk has given away his electric car patents, promising “not [to] initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.“
He has indeed joined the Open Source movement. Open Source is described as “a decentralized development model that encourages open collaboration“. There is an element of socialist co-operative behaviour with OS.
However, simply stating that Musk will not stand in the way of anyone who “wants to use [Tesla] technology” is not enough. This is an opportunity for Musk to counter Trump’s refusal to act decisively on climate change. This is Musk’s opportunity to show leadership where Trump – and other Republicans and conservatives – will not.
This is the proposal I have sent to Elon Musk, via Twitter;
.
Frank Macskasy
New Zealand/Aotearoa – @fmacskasy
Kia Ora Mr Musk,
I wish to congratulate you on your principled decision to withdraw from Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum. Withdrawing the United States from the Paris Accord on climate change shows a disturbing lack of understanding by Trump and a refusal to understand the science behind climate change, and it’s impact on Planet Earth.
By rejecting the science and claiming that climate change is a “Chinese orchestrated hoax” implies that the Chinese government has exercised full-spectrum dominance and control over NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), American Geophysical Union (AGU), American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, Geological Society of America, and many others. This is patently laughable.
Mr Musk, you are in a unique position to take a measure of leadership on this critical problem confronting humanity and the entire planet.
On your Tesla website, you have stated that you intend to allow people to use your electric car technology without any impediments created by patent-rights;
“Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.
Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.”
Your generosity in removing patents to Tesla technology is the seed to which the Paris Accord can move forward with a giant leap.
Instead of just allowing access to Tesla technology, I propose that you engage with the Chinese government to set up Tesla car-manufacturing plants throughout the Chinese People’s Republic. You could stipulate that the only two provisos would be;
1. Each plant must be powered by renewable energy. No fossil fuel energy sources to be used.
2. All electric vehicles will be for domestic consumption only (if you so wish).
With the number of private vehicles in China estimated to each 464.9 to 557.7 million by 2050 (ref: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251560842Modeling_future_vehicle_sales_and_stock_in_China) and with each typical car emitting approximately 4.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year (ref: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle-0), it does not take much maths to work out how much extra CO2 will be pumped into the atmosphere by just one nation alone.
Your leadership on this problem would rival that of your SpaceX programme and ambitions for Mars.
You can achieve what Trump has failed in such a dismal fashion.
This would be a spectacular act of international co-operation with the future of the entire planet and our species at stake.
Mr Musk, you can be the visionary. If China is to have 557.7 million cars by 2050, let them be electric. Let them all be Teslas.
Best wishes,
-Frank Macskasy
.
Solving the crisis of climate change will take a titanic, collective effort from us all.
.
.
References
NASA: World of Change – Global Temperatures
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: History of Fossil Fuel Usage since the Industrial Revolution
Huffington Post: Number Of Cars Worldwide Surpasses 1 Billion – Can The World Handle This Many Wheels?
Wall Street Journal: China Soon to Have Almost as Many Drivers as U.S. Has People
News.Cn: China’s car ownership reaches 172 million
South China Morning Post: China 2016 car sales surge at fastest rate in three years
Researchgate: Modeling future vehicle sales and stock in China (p26)
US Environmental Protection Agency: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle
World Economic Forum: The number of cars worldwide is set to double by 2040
Wikipedia: Elon Musk
The Hill: Trump names Elon Musk, Uber CEO to advisory team
The Guardian: The Minute – Trump promises Silicon Valley ‘bounce’
True Activist: Donald Trump Appoints Elon Musk As Strategic Presidential Advisor
Twitter: Donald Trump – global warming Chinese hoax
USA Today: Icons – Elon Musk doesn’t let up at Tesla, SpaceX
Reuters: Tesla’s Elon Musk says transition from fossil fuels inevitable
Twitter: Elon Musk – burning fossil fuel
Tesla: Master Plan, Part Deux
Gizmodo: Gizmodo Chats With Elon Musk About Climate Change And Donald Trump
Twitter: Donald Trump – global warming Chinese hoax
Twitter: Donald Trump – Decision on Paris Accord
Axios: Scoop – Trump tells confidants U.S. will quit Paris climate deal
New Scientist: Environment chief says US should exit Paris climate agreement
CNBC: Elon Musk threatens to leave White House advisory councils if Trump drops Paris accord
Twitter: Elon Musk – will have to resign from councils
Radio NZ: Donald Trump withdraws US from Paris climate deal
RT News: ‘Height of egotism’ – North Korea blasts US withdrawal from Paris climate accord
Twitter: Elon Musk – departing presidential councils
Twitter: Elon Musk – China committed to producing clean electricity
Scientific American: Ahead of Trump Decision, China Says It Will Stick to Paris Climate Deal
China Dialogue: Chinese cities most at risk from rising sea levels
RT News: Russia confirms commitment to Paris climate change agreement amid fears of US pullout
Media Matters: Right-wing media cheer Trump withdrawing United States from the Paris climate agreement
Fortune.Com: Top CEOs Are In a Last Ditch Bid to Persuade Trump to Stick with the Paris Climate Deal
Twitter: Marc Benioff – Decision on Paris Accord
Tesla: All Our Patent Are Belong To You
Wikipedia: Open Source Model
Twitter: Frank Macskasy – sharing Tesla
Previous related blogposts
Trumpwatch: One minute closer to midnight on the Doomsday Clock
Trumpwatch: What’s a few more nails in the planet’s coffin?
.
.
.
.
.
= fs =
.
.
Two recent media stories, on two utterly disparate issues, were clear examples of how tax-payer funded media “spin doctors” were guiding government ministers to respond to questions in a certain way.
Two interviews; two ministers; both on Radio New Zealand’s ‘Morning Report‘ – and both interviews left the audience none-the-wiser afterwards.
.
.
The first, on 5 August, featured Finance and Social Housing Minister, Bill English, defending Housing NZ’s use of flawed testing regimes for methamphetamine-use in state housing.
On 20 June this year, Housing NZ admitted that the current testing for methamphetamine use (smoking) was flawed;
“…The current standard guidelines were written to address meth ‘cooking’ and not use, meaning they are not entirely suitable for the contamination that occurs through use of meth.
The Ministry of Health guidelines were written a while ago. At that time it wasn’t perceived that consumption would be at the levels that it has reached. For this reason the guidelines do not cover all they need to.”
Drug Foundation executive director, Ross Bell, was scathing;
“I think they’re out of control…
[…]
I don’t know how they can justify that. Housing New Zealand has spent over $20 million in the last financial year doing these tests and these cleanups. Knowing that these are flawed the minister should step in and stop taxpayers’ money being wasted and vulnerable people being punished.”
Despite the testing regime – which TVNZ’s ‘Fair Go‘ programme used to “detect” methamphetamine on bank-notes – “not fit for purpose”, Housing NZ has continued to use the flawed guidelines to evict tenants;
.
.
Housing NZ Minister, Bill English, agreed that the testing for methamphetamine was flawed;
“They’re operating to a Ministry of Health guideline which I understand is internationally standard, but is regarded as not quite appropriate, particularly for dealing for use of P in houses…
[…]
Now, the test as I understand it, indicates the presence of any P at all which may be a very low health risk.”
The interesting aspect to Radio NZ’s Susie Ferguson’s interview with Minister English was not that he disagreed with the premise that the P testing regime was flawed. He gave a straight answer to Ms Ferguson’s question;
Susie Ferguson: “Are these tests fit for purpose?”
Bill English: “Ah, no. And Housing NZ have said that.”
English then spent the next seven minutes defending the flawed testing regime.
In part of his interview, the “g”-word became glaringly prominent;
“Housing New Zealand is in the position where there is currently a moh guideline, you can’t just wish that away – Housing New Zealand are not health experts.
Ministry of Health stand by the guideline, and the Ministry of Health are the statutory organisation that promulgates the guideline.
I think everyone involved with this is frustrated, I suppose except for the scientists that gave us the guideline in the first place.”
It is obvious what phrase English’s media spin-doctors told him to stay “on-message”.
He referred to “guidelines” no less than sixteen times within those seven minutes.
.
.
On 8 August, in an unrelated matter, our esteemed Dear Leader, John Key, was interviewed over China’s threats to launch a trade war if New Zealand investigated cheap imports/dumping of sub-standard Chinese steel.
As Vernon Small described the situation on 4 August, in the Dominion Post;
Now let’s see if we’ve got this right.
In early June Chinese officials find a type of fungus (Neofabraea actinidiae) on board a bunch of kiwifruit heading into the country.
Nothing much happens.
Then in early July a message is passed, through back channels, to Zespri and Fonterra (and potentially other primary producers) that China is extremely peeved that a complaint has been laid about the potential dumping of cheap Chinese steel in our market.
A steel inquiry by regulators here could lead to the imposition of non-tariff barriers that could slow down our exports, the warning suggests. And, what’s more, China is angry that the complaint was even accepted for consideration by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).
After some to-ing and fro-ing, China officially denies it draws a link between a potential steel-dumping inquiry and sales of our food products. The various New Zealand agencies and exporters chant in unison that it is an “unsubstantiated rumour” that such a link had been made.
Trade Minister Todd McClay at first tries to dismiss media reports as reflecting a single low-level source talking to Zespri. But he later back tracks and apologises to Prime Minister John Key and concedes the Zespri warning was not all. In fact, there had been “discussions and limited correspondence over the past few months as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has endeavoured to assess the veracity of these reports”. But in the end they were not verified.
[…]
On July 22, Zespri said it had experienced no problems.
But on July 29, just a few weeks after the initial “warning” – and right in sync with that warning – Chinese border agencies impose non-tariff barriers, involving a risk notification and strengthened inspection and quarantine processes, on our kiwifruit.
Zespri says their unwelcome fungal friend does not affect food safety and is not a pathogen. It exists in several countries, including New Zealand, Australia, Holland, the United States and Ecuador – and potentially China itself, the home of the chinese gooseberry to which the noble kiwifruit is whakapapa.
But in contrast with Zespri’s relatively sanguine view, the Chinese notice from the AQSIQ, the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, describes Mr and Mrs Neofabraea actinidiae in very unflattering terms as a “rot pathogen” and a “major disease” that could infect other fruit such as apples and persimmons, thus inflicting “serious economic loss”.
It saying the fungus hails from New Zealand and Australia – the targets of Chinese suspicions that we are acting in league with Uncle Sam.
And through it all ministers and Zespri are ruling out any link to the “unsubstantiated” trade threat. “China throws up these non-tariff barriers all the time” is the tenor of the message emanating from the Beehive. Nothing to see here.
(The full text of Vernon Small’s analysis is worth reading, and reminiscent of the sort of critical journalistic insights that we used to have in abundance in the Fourth Estate, and which could ultimately do great harm to an encumbent government’s reputation.)
On Radio NZ’s Morning Report, on 8 August, Guyon Espiner interviewed our esteemed Dear Leader on China’s blocking of our kiwifruit exports.
Key’s responses to Espiner’s questions were a tribute to the Prime Minister’s media spin-doctors. Throughout the entire four and a half minutes interview, Key stayed on-message, referring to the blocking of Zespri’s export as “a technical issue“.
The phrase “technical issue” was used three times.
Other answers given were verbose – but not very enlightening for the listener;
Espiner: “Did he [Todd McClay] tell the truth about that, though?”
Key: “Yeah, he did, but he was-“
Espiner: “You said he was dancing on the head of a pin.”
Key: “He was very specific in the answer that he gave to a very specific question.”
Espiner: “He was misleading, wasn’t he?”
Key: “Well, I just think, in our business the problem is that even though often a journalist will ask me a direct and specific question, you really know they’re asking a broader question. And it’s kind of tidier if you can at least give a, give them [a] more fulsome answer.”
So according to Key, if “a journalist will ask… a direct and specific question, you really know they’re asking a broader question“?
This was quintessential Key silly-speak for “Yes, Todd McClay lied”.
The curious aspect to Key’s “spun” answers is that Guyon Espiner – a seasoned journalist of the calibre of Lisa Owen, Kim Hill, Simon Walker, et al – allowed Key to make his specious drivel unchallenged.
At the very least, Espiner should have challenged Key of his references to “technical matters” with the simple question,
“Prime Minister, is the phrase “technical matters” the on-message phrase you’ve been told to use?”
Key would have responded with a resounding “No, of course not!”.
But that would have blown that phrase out of the water from that point on in the interview. The carefully ‘spun’ message crafted by his spin-doctors would have been rendered neutralised, and Key would have had to rely on other answers to Espiner’s probing. Perhaps even something approaching the truth.
The best way to counter “spin” is to clearly identify it as such.
.
.
In 1991, when former Finance Minister, Bill Birch, was promoting the Employment Contracts Bill to the New Zealand public and media, his constant mantra was that it would “raise real wages”;
” The challenge New Zealand faces in industrial relations is to create an environment that delivers high productivity, high income and high employment.”
The promise of “higher wages” was an attempt to justify the de-unionised, laissez-faire bargaining aspects of the Employment Contracts Act (later passed into law as an Act of Parliament).
But such was not to be. As economist, Andrew Morrison, reported for the Parliamentary Library in 1996;
“The content of employment contracts has also changed. There are more flexible work practices, greater multi-skilling and increased use of performance pay. Rates for overtime and penal rates have dropped.
[…]
Econometric work shows the ECA as having had no significant effect on the aggregate level of wages. There may have been some deterioration in working conditions, however evidence is not clear-cut.”
Birch’s claims of the ECA “raising wages” were utterly bogus of course.
In reality, the Act increased wages for a few – but either froze or reduced wages for the majority, as Morrison pointed out.
It was the first occassion when this blogger noticed an oft-repeated phrase used by a politician to promote a wildly unpopular piece of legislation. It may have been one of the first (?) uses of ‘spin’ in such a context (as opposed to mis-use of information or outright lies).
In 1991, the “raising wages” mantra was not challenged in any meaningful way (that this blogger can recall).
A quarter of a century later, we still seem to have a problem with political ‘spin’.
The scary thing is, that our elected representatives don’t really seem perturbed that we recognise their ‘spin’ for what it is. In a post-truth environment, it seems to be the “new norm”.
As Andrea Vance wrote in an opinion piece on 1 July;
Politicians are now playing a game in which it’s up to their opponents to fact-check, to catch out their lies. (“People have had enough of experts,” as British Tory leadership hopeful Michael Gove put it.)
They presume media and the voters should accept what they say as fact.
Earlier this week, Trump’s supporter Jeffrey Lord dismissed this “fact-checking business” as an “elitist, media-type thing”.
People only care about “what the candidates say”, he added.
But if what the candidates say are bare-faced lies…then where does that leave us?
Indeed, where does that leave us?
Perhaps needing new standards for political honesty?
We can call them “guidelines“.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Drug Foundation critical of meth contamination evictions
Housing NZ: HNZ supports new meth standards committee
Radio NZ: English calls for more specific housing meth tests
Radio NZ: Expert questions meth contamination evictions
Radio NZ: NZ braces for effects on Zespri’s halt of kiwifruit exports
Fairfax media: China’s attack on kiwifruit after trade reprisal warning ‘just a coincidence’
Radio NZ: NZ braces for effects on Zespri’s halt of kiwifruit exports
Parliamentary Library: The Employment Contracts Act and its Economic Impact – Andrew Morrison, Economist (November 1996)
Otago.ac.nz: Labour’s Labour Relations
Additional
TV1 News: A post-truth era in politics
TV1 News: Perhaps the Government might want to say sorry
Radio NZ: Is a ‘post-truth’ era upon us?
Radio NZ: Give facts a chance
Previous related blogposts
Military ‘spin-doctoring’ – the media catch-up
Paula Bennett on unemployment: spin baby, spin!
The Dark Art of ‘Spin’ – How It’s Done
The Dark Art of ‘Spin’ – How It’s Done (Part #Rua)
“Spin me a conspiracy”, said Dear Leader!
“Spin me a brain exchange”, said Dear Leader!
National Party spin on Aaron Gilmore and MMP
National spins BS to undermine Labour’s Capital Gains Tax
Housing Minister Paula Bennett continues National’s spin on rundown State Houses
The Mendacities of Mr English – Fibbing from Finance Minister confirmed
.
.
.
.
.
= fs =
.
.
When news of the kidnapping of Australians and a New Zealand citizen in Nigeria hit our headlines, our esteemed Dear Leader’s response was unequivocal;
.
.
Key was adamant;
“Our very strong policy is not to pay a ransom and our reason for that is we think if we paid a ransom, we’d potentially put a bounty on any New Zealander’s head who travels to a dangerous part of the world, and it potentially makes the situation worse.”
Our Leader was not for turning. Key does not cave in to pressures.
Or, so it seems…
In October 2010, the country was “rocked” with news that that the Hobbit movies would be “taken away” from New Zealand;
Jackson’s company, Wingnut Films, said in a statement that Warners representatives were coming to New Zealand next week “to make arrangements to move the production offshore” because “they are now, quite rightly, very concerned about the security of their investment.”
A week after Peter Jackson’s dire warnings of impending Mordor-like doom, Dear Leader Key intervened and rode like a Ranger to the rescue (in a BMW limousine, not a stallion);
.
.
Even the Warner Bros movie execs had stallions limos provided (at taxpayers’ expense, yet again) when they came-a-visitin’ to New Zealand to collect their $34 million bucks;
.
.
Along with $34 million of taxpayer’s money paid over to Warner Bros, the National government passed legislation changing the status of Jackson’s workers from employees, to “contractors”. This lessened the working-conditions of people working throughout New Zealand’s movie industry.
The employment law changes passed through Parliament within forty eight hours – a feat unheard of in New Zealand’s political process. Unions, workers, and the public had no say in the matter.
As Key said at the time,
“It was a commercial reality that without this [law] change, these movies would not be made in New Zealand.”
So the sovereignty of New Zealand’s Parliament was not ransomed by Warner Bros to gain $34 million plus a change in our labour laws?
Note: On 21 December 2010, two months after Jackson declared that there was an imminent threat to losing The Hobbit to another country, he conceded that no such “threat” existed;
.
.
Three years later, Rio Tinto threatened to close it’s Tiwai Point aluminium smelter if it’s demands were not met;
Mining giant Rio Tinto has rejected the Government’s offer of a short-term subsidy to continue running the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter.
Instead, it has gone back into negotiations with electricity supplier Meridian to try and get a better deal.
If no deal is made, Prime Minister John Key says the smelter, 79 percent owned by Rio Tinto and 21 percent owned by Japanese company Sumitomo, could be shut down in about five years.
In February 2014, National conceded to Rio Tinto’s demands that it’s electricity subsidies be increased. A further ‘sweetener’ of $30 million of taxpayer’s money was paid over to the smelting multi-national;
.
.
As Key said at the time;
“If Tiwai Point had closed straight away then hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of jobs would have disappeared and the Greens would have said the Government doesn’t care about those workers and is turning their back on them so they really can’t have it both ways.”
This was echoed by Finance Minister, Bill English;
“The $30m was a ‘one-off incentive payment’ to help secure agreement on the revised contract because of the importance of the smelter to the stability of the New Zealand electricity market.”
So the jobs of eight hundred jobs in Southland were not ransomed by Rio Tinto to gain $30 million plus cheaper electricity rates?
John Key says his government will not pay ransom to extortionists?
His track record proves otherwise.
.
.
References
Fairfax media: John Key – NZ won’t pay ransom for Kiwi kidnapped by gunmen in Nigeria
Hitfix: ‘Hobbit’ Crisis – Peter Jackson warns film could leave New Zealand
National Business review: Key comes through – $34m deal sees Hobbit stay in NZ
NZ Herald: PM defends $30m payout to Rio Tinto
Fairfax media: Govt pays $30 million to Tiwai Pt
Previous related blogposts
The real reason for the GCSB Bill
Muppets, Hobbits, and Scab ‘Unions’
And the Oscar for Union-Smashing and Manipulating Public Opinion goes to…
The Mendacities of Mr Key #9: The Sky’s the limit with taxpayer subsidies!
The cupboard is bare, says Dear Leader
Government Minister sees history repeat – responsible for death
The Mendacities of Mr Key # 16: No one deserves a free tertiary education (except my mates and me)
The Corporate Welfare of Tiwai Point – An exercise in National’s “prudent fiscal management”?
.
.
.
.
.
= fs =
.
.
Fun Fact #1
Since 1986, there have been no less than seven tax cuts in New Zealand;
1 October 1986 – Labour
1 October 1988 – Labour
1 July 1996 – National
1 July 1998 – National
1 October 2008 – Labour
1 April 2009 – National
1 October 2010 – National
Fun Fact #2
John Key says he supports New Zealanders paid higher wages. In fact, he stated that desire in 2007, and repeated it in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012;
.
“We think Kiwis deserve higher wages and lower taxes during their working lives, as well as a good retirement.” – John Key, 27 May 2007
.
“We will be unrelenting in our quest to lift our economic growth rate and raise wage rates.” – John Key, 29 January 2008
.
“We want to make New Zealand an attractive place for our children and grandchildren to live – including those who are currently living in Australia, the UK, or elsewhere. To stem that flow so we must ensure Kiwis can receive competitive after-tax wages in New Zealand.” – John Key, 6 September 2008
.
“I don’t want our talented young people leaving permanently for Australia, the US, Europe, or Asia, because they feel they have to go overseas to better themselves.” – John Key, 15 July 2009
.
“Science and innovation are important. They’re one of the keys to growing our economy, raising wages, and providing the world-class public services that Kiwi families need.” – John Key, 12 March 2010
.
“We will also continue our work to increase the incomes New Zealanders earn. That is a fundamental objective of our plan to build a stronger economy.” – John Key, 8 February 2011
.
“The driving goal of my Government is to build a more competitive and internationally-focused economy with less debt, more jobs and higher incomes.” – John Key, 21 December 2011
.
“We want to increase the level of earnings and the level of incomes of the average New Zealander and we think we have a quality product with which we can do that.” – John Key, 19 April 2012
Mr Key has not repeated those statements since April 2012.
Fun Fact #3
The gender pay gap in New Zealand has worsened, from 9.9% last year to 11.8% this year;
.
.
Timeline
Kristine Bartlett and the Service and Food Workers Union lodge a claim with the Employment Relations Authority, alleging Ms Bartlett’s employer Terranova Homes and Care Ltd was in breach of the Equal Pay Act 1972.
Ms Bartlett’s case referred to the Employment Court as it raises an important question of law.
A preliminary Employment Court hearing held on questions of law.
Landmark ruling on equal pay welcomed
Unions are hailing an Employment Court decision which allows a female rest home caregiver to argue she is underpaid because she is in a female-dominated industry.
Hutt Valley woman Kristine Bartlett is arguing her employer Terranova Homes is violating equal pay for equal work legislation, saying she would get more money if she was not working in an industry dominated by female staff.
The Employment Court held a preliminary hearing after Terranova Homes argued the court could only compare staff within its own workplace and not look at other workplaces.
The three court judges say the legislation makes specific provision for work predominantly performed by women.
The law says pay rates must be the same as male employees with the same, or substantially similar, skills, responsibility and service performing the work under substantially similar conditions and with substantially similar effort.
The judges said there was no way gender discrimination in pay could be removed if they could not compare pay rates more widely.
Terranova appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeal.
A decision on a landmark pay equality case has been reserved by the Court of Appeal.
The Employment Court last year found in favour of Lower Hutt caregiver Kristine Bartlett, who argued her $14.32 hourly pay rate was a result of gender discrimination under the Equal Pay Act.
The ruling – which paves the way for pay equality in the female-dominated aged care sector – has been challenged in the Court of Appeal by Ms Bartlett’s employer, Terranova Homes. The two-day hearing finished yesterday with the decision by Justices Mark O’Regan, Lynton Stevens and Christine French reserved.
The Court of Appeal has supported an Employment Court decision which ruled that a Lower Hutt rest home worker should receive pay parity with other equivalent sectors.
Kristine Bartlett won her landmark Employment Court case last year – arguing that being paid less than 15 dollars per hour, despite working in rest homes for over 20 years, was discriminatory. Her employer, Terranova Homes and Care, took the issue to the Court of Appeal. But the Appeal Court has dismissed the appeal, saying the language and purpose of the Equal Pay Act back up the decision by the Employment Court.
Today the New Zealand Aged Care Association will appeal to the Supreme Court on behalf of TerraNova Homes and Care Limited in their case with the Service and Food Workers’ Union and Kristine Bartlett.
“This case has vast implications for all New Zealanders and we felt compelled to have the highest court in the land settle the questions around the Equal Pay Act 1972 once and for all,” said Martin Taylor, CEO of the NZACA.
“In handing down its recent judgement, the Court of Appeal said the decision was finely balanced with strong arguments favouring both sides. We believe the issue must be seriously looked at and tested again.
Supreme Court denies Terranova leave to appeal in landmark pay equity case
The Supreme Court has denied aged care provider Terranova Homes and Care, at the centre of a landmark court case paving the way for gender pay equity, leave to appeal the ruling.In October the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Terranova Homes against an earlier Employment Court ruling backing Lower Hutt rest home worker Kristine Bartlett’s claim that women care workers’ low pay was discriminatory. She took a case against her employer, arguing her $14.32 an hour pay rate was a result of gender discrimination under the Equal Pay Act.
The Service and Food Workers Union also made a claim on behalf of 15 other caregivers employed by the company, asking for a statement of the general principles to be observed for implementing equal pay.
In a Supreme Court decision out this afternoon, the judges said it considered the company’s appeal premature.
Equal pay on the way for women?
The government has set up a taskforce to look into pay equity issues, which could lead to a change to the current law.
Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety Michael Woodhouse said unions and employers had agreed to a working group to establish principles for dealing with pay equity claims.
It had been prompted by a recent Court of Appeal decision on pay rates in the aged care sector, which found women in predominantly female workforces were paid less.
Early 2016
Case scheduled to go before the Employment Court to early 2016 (dates to be determined).
The Case: exploited labour
The case of Kristine Bartlett is a relatively simple one. For twentytwo years working-experience in rest-home facilities she earned just barely above minimum wage. Since the 1990s, her wages have risen by $5.
Ms Bartlett’s profession is predominantly female, and like many female-dominated professions, it is paid less than male-equivalent jobs.
As Fairfax media Christie Hall wrote on 19 January;
On 23 August 2013, the Employment Court ruled that Ms Bartlett’s was in fact underpaid because she worked in a female-dominated industry. (The document is well-worth reading and provides sound, rational, and carefully-constructed argument for advancing equal pay for women.)
Subsequent Court decisions have upheld the Employment Court (see Timeline above).
The NZ Aged Care Association (NZACA) has expended large sums of money on legal action to thwart the cost of raising wages for aged-care workers. NZACA fears the increased cost of a ballooning wages-bill impacting on it’s members, which has traditionally relied on low-paid labour to operate.
In October 2014, in a press release published on nzdoctor.co.nz, NZACA stated;
Unfortunately the Government subsidy for aged care is not enough for providers to make a profit. Over the last decade, 200 aged care facilities have closed primarily for financial reasons. The majority of these facilities relied on the government’s subsidy for their revenue.
[…]
The existing aged care sector cannot afford to increase all aged care worker’s wages at an estimated cost of $120 – $140 million alone – the sector will need increased Government subsidies to prevent further closures of our aged care facilities.
In an undated statement on NZACA’s website, the Association states;
The Government contract undervalues the worth of caregivers working in the private aged care sector. A caregiver working in a District Health Board geriatric hospital receives on average $17.50 an hour compared with an average hourly rate of $15.30 in our sector.
NZCA has been lobbying Government for many years to put more money into this sector which cares for New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens.
And in November 2014, NZACA’s CEO, Martin Taylor, stated;
“Another reason why we need to appeal is that there are hundreds of rest homes operated by individuals and community trusts from Kaitaia to Bluff who have told us they would close if wages went up significantly and funding stayed the same.
When you understand this reality we have no option but to appeal, despite everyone agreeing caregivers are worth more.”
On 23 December last year Service and Food Workers Union National secretary, John Ryall, said it was about time the Government took responsibility to achieve gender pay equity;
“The Government is the sector funder and it is really up to it to decide whether it wants a resolution to the long standing pay equity issue,” he said.
Encouraging National to act will be no easy task to achieve.
Bronwen Beechey, writing for Fightback! on 17 April 2015, pointed out National’s apalling track record when it came to implementing equal pay legislation;
The Employment Equity Act was passed in 1990, but repealed within months after the National Party came to government.
In 2009, the current National government abolished the Pay and Employment Equity plan of Action and the Pay and Employment Equity Unit that had been set up in the Department of Labour in 2004.
A cynic would suggest that low wages assist National to reduce the amount it has to pay to subsidise aged-care workers. It is providing a service ‘on-the-cheap’, in a way similar to fast-food chains employing staff at minimum wage, to produce high-carb, fat-laden, ‘fast food’.
In fact, it would not be the first time that National has been exposed as supporting low wages – despite Key’s pious utterances otherwise.
Three and a half years ago, on 10 April 2011, on TVNZ’s Q+A, English made his now-infamous comments justifying a low-wage economy;
“Well, it’s a way of competing, isn’t it? I mean, if we want to grow this economy, we need the capital – more capital per worker – and we’re competing for people as well…
… we need to get on with competing with Australia. So if you take an area like tourism, we are competing with Australia. We’re trying to get Australians here instead of spending their tourist dollar in Australia.”
Three years later, on 30 July 2014, John Key appeared to ‘forget’ his earlier pronouncements on increasing wages when he responded to a question in Parliament from David Cunliffe;
Hon David Cunliffe: Will the Prime Minister support the pay increase for the quarter of a million workers who would directly benefit from Labour’s minimum wage changes, which will provide a significant boost to the economy through boosting workers’ spending power?
Rt Hon John Key: In a word, no. The reason for that is I am not so irresponsible that I would say to 6,000 New Zealanders that they are losing their jobs because the Labour Party is polling at 25 percent—
No wonder E Tu union spokesperson, Alistair Duncan, was wary of how National would respond to the Court rulings, as he said on 21 October;
“This is a well-timed and very smart move – if we can deliver genuine equal pay, it will be a very good thing. But it’s not certain and we now need to work very hard to make sure we get equal pay for equal value.”
Meanwhile, as aged-care workers (and low-paid women workers in other industries) have had their case validated by the Courts, employers are not so happy. A new ‘bogey-man’ was erected by the Employers and Manufacturers Association CEO;
Employers and Manufacturers Association chief executive Kim Campbell said the task force would need to establish clear terms of reference, because comparing the relative value of different jobs was complex.
He said any decision to boost pay rates in some industries would come with a cost.
“The government has the greatest interest in this because they’re paying for most of the aged care and hospital workers and they must be concerned that if you increase their salaries, people’s taxes may go through the roof.”
This argument that, by increasing wages, people’s taxes “may go through the roof” is not just over-the-top scare-mongering – but is instructive of the mentality of individuals like Kim Campbell.
The argument that Campbell is putting forward is that taxpayers are entitled to cheap labour.
Is this the inevitable consequence after seven tax cuts, spanning twentynine years?
Because if reduced tax revenue has resulted in central government being unable to pay fair wages for workers (whether as state sector employees or subsidised workers in the private sector), then we have created a rod for our own backs.
Regardless whether sufficient tax revenue exists or not, Campbell’s suggestion that taxpayers are somehow justified in expecting an exploited workforce is odious. It is attempting to re-create a quasi-modern-day slave work-force.
The Employment Court addressed this very issue in it’s 22 August 2013 Judgment:
History is redolent with examples of strongly voiced concerns about the
implementation of anti-discrimination initiatives on the basis that they will spell
financial and social ruin, but which prove to be misplaced or have been acceptable as
the short term price of the longer term social good. The abolition of slavery is an old
example, and the prohibition on discrimination in employment based on sex is both a
recent and particularly apposite example. [pg 32]
If successive governments were foolish in cutting taxes (usually as election bribes) to such a level that the State can no longer afford to pay for services New Zealanders expect as of right, then the solution is crystal clear: raise taxes.
Or go without.
I doubt many National-voting New Zealanders will happily contemplate a future in their dotage without a workforce of aged-care staff who are remunerated sufficiently to wipe the spittle from their wrinkled chins; change their faeces-and-urine-soaked underwear; and all the other myriad tasks associated with necessary good care.
Just how much do New Zealanders want aged-care in their twilight years?
If we do, we should be prepared to pay for it.
National Prompted to act
The successful court cases supporting Kristin Bartlett’, equal-pay case has prompted National to finally move on the problem;
The government has set up a taskforce to look into pay equity issues, which could lead to a change to the current law.
Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety Michael Woodhouse said unions and employers had agreed to a working group to establish principles for dealing with pay equity claims.
It had been prompted by a recent Court of Appeal decision on pay rates in the aged care sector, which found women in predominantly female workforces were paid less.
Mr Woodhouse said there were other cases before the courts.
“We believe the most efficient way to deal with that, and to step back and take a look at what the principles for pay equity might look like is to get this working group together, and I’m very pleased we’ve been able to do that.”
Unions had agreed to put legal action on hold until March 2016 to allow the working group to proceed, he said.
This problem could never be resolved without government involvement. By subsidising aged-care workers, it is in effect, a secondary employer, and therefore has responsibilities to make good an untenable and unfair situation.
Otherwise, if National cannot resolve this decades long problem, more radical and direct solutions need to be considered.
Possible solutions
If private enterprise cannot pay it’s workers a fair wage, as well as operate effectively, then the State has a responsibility to intervene and assume a more direct role.
Neo-liberal activists and fellow-travellers may balk at such a suggestion, but they should consider one important factor they may have forgotten: we all grow old eventually. Including free-marketeers.
Appendix1
Legislation.
Court may state principles for implementation of equal pay
The court shall have power from time to time, of its own motion or on the application of any organisation of employers or employees, to state, for the guidance of parties in negotiations, the general principles to be observed for the implementation of equal pay in accordance with the provisions of sections 3 to 8.
Appendix2
Employment Court.
[108]
Reference was also made to the likely high costs of adopting a broader
approach, if it leads to a significant wage increase for the plaintiff members.
The Aged Care Association made the point that it receives funding from the Government,
via the Ministry of Health, on a per bed basis and that it would not be able to absorb
any increase. Although the Ministry was invited to appear as intervener it apparently
declined to do so. Accordingly, we did not have the benefit of hearing from it. In
any event, it is apparent that the Government of the day, in promoting the Bill, was
aware of the potential financial implications of the legislation. The Minister
of Labour made the point that female industries would feel the greatest impact in terms
of cost, a point later echoed by the Hon E S F Holland. [pg 31]
[109]
Further, and more fundamentally, the expressed concerns relating to cost
overlook one important point, namely the unquantifiable cost (including societal
cost) of adopting an approach which may have the effect of perpetuating
discrimination against a significant and vulnerable group in the community simply
because they are women, doing what has been described as undervalued women’s work. [pg 32]
[110]
History is redolent with examples of strongly voiced concerns about the
implementation of anti-discrimination initiatives on the basis that they will spell
financial and social ruin, but which prove to be misplaced or have been acceptable as
the short term price of the longer term social good. The abolition of slavery is an old
example, and the prohibition on discrimination in employment based on sex is both a
recent and particularly apposite example. [pg 32]
– Employment Court – Judgment: 22 August 2013
Appendix3
Employment Court.
Never let it be said that the Employment Court is bereft of a sense of humour, as this comment suggests;
The purpose of the Equal Pay Act is plain, and is reflected in its long title. [p 9]
Appendix4
On 2 April, Aged Care Association’s CEO, Martin Taylor, left his role at NZACA and assumed a new position as Labour leader, Andrew Little’s, director of research and policy. The nzdoctor.co.nz press release refers to Taylor’s role in the Kristin Bartlett equal-pay case.
.
.
References
Ministry for Women: Gender pay gap
Radio NZ: Caregivers back equal pay campaign
New Zealand Aged Care Association: Equal Pay Case
TV3 News: Landmark ruling on equal pay welcomed
NZ Herald: Landmark pay equality case decision reserved
Scoop media: Court dismisses appeal by Hutt rest home, supports decision on equal pay
Scoop media: TerraNova Case Appealed To Supreme Court
Scoop media: Supreme Court denies Terranova leave to appeal in pay case
Radio NZ: Equal pay on the way for women?
Radio NZ: Landmark ruling for women
Fairfax media: Where next for equal pay
Nzdoctor.co.nz: Understanding caregiver wages in aged residential care
Fightback!: Fight for Equal Pay continues
TVNZ Q+A: Guyon Espiner interviws Bill English (April 2011)
Parliament: Hansards – Wage Rates – Growth, Inequality, and Minimum Wage
Legislation: Equal Pay Act 1972
Employment Court: Judgment: 22 August 2013
Nzdoctor.co.nz: Andrew Little headhunts Aged Care boss Martin Taylor
Additional
NBR: National bows to minimum wage myths – ACT
NZ Herald: Battle to close the pay gap
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
.
.
.
.
.
= fs =
.
.
We all know the story by now; how Key admitted to discussing a convention-centre deal over dinner with Skycity executives on 4 November 2009,
“I attended a dinner with the Sky City board 4 November 2009 where we discussed a possible national convention centre and they raised issues relating to the Gambling Act 2003”.
The lack of transparency in the deal-making process was subsequently criticised by the Auditor-General in February 2013. Toby Manhire from The Listener listed ten quotes outlining the AG’s dissatisfaction with Key and his officials’ behaviour;
1. “We found a range of deficiencies in the advice provided and steps taken leading up to [the] decision.”
2. “Although decisions were made on the merits of the different proposals, we do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even handed.”
3. “By the time it was expected that SkyCity would put a firm proposal to the Government for support, officials should have been working to understand and advise on the procedural obligations and principles that would need to govern the next steps. We found no evidence that officials were doing so at this stage.”
4. “The meetings and discussion between the Government representatives and SkyCity were materially different in quantity and kind from those between the Government and the other parties that responded.”
5. “SkyCity was treated very differently from the other parties that responded and the evaluation process effectively moved into a different phase with one party. In our view, the steps that were taken were not consistent with good practice principles of transparency and fairness.”
6. “Overall, we regard the EOI [expressions of interest] process in stage two as having been poorly planned and executed. Insufficient attention was given to planning and management of the process as a whole, so that risks were not adequately addressed and managed.”
7. “We did not see any evidence of formal discussions or decisions on the evaluation process and criteria, or mapping out of the basic options for what might happen next, or advice to Ministers on how the process would be managed and their involvement in it. We do not regard this as adequate for a project of this potential scale, complexity, and risk.”
8. “We have concluded that the preparation for the EOI process and the EOI document, fell short of good practice in a number of respects.”
9. “In our view, the result was that one potential submitter had a clearer understanding of the actual position on a critical issue – that the Government did not want to fund any capital costs – than any other potential submitters … We accept that it is unlikely that this flaw made a material difference to the outcome. However, we have spent some time discussing it because we regard it as symptomatic of the lack of attention to procedural risks, and therefore to the fairness and credibility of the process.”
10. “We are unable to comment on the value of any contribution the Government might make as part of any eventual agreement with SkyCity, because negotiations have not yet been concluded.”
Key’s response, in Parliament was an outright denial;
“Absolutely, and the reason for that, as the member will be aware, is that the Auditor-General’s report was divided into three parts. The first part of it was focused on my involvement, and I was totally and utterly cleared and vindicated in that. That was my only involvement.”
The Auditor General, Phillipa Smith, was less than impressed by Key’s attempts at mis-representing her Office’s report as a ‘vindication’;
”That fact that [the report] took 50 or 60 pages suggests that nothing was entirely clear cut. We have said that we found problems with the process that was adopted and so I think the report speaks for itself.”
Right-wing NZ Herald columnist and National sympathiser, John Armstrong, was trenchant in his condemnation of Key’s comments. On 20 February, 2013, he wrote;
Verging on banana republic kind of stuff without the bananas – that is the only conclusion to draw from the deeply disturbing report into the shonkiness surrounding the Government’s selection of SkyCity as the preferred builder and operator of a national convention centre.
The Prime Minister’s attempt to downplay Deputy Auditor-General Phillippa Smith’s findings in advance of their release yesterday by saying he had not lost any sleep from reading draft copies may turn out to be a costly political miscalculation.
John Key may have escaped personal blame for the serious flaws in the old Ministry of Economic Development’s handling of the convention centre project but the report is far worse than he had been leading people to believe.
He is taking refuge in the report’s assurances that no evidence could be found to suggest “inappropriate considerations”, such as connections between political and business leaders, were behind the final decision for the Government to negotiate with SkyCity as the preferred bidder.
In other words, no corruption. Or at least none that could be found.
Right-wing commentator, Matthew Hooton, was more scathing and pulled no punches;
The procurement process for the Auckland centre was a farce and as close to corruption as we ever see in New Zealand.
As reported by the Deputy Auditor-General, Mr Eagleson – whose best friend and Las Vegas gambling buddy is Mark Unsworth, SkyCity’s Wellington lobbyist – had been conducting private talks with SkyCity through 2009 and early 2010, including about what regulatory relief SkyCity wanted.
Mr Eagleson argued a procurement process was unnecessary and that the government should just go with SkyCity on the grounds no one else could realistically compete.
(Hat-tip: No Right Turn.)
Read Hooton’s full column. It is far more critical and insightful than any left-wing commentator (including myself) has been on this issue.
Even before the AG’s investigation and damning report, Key’s figures of extra jobs resulting from the proposed convention centre were in doubt.
On 3 April 2012, Key stated in Parliament;
“I might add, when we were out announcing that we were doing a deal with Len Brown in Auckland, he was quite a little lamb chops before the election, because Len Brown knew as well that it will create 1,000 jobs in its construction, 900 jobs ongoing, hundreds of thousands of visitor nights for a convention centre, and tourists who will be spending twice as much in New Zealand.”
By June, Key’s claims for “1,000 jobs in its construction, 900 jobs ongoing” were questioned by hospitality and travel specialist analyst, Horwath Ltd. Horwath director, Stephen Hamilton, was blunt;
Horwath director Stephen Hamilton said he was concerned over reports the convention centre would employ 800 staff – a fulltime-equivalent total of 500.
He said the feasibility study put the number of people who would be hired at between 318 and 479.
“That’s not the number of employees at the convention centre. That’s the number in the whole economy. Some will be at the convention centre, some will be in the hotels and some will be additional taxi drivers.”
[…]
He also questioned the construction job figures, saying: “I’m not quite sure what the source of that 1000 was.”
The original Horwath report said 150 jobs could be created over a five-year construction period for a total of 750.
But the most well-known promise from Key was that the convention centre would not cost tax-payers a cent. In May 2013, Key justified his deal-making with SkyCity by stating;
“The construction of the new convention centre will not cost taxpayers or ratepayers a cent, with SkyCity meeting the full project costs in return for some concessions from the Government.”
Nearly two years later, inflation appears to have turned “not a cent” into an estimated “$70m to $130m shortfall”, with SkyCity hustling National for a tax-payer bail-out.
On 10 February, Key appeared to have caved to SkyCity pressure to pay a massive taxpayer-funded subsidy to the casino operator;
“I’m keen to see the best convention centre I can for Auckland, because this is a very long-term asset, so I would hate to see some sort of eyesore constructed down town.
There are issues around the construction of it. Obviously you can spend more and get something that looks a lot better, or spend a bit less and get something that looks worse.
In a nutshell, the Government has an agreement with them [SkyCity]. It could make them meet that agreement but the escalation in prices to build the convention centre, which is bigger than was proposed and flasher than was proposed, means there is a hole.
So there are a couple of options. Option one would be to say to Sky City, ‘Build the convention centre exactly at the price that we all agreed, on the conditions of the deal that we agreed’, but it would be smaller I think than we had hoped and less attractive.
Or the second option is to see if there’s any way of filling that hole and to identify how big that hole is, and that’s the process we’re going through.”
By the following day, as a public and media furore exploded in Key’s face, and even his own Finance Minister was cool on the proposed bail-out, he was forced to do a sudden 180-degree u-turn;
“We agreed a deal at $402 million…our strong preference is that the SkyCity convention centre is built and paid for by SkyCity.”
It seems that the public and media have become weary of Key’s continual back-tracking; broken promises; and often outright lies.
This was not the first time that Key had promised the public one thing – and then delivered something else. In October 2010, as an industrial dispute erupted between SPADA and Actor’s Equity, there were threats that Peter Jackson’s “Hobbit” movie project would be moved off-shore (an empty threat as Jackson later revealed).
On 26 October, Key was telling the public that his government would not be paying extra incentives to Warner Bros and that there would be no “bidding war” with other countries to provide greater incentives to the U.S. movie industry;
“If we could make the deal sweeter for them that would help; that’s something we would consider… but we can’t bridge the gap that is potentially on offer from other locations around the world. We’re not prepared to do that and… I don’t think the New Zealand taxpayer would want us to do that.”
When asked about any possible taxpayer subsidies, to match other countries incentives, he added;
“It’s not in the tens of millions, put it that way. There’s a lot of noughts.”
Key was adamant; Warner Bros would not screw another cent out of the New Zealand tax-payer. There were already generous tax breaks in place. So said Dear Leader at 11.45am, on the morning of 27 October;
“They’ve got movies to make and in the end, money talks in Hollywood. That’s just the way it works. We can’t stop other countries around the world putting up much better and more financially-lucrative deals. If it’s just simply a matter of dollars and cents, I’m just not going to write out cheques that New Zealand can’t afford.”
By 7.38pm – barely eight hours later – Key had pulled out the taxpayer chequebook,
“Tax rebates will also be changed for Warner Bros, which will mean up to an extra $NZ20.4 million per movie for Warner Bros, subject to the success of the movies…
… The Government will offset $NZ13.6 million of Warner Bros’ marketing costs as part of the strategic partnership.”
“It was commercial reality. We did the business.”
The subsidy that was supposedly “ not in the tens of millions” became a $34 million tax-payer funded gift to Warner Bros – on top of a 15% tax-break given to the movie industry – a tax-break not available to any other industry in this country.
Key had caved to the movie moguls from Hollywood, and the tax-payer would foot the bill.
Three years later, the next corporation to hold a “gun” to Key’s head and extort millions in tax-dollars was Rio Tinto.
As State Owned powerco’s were being partially privatised, the multi-national corporation demanded their electricity-supply contract be “re-negotiated” and tax-payer “assistance” to keep the smelter at Tiwai Point afloat during low aluminium prices – or else the facility would be closed. The threat was the loss of 800 jobs (some claimed indirect jobs up to 3,000) and economic activity that was claimed to be 10% of Southland’s GDP.
With the possible closure of the smelter – which uses 15% of the country’s electricity – the price of power would collapse, making shares in Meridian, Genesis, and Mighty River Power worth only a fraction of their float price.
Key bravely asserted on 3 April 2013 that government and the New Zealand tax-payer would not be “held hostage” to Rio Tinto’s threats of closure;
“It’s quite possible that that power could be used either by new ventures that come to New Zealand or, alternatively, it would allow some less productive assets to be closed down or it would allow New Zealand not to build as much generation as might be required.”
Five months later, on 8 August 2013, Key had surrendered to Rio Tinto’s demands and as well as a deal for increased electricity subsidies, National handed over a cheque for $30 million to the corporation.
Key justified the tax-payer bail-out and increased subsidies by pointing to saving jobs;
“If Tiwai Point had closed straight away then hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of jobs would have disappeared and the Greens would have said the Government doesn’t care about those workers and is turning their back on them so they really can’t have it both ways.”
However, the loss of thousands of jobs from the economy seems not to have taxed Key’s concerns when it came to thousands of State sector workers being made redundant;
.
.
By February the following year, Rio Tinto posted a US$3.7 billion profit, and issued a 15% increase in dividends to it’s shareholders. Part of the dividends pocketed by shareholders was no doubt made up of $30 million gifted from the pockets of hard working New Zealand tax-payers.
Soon after the tax-payer funded bail-out of Rio Tinto, Green Party MP, Gareth Hughes made this remarkably prescient comment;
“Treasury told National right from the start ‘don’t give them any money’ – it just means every corporation will have its hand out for public money whenever they have any leverage over the Government.
[…]
Is that how you want your government to govern? Do you want your government playing fast and loose with public money; using your cash as a bargaining chip to cut deals over the phone with multi-nationals every time it finds itself backed into a corner?”
I can answer Gareth’s question: the next corporation with it’s hand out is SkyCity.
John Key plays fast and loose with tax-payers’ money – not to save jobs – but to present an appearance to the public that National is “saving” jobs. It is a matter of the public’s perception he is focused on.
If that involves handing out cheques to Warner Bros, Rio Tinto, and now possibly SkyCity – he will do it.
This is the party that prides itself on being a “sound, prudent, fiscal manager” of the government’s books. Except that New Zealand governments have not engaged in this kind of tax-payer funded largesse since Supplementary Minimum Prices were paid to farmers in the 1960s and 1970s.
That, to, was initiated by the supposedly pro-free market National Party.
Which leads on to an interesting situation regarding this government; it’s lip-service to the “free market” and supposed hands-off by the State. Committed right wing National/ACT supporters should be asking themselves three very pertinent questions:
One thing, though, should now be clear to all; Key will say one thing, and then renege and do completely the opposite if it suits him politically.
One would think that any self-respecting journo from the media (no, not you, Mike Hosking) these days would be asking Key a very simple question;
“Mr Prime Minister, you have issued statements in the past and then flip-flopped months down the track. Why should we take anything you say at face value value, when you have back-tracked so many times previously?”
Put another way;
“Mr Prime Minister, you’ve said what you intend to do. How long before you change your mind when it becomes convenient to do so? You do have ‘form’, you realise?”
Or, even more bluntly;
“Mr Prime Minister, how long will this decision last? Days? Weeks? Six months?
I’ll leave it to esteemed members of the Fourth Estate to frame their questions in a suitable manner.
Just don’t be expecting an honest answer.
.
Opening of Masu at SkyCity Grand Hotel, L to R, SkyCity CEO Nigel Morrison, Julia Smith Bronagh Key and PM John Key, October 12th 2013
.
.
Postscript 1
In terms of past events; past scandals; and past instances where the PM has been caught out – it is by no means the worst.
This time, however, matters have reached a critical flash-point. The media has awoken to a smell of a government on the defensive and where Dear Leader has pushed the envelope once too often. Journalists and media commentators are no longer as tolerant; no longer awed; and no longer willing to be mollified by a popular prime minister.
The Shipley Factor has kicked in.
At this point, nothing that National does will counter the same style of growing clamour of criticism it’s predecessor faced in the late ’90s.
Nothing that has happened since then has caused me to resile from my earlier expressed belief that Key’s current administration is terminal.
.
Postscript 2
‘Natwatch’ from The Standard wrote on 12 February;
“The focus group results are in and John Key is backing off from the Government injecting further money into the SkyCity convention centre.”
Which probably makes more sense than anything else this shabby government has done since 2008.
.
References
NZ Herald: SkyCity deal was PM’s own offer
Office of Auditor General: Skycity
NZ Listener: The SkyCity convention centre deal: 10 quotes from the Auditor-General report
Parliament Today: Questions and Answers – June 4 2013
Fairfax Media: Auditor-general backs Sky City report
NZ Herald: John Armstrong: Sky City report ‘deeply disturbing’
NBR: Close to corruption
Parliament: Prime Minister—Statements and Statements Made on His Behalf
NZ Herald: Puzzle of Key’s extra casino jobs
Fairfax Media: Govt at odds over SkyCity convention centre
NZ Herald: John Key warns of SkyCity ‘eyesore’ if more money is not found
NZ Herald: John Key backtracks on taxpayer cash for SkyCity convention centre
NZ Herald: Sir Peter – Actors no threat to Hobbit
Fairfax Media: Key – No Hobbit bidding war
NZ Herald: PM – I’m not going to write cheques NZ can’t afford
NZ Herald: Hobbit to stay in NZ
NBR: Key on Hobbit deal: ‘It was commercial reality. We did the business.’
NBR: Key comes through: $34m deal sees Hobbit stay in NZ
TVNZ News: Relief in Southland over Tiwai Point deal
Radio NZ: Tiwai Point closing could have some advantages – PM
Otago Daily Times: PM defends Tiwai payout
Fairfax Media: State-sector job cuts ‘will make life tough’
RadioLive: Why John Key handed $30 million of your money to Rio Tinto
Te Ara: Government and agriculture – Subsidies and changing markets, 1946–1983
Additional
Fairfax media: SkyCity’s ‘fair deal for all’ questioned (hat-tip Mike Smith, The Standard)
Previous related blogposts
Muppets, Hobbits, and Scab ‘Unions’
And the Oscar for Union-Smashing and Manipulating Public Opinion goes to…
National under attack – defaults to Deflection #2
Dear Leader caught telling porkies (again)?! (part rua)
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Toru)
ACC. Skycity. NZ Superannuation. What is the connection?
Skycity: National prostitutes New Zealand yet again
Witnessing the slow decay of a government past it’s Use-By date
The Mendacities of Mr Key #8: A roof over your head, and boots on the ground
Other blogs & blogposts
Imperator Fish: It’s about friends helping friends
Insight NZ: National splits in two over Sky City bailout
Liberation: NZ Politics Daily – 13 February 2015: SkyCity
Local Bodies: SkyCity’s Glorious Deal
No Right Turn: More money down the drain
No Right Turn: “Close to corruption”
Polity: Fleeced
Polity: Mo’ money
Polity: Small on “free” convention centre
Polity: I agree with DPF, Jordan Williams, and (mostly) with Matthew Hooton, too
Polity: Why all governments are bad at commercial deals
The Civilian: Disappointment as meteor misses Sky Tower
The Daily Blog: Key’s SkyCity Scam is a dirty deed done relatively expensively
The Daily Blog: Brenda McQuillan – A Problem Gamblers View of the Deal
The Dim Post: On Hooton on Sky City
The Dim Post: Win by not playing
The Standard: The SkyCity Deal
The Standard: Sky City’s playing us for suckers
The Standard: Key is in reverse gear about Sky City
.
.
.
.
= fs =
.
.
Every so often, I dip into my files and use one of Dear Leader John Key’s quotes. They are highly useful to illustrate his flip-flops, broken promises, exaggerations, and fibbing, over the years.
They may prove equally useful to the reader. You never quite know when you feel the need to remind a faithful, loyal National Party sycophant that their Leader’s utterances can be quite revealing.
Ladies and Gentlemen, and the good folk on the LGBT spectrum, I present, from the National Party Politburo and Ministry of Truth,
.
.
re: ASSET SALES – WATER – MAORI
7 February 2012
“In my view no one owns the water. It’s like air, no one owns the air.”
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/legal-threat-over-asset-sales-4713323
re: ASSET SALES – WATER – MAORI
9 July 2012
“We don’t believe anybody owns water. What we do accept is that people own water rights. We don’t think the sale of 49 per cent of Mighty River Power in any way impinges on those water rights.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10818360
re: ASSET SALES – LIES – EXAGGERATION
26 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.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4582922/John-Key-reveals-plan-for-asset-sales
re: ASSET SALES – LIES – EXAGGERATION
2 January 2011
“I know the polling indicates people don’t necessarily like the concept, but do they like the concept of interest rates going up? Do they like the concept of the economy all of a sudden being controlled by bailout?”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10702285
re: ASSET SALES – BUYING “NEW” ASSETS
19 July 2012
“Those points around companies operating more efficiently and effectively have been well made by the Government, as has the view that we’d like to see New Zealanders investing more in their country and the fact that we want to buy new assets without having to incur more debt. I think those points have been made.”
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbpol/730281858-key-defends-asset-sales-policy-promotion
re: ASSET SALES – MUMS & DADS FIRST IN QUEUE
6 March 2012
“That’s what we are working our way through at the moment. But the intention is for that retail distribution, that opportunity for mums and dads to buy, to be absolutely front of the queue. They’re my number one priority.”
“We’ve made it absolutely crystal clear what our intentions are..If it comes to mum and dad, and they want to buy 1000 shares or whatever…I want to make sure they get their allocation, they’re not scaled and they’re at the front of the queue.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6530777/Key-No-referendum-on-asset-sales
re: ASSET SALES – INVESTMENTS – SHARE MARKETS
23 July 2012
“My view is that the debt element, which allows us to buy other assets without having to put more debt on the balance sheet, is a compelling argument in its own right. But it’s only ever been one of a small number of other factors – making the companies perform better, giving people places to invest, transparency.You’ve got all this money pouring into your KiwiSaver account but where do you invest it? There’s $12 billion there at the moment and it’s the same with mum and dad with their money in the bank.”
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/push-soe-shares-worries-finance-experts-4979780
re: ASSET SALES – ON-SELLING SHARES TO FOREIGNERS
26 June 2012
“You can’t and wouldn’t want to stop them – but the question you have to ask yourself is why would they go and do that? The question comes down to, why would a foreigner find an investment in Mighty River Power to be far more attractive on the long run than a retail investor sitting in Karori? And there’s no logic that they would.”
re: ASSET SALES – AIR NEW ZEALAND MODEL – SAME WITH OTHER SOES
26 June 2012
“They have Government control, but they also are on the market, they have continuous disclosure, they are at arm’s length from the Government, they make commercial decisions, they try and maximise their returns. The same can apply to Mighty River Power, Genesis, Meridian, Solid Energy.”
re: ASSET SALES – WATER- MAORI – REJECT WAITANGI DECISION
July 10, 2012
“We could choose to ignore what findings they might have – I’m not saying we would, but we could.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10818534
re: ASSET SALES – $7-$10 BILLION
26 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.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4582922/John-Key-reveals-plan-for-asset-sales
re: ASSET SALES – PROPERTY – FINANCE COMPANIES
22 July 2012
“But for a number of reasons, New Zealanders have tended to put their savings into property, term deposits and finance companies. We own relatively low levels of financial assets like shares, compared to people in other countries. “
re: ASSET SALES – WATER- MAORI – REJECT WAITANGI DECISION
10 July 2012
“In the same way we don’t think anyone owns the sea and we don’t think anyone owns air.”
re: ASSET SALES – STOCK MARKET
23 July 2012
Key said one of his motivators for selling assets is growing the stock market in New Zealand, which is currently 25% of the country’s GDP, while in Australia it is 80% of its GDP.
“You’ve got all this money pouring into your KiwiSaver account but where do you invest it? There’s $12 billion there at the moment and it’s the same with mum and dad with their money in the bank.”
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/push-soe-shares-worries-finance-experts-4979780
re: CHARTER SCHOOLS
3 August 2012
“If they don’t work then the Government will close them down very quickly – if they do work then it will be great for the children involved.”
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/220109/pm-vows-charter-schools-out-door-if-they-fail
re: COMPANIES GONE OFFSHORE
1 July 2011
“Basically it’s about using innovation to drive our economy. We have some of these companies already – the likes of Fisher and Paykel*, Tait and Rakon*. Our world-leading dairy industry also owes much of its success to innovation.”
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=36398
* Fisher & Paykel is now Chinese-owned, and Rakon shifted half it’s manufacturing to China in 2011/12.
re: CRIME – TAKING CREDIT
3 July 2012
“The Government is committed to keeping New Zealanders safe – on our streets and in our communities. We’ve delivered the lowest crime rate in 30 years, but we want to continue to keep driving the crime rate down.”
http://johnkey.co.nz/archives/1473-Prime-Minister-welcomes-first-action-plan.html
re: DEBT – LABOUR’S SURPLUS – ASSET SALES
4 March 2005
“Firstly let me start by saying that New Zealand does not face the balance sheet crisis of 1984, or even of the early 1990s. Far from having dangerously high debt levels, gross debt to GDP is around a modest 25 percent and net debt may well be zero by 2008.”
“In other words, there is no longer any balance sheet reason to justify an aggressive privatisation programme of the kind associated with the 1980s Labour Government.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0503/S00102.htm
re: DEBT – LABOUR’S SURPLUS
[undated]
“The level of public debt in New Zealand was $8 billion when National came into office in 2008. It’s now $53 billion, and it’s forecast to rise to $72 billion in 2016. Without selling minority shares in five companies, it would rise to $78 billion. Our total investment liabilities, which cover both public and private liabilities, are $150 billion – one of the worst in the world because of the high levels of private debt in New Zealand.”
http://www.national.org.nz/mixed-ownership.aspx
re: DEBT – LABOUR’S SURPLUS
9 December 2013
“If you go back to 2005, when the previous government were in office, they had a number, you know, a little bit less than ours, but not a lot less, there was a 180,000 children in poverty, I think this shows 240,000 on that measure.
Back then, New Zealand recorded the biggest surplus in New Zealand’s history…”
@ 2.45
http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/mind-gap-key-tackles-child-poverty-video-5766147
re: EDUCATION – FREE EDUCATION
29 January 2008
“Because we don’t think it’s fair that a 16- or 17-year-old can get a free education at their local high school, but is asked to front up with as much as $4,000 in fees for a work-skills course at their local polytechnic. ”
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=11772
re: ENVIRONMENT – GLOBAL WARMING
28 November 2006
“When I left university, if anyone had heard of global warming they were keeping it to themselves. Now, no one with any awareness of the world can be ignorant of it. It is a mystery to me why the political Left acts as if it has a monopoly on environmental policies, when it is obvious to anyone who cares to look that all of us, across the political spectrum, with the exception perhaps of the Greens, have taken too long to put the protection of our environment at the forefront of our thinking. That needs to change. In the National Party we have taken steps to do this, and we will be taking more steps.”
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleID=8778
re: ENVIRONMENT – GLOBAL WARMING
6 September 2008
“What global Leaders know, and what the National Party knows, is that environmentalism and a commitment to economic growth must go hand in hand. We should be wary of anyone who claims that one can or should come without the other.
And we should always measure a Government’s environmental rhetoric against its environmental record.”
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28477
re: EXCUSES FOR POOR ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE – GFC – RECESSION
16 September 2012
“The point here is we can’t magic away the European recession or the US recession or the issues the world faces. “
TVNZ Q+A
http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/interview-prime-minister-john-key-5085886
re: EXCUSES FOR POOR ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE – GFC
11 September 2011
“We did inherit a pretty bad situation with the global financial crisis. We have had three terrible earthquakes in Christchurch. We have had the collapse of finance companies. We have had to bail out what is, in terms of the earthquakes, the single biggest economic impact on a developed economy as the result of a disaster. The public don’t agree with every decision… but I think they believe on balance it’s been a tough three years and we’ve handled most things well. The second thing is it’s all relative. Yes, our unemployment went to 7 per cent and now it’s 6.5, but in America it’s 9 per cent officially and 14 per cent unofficially and in Spain it’s 20 per cent… “
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/5602953/View-from-the-top
re: EXCUSES FOR POOR ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE – GFC
17 November 2011
“While I think we have to acknowledge that the last three years have been pretty tough with the Global Financial Crisis, on a relative basisNew Zealand’s been doing a better than a lot of other countries.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/readers-reporter/5977596/Key-and-Goff-Q-A-Creating-jobs
re: FARM SALES
27 July 2010
“If we ended up in a position where New Zealanders are tenants in their own country, I can’t see how that would be in New Zealand’s best interests.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10661724
2 February 2012
“No where is that better illustrated than in the Crafar farm deal where the tenant will be a Government state-owned enterprise, Landcorp.”
re: FAMILIES
28 November 2006
“As a husband and father, the things I value most in life are not anything you’ll see listed on the Stock Exchange. I think all New Zealanders would agree that the security, happiness and welfare of their family, which is also dependent on the security and welfare of their community and country, is the most precious thing to them.
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleID=8778
re: FAMILIES – JUDGING OTHER FAMILIES
28 November 2006
“I support families. In modern New Zealand they come in many shapes and sizes, so let me tell you that I for one will not pre-judge the construction of them. They are in my view the most important institution in our society, and any government I have the privilege of leading will do what it can to support them. “
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleID=8778
re: FINLAND – NZ INCOME DECLINE
1 July 2011
“Finland is another example of our relative decline. In 1979 our per capita income lines crossed – New Zealand going down and Finland going up. The Finns are now about 20 percent ahead of us.”
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=36398
re: GOVERNMENT – ELECTIONS – MMP
2 July 2013
“But it’s been a funny thing. Ever since we’ve had MMP in 1996 the public have had a way of finding the Government that they want.”
“If National was to go out there and poll 46% or 47% – very similar to the result in 2011 – and not form the Government I think there would be outrage in NZ.”
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/key-rethinks-options-form-next-govt-5484600
re: HEALTH – PRESCRIPTIONS
14 May 2012
“This is the first increase in any prescription charges in 20 years and New Zealand will continue to have low prescription charges compared to almost every other developed country. We could have chosen to leave prescription charges at $3 and had less money to spend on health or said to New Zealanders ‘look, we think you paying a small increase more will give you much more peace of mind.'”
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/rise-in-prescription-charges-not-fair-labour-4887239
re: HOUSING BUBBLE
22 November 2008
“For well over a decade a glut of global credit created an illusion of almost limitless liquidity that in turn fuelled an unsustainable credit boom. This capital was mainly sourced from offshore.
The result of these seemingly unlimited foreign-capital flows was that New Zealanders were able to rely on cheap fixed-rate debt, which in turn drove house prices ever higher.
While the Reserve Bank worked hard to lean against these trends, the credit glut weighed against our Reserve Bank’s power to contain demand through monetary policy adjustments. “
re: INCOME INEQUALITY – LIE
2 August 2011
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “I think we all have to accept that there is a degree of inequality in New Zealand”; if so, has he read any recent reports on the growing gap between rich and poor in New Zealand?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I do stand by that statement, and I have excellent news for the member: a very detailed scientific report on income equality actually went up on the Ministry of Social Development’s website at 2 o’clock today. It is titled Household Incomes in New Zealand. The report shows that the degree of income inequality in New Zealand, under standard measures like the Gini coefficient or the 80:20 ratio, has actually fallen in recent years. I go on to say that in fact the report shows that the distribution of income in New Zealand is more even now than it was at any time under the previous Labour Government. So I point out to the member that he is quite wrong to say the gap between the rich and the poor has been growing; in fact, it has been reducing. I urge the member to read the report.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1108/S00041/questions-and-answers-august-2.htm
re: INTEREST RATE RISES
13 March 2014
“It’s true we are the only developed country in the world that’s currently raising interest rates, but that’s because we are growing at a faster rate than most other countries around the world and we’ve got a very robust outlook. So while I think there will be some disappointment and frustration from homeowners, on the other side of the coin they can take real confidence that the strong economy will underpin good job opportunities and probably wage growth over time.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9822918/Mortgage-pain-time-OCR-rises-to-2-75-per-cent
re: JOBS – INCOMES – WAGES – TAXES
27 May 2007
“We think Kiwis deserve higher wages and lower taxes during their working lives, as well as a good retirement.”
http://www.johnkey.co.nz/archives/135-SPEECH-National-Tough-on-Crime.html
re: JOBS – INCOMES – WAGES – MIGRATION
6 September 2008
“We want to make New Zealand an attractive place for our children and grandchildren to live – including those who are currently living in Australia, the UK, or elsewhere. To stem that flow so we must ensure Kiwis can receive competitive after-tax wages in New Zealand.”
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28477
re: JOBS – INCOMES – WAGES
29 January 2008
“We will be unrelenting in our quest to lift our economic growth rate and raise wage rates.”
http://www.johnkey.co.nz/archives/306-SPEECH-2008-A-Fresh-Start-for-New-Zealand.html
re: JOBS – INCOMES – WAGES
15 July 2009
“I don’t want our talented young people leaving permanently for Australia, the US, Europe, or Asia, because they feel they have to go overseas to better themselves.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0907/S00173/speech-key-business-breakfast-150709.htm
re: JOBS – INCOMES – WAGES
12 March 2010
“Science and innovation are important. They’re one of the keys to growing our economy, raising wages, and providing the world-class public services that Kiwi families need.”
http://www.johnkey.co.nz/archives/905-Boosting-Science-and-Innovation.html
re: JOBS – INCOMES – WAGES
21 December 2011
“The driving goal of my Government is to build a more competitive and internationally-focused economy with less debt, more jobs and higher incomes.” – John Key,
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=37752
re: JOBS – INCOMES – WAGES
8 February 2011
“We will also continue our work to increase the incomes New Zealanders earn. That is a fundamental objective of our plan to build a stronger economy.”
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/feature/statement-parliament-2011
re: JOBS – INCOMES – WAGES
19 April 2012
“We want to increase the level of earnings and the level of incomes of the average New Zealander and we think we have a quality product with which we can do that.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/6769026/Key-wants-a-high-wage-NZ?
re: JOBS – UNEMPLOYMENT – WANT A JOB
25 November 2012
“Because at a high level, my belief is every single New Zealander wants to work, wants to provide for their family, wants independence and wants the comfort that comes from the knowledge that you can pay the bills and look after your family in the way that you want to. That’s the ambition of New Zealanders. “
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1211/S00355/shane-taurima-interviews-john-key.htm
re: JOBS – UNEMPLOYMENT – WANT A JOB
17 November 2011
“We salute your willingness to want to go get a job, ‘cos we believe that’s what most New Zealanders want to do.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/readers-reporter/5977596/Key-and-Goff-Q-A-Creating-jobs
re: JOBS – UNEMPLOYMENT – GOVT’s RESPONSIBILITY
17 November 2011
“We agree with you, it’s the government’s responsibility to do everything within it’s powers to try to get people jobs.” – John Key,
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/readers-reporter/5977596/Key-and-Goff-Q-A-Creating-jobs
re: JOBS – 170,000 NEW JOBS
“National’s Brighter Future Plan will help businesses create 170,000 new jobs over the next four years.”
(election flyer)
re: JOBS – AUSTRALIA – LABOUR
22 July 2012
“They say no to jobs that are coming from Australia and they even said no to those cute, furry, fluffy little hobbits. And the latest thing is they want the unions to help elect their leader – well good luck with that one”.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/111289/joyce-hits-out-at-labour-%27hypocrisy%27
re: JOBS – JOB CREATION BY BUSINESS
24 August 2012
“Nothing creates jobs and boosts incomes better than business growth. For New Zealand to build a more productive and competitive economy, we need more innovative companies out there selling their products on the world stage.”
http://johnkey.co.nz/archives/1507-Key-Notes-Honouring-our-fallen-soldiers.html
re: JOBS – JOB CREATION BY BUSINESS – NOT ENOUGH JOBS
28 February 2012
“It’s true, ultimately if every one was to get off welfare we’d need to create even more jobs, but that’s the Government’s whole agenda is to have a vibrant economy that does produce jobs. I certainly accept there’s not a job for every single person, but I don’t accept there aren’t some jobs out there.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/6489372/Welfare-changes-just-the-start
re: JOBS – LOST JOBS
8 February 2011
“Under the last Labour Government the economy got way out of balance. Since 2004, almost 60 per cent of new jobs have been in heavily government-dominated sectors, while jobs were lost in the export-focused agricultural and manufacturing sectors.”
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/feature/statement-parliament-2011
re: MIGRATION TO AUSTRALIA – POOR ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
15 July 2009
“I don’t want our talented young people leaving permanently for Australia, the US, Europe, or Asia, because they feel they have to go overseas to better themselves. That’s why this Government is focused squarely on improving New Zealand’s economic performance. And to be frank, New Zealand’s economic performance over a number of years has been disappointing. “
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0907/S00173/speech-key-business-breakfast-150709.htm
re: MIGRATION TO AUSTRALIA – HIGHER WAGES
6 September 2008
“One of National’s key goals, should we lead the next Government, will be to stem the flow of New Zealanders choosing to live and work overseas. We want to make New Zealand an attractive place for our children and grandchildren to live – including those who are currently living in Australia, the UK, or elsewhere. To stem that flow so we must ensure Kiwis can receive competitive after-tax wages in New Zealand. We must cut taxes and grow our economy, and National will have policies to ensure both occur.”
http://www.johnkey.co.nz/archives/454-SPEECH-Environment-Policy-Launch.html
re: MINIMUM WAGE
10 November 2011
“Look, I think it would be very difficult for anyone to do that.”
re: NATIONAL MPS
27 May 2007
“New Zealanders chose National MPs to replace them because National MPs can be trusted to listen and work hard for the causes their constituents care about.”
http://www.johnkey.co.nz/archives/135-SPEECH-National-Tough-on-Crime.html
re: OUT ON PAROLE – COMMITTING CRIME
13 May 2007
“Karl Kuchenbecker – a good man, a father of two young boys – was tragically killed by a man on parole. A man who should have been locked up for life. A Government I lead will not put up with that. “
re: POVERTY
9 December 2013
“If you go back to 2005, when the previous government were in office, they had a number, you know, a little bit less than ours, but not a lot less, there was a 180,000 children in poverty, I think this shows 240,000 on that measure.
Back then, New Zealand recorded the biggest surplus in New Zealand’s history…”
@ 2.45
http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/mind-gap-key-tackles-child-poverty-video-5766147
re: RESPONSIBILITY
27 May 2007
“The National Party is built on age-tested principles that reflect what is best about New Zealand. We are a party of enterprise; a party of personal freedom and individual responsibility; a party of family; an inclusive party; a party of ambition.”
http://www.johnkey.co.nz/archives/135-SPEECH-National-Tough-on-Crime.html
re: RESPONSIBILITY
30 January 2007
“We also need to remember the enduring principles on which the National Party is based – individual responsibility, support for families and communities, and a belief that the State can’t and shouldn’t do everything.”
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?articleId=9215
re: TAX CUTS – RAISING TAXES – GST – LIE
10 February 2010/2008
“National is not going to be raising GST. National wants to cut taxes not raise taxes.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3311679/Key-no-GST-rise-video-emerges
re: TAX CUTS – LIE
19 November 2011
“We actually cancelled the first round of personal tax cuts in 2009/10,” he says. But Key is wrong. Despite calls from many commentators to cancel them, National passed its first round of tax cuts into law by December 2008, forgoing $1 billion a year in government revenue from April 2009, even though it was apparent tax revenue was about to take a dive in the wake the global recession. What National did do was defer its second round of tax cuts, worth $900 million a year, and instead rolled them into a 2010 tax package that included raising GST. Key cites the 2010 tax package, which raised GST to 15% while cutting personal tax rates, as another tough-minded decision…”
http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/can-john-key-lead-us-through-the-global-debt-crisis/
re: TAX CUTS – COST OF 2009 TAX CUTS
1 April 2009
“…The tax cuts we have delivered today will inject an extra $1 billion into the economy over the coming year, thereby helping to stimulate the economy during this recession. More important, over the longer term these tax cuts will reward hard work and help to encourage people to invest in their own skills, in order to earn and keep more money.”
re: TAX CUTS JUSTIFICATION
1 April 2009
“… The reason why we are having tax cuts at this time is that if we look at most of the stimulatory packages in countries around the world and not just in New Zealand, we see they have a tax cut component as part of those packages, and that is an important stimulatory part of those economies. In my view, if we were not to do that, then we would drive our economy into a much deeper recession… “
http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/portfolios/prime_minister/2009/apr/01/tax_cuts_1
re: TAXPAYERS BAILING OUT CORPORATIONS
22 November 2008
“So now the party is over and the taxpayers of the world are left to underwrite – in one form or another – the liabilities and obligations of banks and, by extension, their hedge-fund clientele. “
re: THIRTY YEARS AGO – LIFE DIFFERENT THAN BACK THEN
30 January 2007
“However, things are different now than they were 30 years ago. It used to be that any street in any community could be the launching pad for a happy and fulfilling life. That’s not the case anymore. Today many are being left behind.
There are streets in our country where helplessness has become ingrained. There are streets of people who believe they are locked out of everyday New Zealand the way most of us experience it, and are locked into a way of life for which the exit signs and the road maps have long since been discarded. These streets have become dead ends for those who live in them.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10421543
re: THIS IS OUR COUNTRY
30 January 2007
“We are not four million spectators, having a passing interest in someone else’s game. This is our country; we make the rules and we should decide its direction.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10421543
re: TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP – AUSTRALIA
15 June 2012
“I would be very surprised. I think we’re all in or all out. An exclusion solely for Australia and not for everybody else is unlikely to be something we would support.”
TPP: Australia odd man out over disputes
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10813233
re: WELFARE STATE – JOHN KEY – BENEFICIARY BACKING
27 August 2011
“I’m a product of the welfare state – there hasn’t been any great secret about that.”
“My father died when I was young. My mother was, for a time, on the Widow’s Benefit, and also worked as a cleaner. But the State ensured that I had a roof over my head and money for my mother to put food on the table. It also gave me the opportunity to have a good education. My mother made sure I took that opportunity, and the rest was up to me.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10421543
30 January 2007
” I have said before that I believe in the welfare state and that I will never turn my back on it.
We should be proud to be a country that looks after its most vulnerable citizens. We should be proud to be a country that supports people when they can’t find work, are ill, or aren’t able to work. “
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10421543
28 November 2006
“You can measure a society by how it looks after its most vunerable, once I was one of them. I will never turn my back on that.”
http://www.johnkey.co.nz/archives/44-Speech-to-North-Shore-National-Party-luncheon.html
re: WELFARE STATE – JOHN KEY – BENEFICIARY BASHING
17 February 2011
“But it is also true that anyone on a benefit actually has a lifestyle choice. If one budgets properly, one can pay one’s bills. And that is true because the bulk of New Zealanders on a benefit do actually pay for food, their rent and other things. Now some make poor choices and they don’t have money left.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10706851
.
.
.
.
= fs =
.
Source: Radio NZ – Detroit files for bankruptcy
.
America’s grand experiment in neo-liberal capitalism has claimed it’s third bloody sacrifice; Detroit (after Jefferson County, Alabama, and Stockton, California).
Detroit now owes US$18.5 billion in debt. It has declared itself officially bankrupt – the largest US city ever to do so.
There are no doubt several reasons for Detroit’s current economic decline and its inevitable urban decay, but it is a dying city nevertheless,
The governor painted a picture of a city in collapse. Citizens wait 58 minutes for the police to respond to calls, compared to a national average of 11 minutes. Only a third of ambulances were in service in the first quarter of 2013. There are approximately 78,000 abandoned buildings in the city. The unemployment rate had nearly tripled since 2000 and the homicide rate was at its highest level in 40 years, he said. Detroit is unable to meet its most basic obligations to its residents, let alone its creditors.
Source: UK Guardian – Detroit becomes largest US city to file for bankruptcy in historic ‘low point’
“Jobs in the industry have dropped by 40 percent since 2000, from 1.3 million to 800,000“, wrote Evan Soltas for Bloomberg.
Michael Snyder, writing in theeconomiccollapseblog.com, posted 17 Facts About The Decline Of The U.S. Auto Industry That Are Almost Too Crazy To Believe,
#1 The average age of an automobile in the United States has gone up more than 50% since 1990 and is now sitting at an all-time record of 10.8 years. The average length of a marriage in the United States that ends in divorce is only 8 years.
#2 Germany made 5.5 million cars in 2010. The United States made less than half that (2.7 million).
#3 When you add up salary and benefits, the average auto worker in Germany makes $67.14 an hour. In the United States, auto workers only make $33.77 an hour in salary and benefits.
#4 Back in 2000, about 17 million new automobiles were sold in the United States. During 2011, less than 13 million new automobiles were sold in the United States.
#5 Do you remember when the United States was the dominant manufacturer of automobiles and trucks on the globe? Well, in 2010 the U.S. ran a trade deficit in automobiles, trucks and parts with the rest of the world of $110 billion.
#6 Japan builds more cars than anyone else on the globe. Japan now manufactures about 5 million more automobiles than the United States does.
#7 In 2010, South Korea exported approximately 12 times as many automobiles to us as we exported to them.
#8 According to the New York Times, a Jeep Grand Cherokee that costs $27,490 in the United States costs about $85,000 in China thanks to new tariffs.
#9 U.S. car companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars building shiny new automobile factories in China.
#10 In 1970, General Motors had about a 60 percent share of the U.S. automobile market. Today, that figure is down to about 20 percent.
#11 The combined U.S. market share of the “Big Three” American car companies fell from 70% in 1998 to 53% in 2008.
#12 Detroit was once known as the “Motor City”, but in recent decades automobile production has been leaving Detroit at a staggering pace. One analysis of census figures found that 48.5% of all men living in Detroit from age 20 to age 64 did not have a job during 2008.
#13 Today, only Chrysler still operates an automobile assembly line within Detroit city limits.
#14 Since Alan Mulally became CEO of Ford, the company has reduced its North American workforce by nearly half.
#15 Today, only about 40 percent of Ford’s 178,000 workers are employed in North America, and a significant portion of those jobs are in Canada and Mexico.
#16 The average Mexican auto worker brings in less than a tenth of the total compensation that a U.S. auto worker makes.
#17 In the year 2000, the U.S. auto industry employed more than 1.3 million Americans. Today, the U.S. auto industry employs about 698,000 people.
Item #9 is off particular relevance to New Zealand, because we are doing precisely the same thing;
U.S. car companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars building shiny new automobile factories in China.
As Forbes posted in May 2010, in an article U.S. Companies That Invest Big In China,
General Motors and Volkswagen have invested billions in China, starting more than a decade ago. Ford is rushing to catch up by adding production capacity and expanding its dealer network in China. Ford and its joint-venture partner, Chang’an Ford Mazda Automobile, plan to start producing next-generation Ford Focus models at a new, $490 million plant in Chongqingin 2012.
Essentially, the United States car manufacturing industry has been busy exporting it’s production facilities and jobs to other low-wage countries – China and Mexico to give two examples.
Here in New Zealand, we’ve done pretty much the same thing; gutted our manufacturing sector by busily exporting it to China (and elsewhere) where wages are low, in comparison to New Zealand workers*,
.
Source: Radio NZ – Rakon blames job cuts on high dollar
.
This, essentially, is the end-result of eliminating tariffs with so-called “free trade” agreements. Except, these agreements are not “free” at all. They cost jobs.
For every pair of cheap Skellerup “Red Band” gumboots you and I buy at The Warehouse – New Zealander’s jobs were sacrificed,
The first pairs of Red Band Men’s gumboots retailed for twenty five shillings and 11 pence. Red Band gumboots continued to be made at Skellerup’s Woolston factory in Christchurch until the late 1980s when economic considerations forced the company to move production offshore.
So how cheap are those gumboots made in China?
The economic cost of people out of work is astronomical: $805,759,000 for the 2012/13 period alone (Unemployment Benefit and Emergency Benefit (M63) – Vote Social Development – Estimates of Appropriations 2013/14)
The social cost is beyond a dollar value.
And yet, it was not always like this. Once upon a time, we had full employment.
In 1973, the numbers of registered unemployed (not including overall jobseekers) stood at 2,321. (source)
By June 2008 the number of registered unemployed (not including overall jobseekers) had increased to 17,710. (Pre Global Financial Crisis recession.)(source)
Forty years later, by June this year, after de-regulation, free trade treaties, abolition of tariffs, and the dismantling employment legislation and the trade union movement, the number of registered unemployed (not including overall jobseekers) increased to 48,438. (IBID)
The actual numbers of jobless, according to regular Household Labour Force Surveys, is much higher (currently at 146,000). (source)
It could be said that the cost of those cheap, foreign-made Redband gumboots (and other consumer goods) is costing taxpayers $805,759,000 per annum.
Conformist middle class consumers, if they read this, would probably shrug and dismiss it from their minds. Such matters as Detroit and the pernicious consequences of the “free” market (which, as I have shown, is not “free”) on our employment, economy, and social fabric is beyond their ken.
It doesn’t affect them directly so they blot it from their minds.
They simply look at a pair of Redband gumboots and see the printed pricetag.
After all, the capricious nature of neo-liberalism such as the fate of Detroit could never happen here, right?
.
Capital a dying city says Prime Minister – Dominion Post – 7 July 2013
Source: Dominion Post (scanned hard-copy)
Related story: Dominion Post – Shearer slams PM over capital dying quip
.
.
.
= fs =
.
.
.
New Zealanders, by and large, are not stupid.
We can recognise a rort when we see it. And in the case of electricity prices, we see it on a regular basis in our power bills and media headlines,
.
2008
.
Acknowledgement: Fairfax: Government to seek inquiry into power price rise
.
2009
.
Acknowledgement: NBR – More profit than power for state-owned energy companies
.
2010
.
Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – High spot prices hint at power price rise
.
2011
.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald- Power bills set to rise up to 8pc from March
.
2012
.
Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – Electricity prices tipped to rise steeply
.
2013
.
Acknowledgement: TVNZ – Power prices rise by average $120 nationwide
.
We all know the facts and figures by now,
None of Bradford’s promises came to fruition and on 27 November 1999, Bradford lost his Rotorua seat to Labour’s Stephanie Chadwick (see: Rotorua – New Zealand electorate).
.
.
On 18 April, Labour and the Greens announced a bold new policy initiative to reign in escalating power price rises. Called NZ Power, the reform would work thusly,
Key to the proposals is the creation of a central buying and electricity system planning agency, dubbed NZ Power, which would drive down power prices because of its market power and would not be required to make a profit.
It would also be the market regulator.
“It will not just supervise the market, it will be actively involved,” said Labour’s finance spokesman David Parker, a Minister of Energy in the 1999 to 2008 Labour-led administration.
It would tender for new electricity generation, or potentially energy efficiency measures, rather than the current crop of generators competing to identify the next least costly unit of new generation when demand rises.
In some cases, industrial users would be able to contract directly with NZ Power.
Power prices would be set not by reference to the cost of the next new unit of generation, but by average costs that include the anticipated price of new generation. However, there would still be a traded market in wholesale electricity, which could reflect regional variations.
Acknowledgement: Scoop – Labour-Greens to rip up the book on electricity pricing
This new plan was the confirmation (if any was needed) that National’s grand experiment in privatisation and “competition” in the electricity sector was not working. Only fools (mostly those posting on right-wing, pro-National Kiwiblog) could possibly argue that the current system was “succeeding”.
In fact, even as far back as May 2009, National Minister Gerry Brownlee demanded that power generators put price rises on hold. He stated,
“There is something fundamentally wrong in the way in which we’re marketing electricity in New Zealand.“
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Put prices on hold, Brownlee tells power companies
And even the architect of this ill-conceived “reform”, Max Bradford, was reported in May 1999 in the media as planning to regulate electricity line charges,
Enterprise and Commerce minister Max Bradford is to press ahead with regulations to control electricity line charges, but sees no reason to implement regulation in the competitive end of the market.
Acknowledgement: Otago Daily Times – No case for regulation
So even National ministers reluctantly concede that the electricity sector cannot work in an unregulated “freemarket” model, and is unable to deliver the ‘golden fruits’ of de-regulation and so-called competition.
.
.
After the press conference on 18 April, criticism flew thick and fast from National ministers; right wing bloggers; pro-National sycophantic elements of the media, and their ideologically-wedded fellow-travellers.
On Steven Joyce’s twitter account,
.
Source: Twitter/Steven Joyce
.
Judith “Crusher” Collins added this bit of gratuitous fantasy-fear mongering,
.
Source: Twitter/IBID
.
From Simon Bridges, this little bit of muppetry,
“They may want to return to sort of United Soviet Socialist Republic of New Zealand days but National certainly doesn’t.”
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Power plan likened to Soviet era
It was actually the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Mr Bridges, not “United” Soviet Socialist Republic. Get your Evil Empires right, mate.
And anyway, most of New Zealand’s centralised planning occurred during National’s administration, from 1975 to 1984, under the late Robert Muldoon. Remember the price/wage freeze?
Mighty River Power chief executive Doug Heffernan, also called the plan “socialist” (by the way, is that a bad thing?) He declared,
“What you’ve just described is a socialist consumer model.”
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – MRP chief slams socialist’ plan
To which I would point out to the reader,
Steven Joyce added to the “red menace scare”on TVNZ’s Q+A on 21 April,
“By definition, it’s socialism.
“They are not just talking about the price, they’re talking about telling the generators when they can generate, which generating assets they can use, which ones they can introduce to the markets.”
The Minister said the proposed plan would also scare off investors, with evidence of this seen late last week when the market dropped.
“On Thursday and Friday, the market dropped nearly $600 million across three companies because they said, ‘Jeez, we’re not interested in this’.”
Which is rather strange… Joyce, Bridges, Collins, Key, et al, are likening Labour-Green’s plans to “North Korean economics” or “Soviet style socialism”.
But when did the former USSR or the current North Korea ever have a share market or multi-party Parliamentaty democracy?!?!
.
.
Could it possibly be that National ministers have no intellectual, rational response to the proposed NZ Power scheme?
Could it be that they must rely on fear-mongering? Which reminds me of this,
.
Acknowledgement: NZ History Online: Dancing Cossacks political TV ad
.
Could it possibly be that National ministers are placing their faith in free market economics – vis-a-vis the partial sale of state powercos – to get prices to drop? (Which, after 14 years is yet to happen for the domestic consumer.)
Could it be that National ministers are… panicking?!
Because as NZ Herald columnist, John Armstrong wrote on 19 April,
“There may be good reasons for the seemingly constant above-inflation hikes in retail prices. But politicians have given up explaining because consumers long ago stopped listening.
All this would suggest there is fertile ground for Labour and the Greens, who yesterday foreshadowed plans to slash power prices by setting up a new agency, NZ Power, to act as a single buyer of wholesale electricity.
National was truly gobsmacked. It accused Labour of “Muldoonism”, “loony tunes” policy making and “North Korean economics”.
National accepts that at the outset there might be lower prices. But it argues the policy would distort price signals that are so vital to matching supply and demand. That could lead to power shortages. The policy would distort and even discourage investment in power generation.”
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald: National gobsmacked at Labour idea
“Gobsmacked” is about right.
And ironically enough, “Muldoonism” was a product of the National Party – not Labour. Hilarious stuff, indeed!
This is nothing less than a full-scale retreat from market-driven political orthodoxy. In effect, Labour has done the unthinkable; it has publicly announced that neo-liberalism and it’s supposed “free” market economics does not, and cannot, deliver all of society’s needs.
We get a glimpse of what it must have been like in 1989 when Mikhail Gorbachev sat down with his colleagues in the Soviet Politburo and announced to a stunned meeting,
“Comrades, our communist ideology and centralised economic system has failed.”
Mark 18 April 2013 on your calendar as the day that one of our two main Parties (or, two out of our three main Parties, if Green political support keeps increasing) renounced neo-liberal free market ideology as a failure.
There is now a clear, unequivocal difference between an increasingly right wing, ideologically-driven National, and a decidely more-leftist – but pragmatic – Labour.
And the public now has a clear choice as well, for whom to vote;
Option A (for the Blue Team): maintain the neo-liberal status quo; proceed with privatisation; and hope-like-hell that Max Bradford’s promises eventually, maybe, one day, will come true.
Option B (for the Red Team): vote for change; abandon our slavish adherence to neo-liberal dogma; and, as a side-effect, enjoy cheaper power bills.
Continued at: The Politics of Power and a Very Clear Choice – Part Rua
.
.
Previous Related Blogposts
History Lesson – Tahi – Electricity Sector “reforms” (4 March 2012)
John Key: Man of Many Principles (28 Sept 2012)
Labour, Greens, NZ First, & Mana – A Bright Idea with electricity! (10 March 2013)
References
NZ History Online: Dancing Cossacks political TV ad
NZPA: Splitting up ECNZ expected to cut wholesale power price (16 Dec 1998)
NZPA: Reforms aimed at business – Luxton (21 April 1999)
Otago Daily Times: Power Prices Set To Soar (12 May 1999)
Otago Daily Times: No case for regulation (24 May 1999)
Otago Daily Times: Lower power prices coming says Bradford (3 June 1999)
Otago Daily Times: Power prices to rise by up to 15.1% (29 June 1999)
Otago Daily Times: Reforms blamed for hike (13 July 1999)
Scoop: Alliance to hold Winston Peters accountable (8 Oct 1999)
NZ Herald: Peters ‘forgets’ NZ First support for power reforms (13 Aug 2008)
Fairfax: Government to seek inquiry into power price rise (30 September 2008)
NZ Herald: Put prices on hold, Brownlee tells power companies (21 May 2009)
NZ Herald: Mighty River directors’ 73pc pay rise realistic – Key (5 April 2013)
Scoop: Labour-Greens to rip up the book on electricity pricing (18 April 2013)
NZ Herald: Labour-Greens plan could work, says Vector CEO (19 April 2013)
NZ Herald: National gobsmacked at Labour idea (19 April 2013)
NZ Herald: Power plan likened to Soviet era (19 April 2013)
NZ Herald: MRP chief slams socialist’ plan (21 April 2013)
TVNZ: Q+A – Transcript of Steven Joyce interview (21 April 2013)
NZ Herald: Bernard Hickey: Power barons fail to fool the public this time around (21 April 2013)
Radio NZ: Power prices nearly double since 2000 (21 April 2013)
Other blogs
Kiwiblog: Electricity Prices
.
.
= fs =
.
.
This came through our letter box today,
.
.
It came with other advertising junk-mail (despite the “No Junk Mail” clearly visible on our letterbox), so it was obviously delivered by a commercial leafletting company and not by Party volunteers.
The front page instantly commanded attention with the wording, “Do you agree?” followed by “Find out what 34% of people surveyed didn’t know!”.
Stirring stuff!
What was taxing the mind of Conservative Party leader, Colin Craig?
What pressing issues were dominating his thoughts?
Was it the loss of 40,000 jobs in the last four years as the manufacturing and export sector are hit by a higher and higher New Zealand Dollar?
Was it 85,000+ young people not in employment, education of training?
Was it the 175,000 unemployed?
Was it 250,000 children living in poverty?
Was it National’s intention to partially flog of five state assets, worth billions to taxpayers in this country?
Time to open the pamplet and find out…
.
.
Marriage equality?!
Craig has spent tens of thousands of dollars on a piece of colour-printed, glossy paper to complain about gays and lesbians being given marriage equality???
Where is this man’s head at?
.
.
Craig’s comments are not even logical.
For one thing, he states that “this is not about equality”.
Rubbish.
It is all about equality.
He even admits it,
“The Civil Union Act in fact copied the operating provisions of the Marriage Act so both have the same legal equality (except deliberately in the case of adoption and parentingof children.)”
Oh… so there’s ‘equality’ – except in cases of blah, blah, blah.
Um… *scratches head*… then it’s not equality, is it, Mr Craig?
Saying that “…both have the same legal equality except deliberately in the case of adoption and parentingof children” is like saying that Blacks in the Southern States of America were equal to Whites in the 1950s… except for blah, blah, blah…
Or Blacks in South Africa were equal to Whites in South Africa during the Apartheid Era. Oh, except that Blacks couldn’t vote. And weren’t allowed on certain beaches. Or blah, blah, blah…
Message to Mr Craig’s remaining functioning brain cells: you can’t have equality where exceptions undermine that equality. Because then it’s not equality. It’s something else.
Which, by the way, is one of the strange points that Craig attempts to make in his weirdly surreal propaganda.
On the page below, Craig states,
“This country has become a dangerous place to be a child. If nothing else we must fight and speak for the children. We must seek their absolute best [?] and give of ourselves to protect them, blah, blah, blah…”
So what is it that Colin Craig is trying to say? That two people in love and wanting to marry is going to make “this country … a dangerous place to be a child “?! How the f**k does that work?
Poverty is dangerous for children.
Lack of nutritious food is dangerous for children.
Damp houses are dangerous for children.
Drugs and alcohol dangerous for children.
Abusive households are dangerous for children.
Government policies to do with low wages; poor housing; and lack of opportunities is dangerous for children.
But two people in love wanting to get married?
The workings of Colin Craig’s mind is even more unfathomable than I had previously believed possible. No wonder John Key rolled his eyes and muttered “it’s going to be a long two and a half years” when presented with the possibility of the bizarre Conservative Party as a potential coalition partner (see: John Key’s midterm blues?).
.
.
Reading this trash, I laughed even harder when I spotted another incongruency at Craig’s disjointed thinking.
On page 2,
“… Mr Key is now ignoring his electorate and says he will support same-sex marriage and adoption. He will not be voting as directed by his electorate. This is simply wrong. If Mr Key will not vote on behalf of his electorate, then who will? He is their paid representative; he is the one person sent to Parliament on their behalf.“
On page 3,
“Good leadership requires listening to both sides of the debate and then deciding what is best for our country.”
So on the one hand… Craig sez that it “is simply wrong” for Key not to vote according to his electorate (not that we actually know what his electorate “thinks”.
But on the other hand, “good leadership ” is about “ listening to both sides of the debate and then deciding what is best for our country“.
Hmmm, a bit contradictory there, Colin. You should proof-read your writing a bit more closely.
Last bit,
“I believe the evidence shows that it is ideal that an adopted child grow up with a great Mum and Dad…”
Two things bother me about that blanket statement.
1. If “evidence” exists to support Mr Craig’s prehistoric views, then it’s not a matter of “belief”. Evidence either exists to support his views. Or it does not.
Belief does not enter into it.
2. Unfortunately, the evidence that does exist points to one inescapable fact; many homes in our country are dangerous places for young children.
Too many have been neglected, severely injured, beaten, sexually abused, traumatised, and killed – at the hands of their “Dads” and too often, their “Mums”.
Heterosexual, ‘nuclear’-style families.
They are killing the children of our nation.
And not a gay parent to be seen anywhere.
.
.
Other blogs
.
.
= fs =
To Whom It May Concern; the following Report Card detail’s Johnny’s achievements over the last four years.
The following contrasts compare four years, ranging from the end of 2008 to the end of this year, 2012.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the Global Financial Crisis impacted harshly on our society and economy, it is also fair to say that National has had the benefits of starting out with a sound economy (surpluses, low unemployment, etc) in 2008 and four years in office to make good on it’s election promises.
.
.
Recent history:
In the past, whenever National (or the right wing “Labour-ACT” government of the 1980s) came to power, the result was never very good,
.
.
Source: Dunedin Star
.
Source: Otago Daily Times
.
Source: Otago Daily Times
.
Source: Otago Daily Times
.
The rhetoric:
“The National Party has an economic plan that will build the foundations for a better future.
* We will focus on lifting medium-term economic performance and managing taxpayers’ money effectively.
* We will be unrelenting in our quest to lift our economic growth rate and raise wage rates.
* We will cut taxes, not just in election year, but in a regular programme of ongoing tax cuts.
* We will invest in the infrastructure this country needs for productivity growth.
* We will be more careful with how we spend the cash in the public purse, monitoring not just the quantity but also the quality of government spending.
* We will concentrate on equipping young New Zealanders with the education they need for a 21st century global economy.
* We will reduce the burden of compliance and bureaucracy, and we will say goodbye to the blind ideology that locks the private sector out of too many parts of our economy.
And we will do all of this while improving the public services that Kiwis have a right to expect. ” – John Key, 29 July 2008
See: 2008: A Fresh Start for New Zealand
” Growing the economy is the Government’s number one priority, and science and innovation have a key part to play in that growth.
Indeed, this Government has made science and innovation one of the six cornerstones of its economic growth agenda. We’ve done this because New Zealand needs an economic jolt. Our productivity and economic growth have been sluggish for decades and as a result we have slipped down the OECD’s ranking of national wealth per capita.
Our performance compared to other smaller advanced economies has been uninspiring at best. For example, in 1976 our per capita income was slightly ahead of Australia. It was nearly 20 percent greater than the OECD average.
We are now 20 percent behind the OECD average. Australia, by contrast, is still about 20 percent ahead.
Finland is another example of our relative decline. In 1979 our per capita income lines crossed – New Zealand going down and Finland going up. The Finns are now about 20 percent ahead of us.
So, how do we turn the situation around? ” – John Key, 1 July 2011
See: National Economic Development Forum
Present reality:
.
.
.
.
.
Two things would be fair to say,
As Treasury data shows, New Zealand’s net government debt situation worsened from 2008 to June of 2012,
.
Source: Treasury – Financial Statemement of the Government of New Zealand
.
Source: IBID
.
Table 16 above opened with a net government debt of 5.6% – left by the outgoing Labour government.
It closed with 25% net government debt – a fourfold increase – courtesy of National’s “prudent fiscal management”.
As the Treasury document explained,
Net debt increases as a result of cash deficits and
declines as a result of cash surpluses. It also
fluctuates in line with valuation movements in the
underlying financial assets and liabilities of the Crown
and movements in the amounts of currency issued to
New Zealand banks.Net debt increased this year, continuing the steady
increase since the global financial crisis (figure 11).
Net debt increased from last year primarily due to
additional borrowings over the year to meet the
residual cash deficit (refer table 17).
Source: IBID
In other words, National took in lower revenue – taxes – which inevitably resulted in increased borrowings; slashing of State services and funding; increasing user pays for other state services; mass redundancies of state sector workers, and impending partial state asset sales.
The Treasury document goes on to show how much revenue was lost between 2008 and 2012,
.
Source: IBID
.
A recent NZ Herald report has updated Treasury’s expections. The tax-take, GDP growth, and unemployment outlooks are not good,
A weaker economic outlook over the next four years has taken a bite of nearly $8 billion out of the Government’s forecast tax revenues for that period.
Nevertheless the Treasury is still forecasting a return to surplus, though only just, on schedule by 2015.
The forecasts in yesterday’s half-year economic and fiscal update are in line with the latest consensus forecasts, which means they are significantly weaker than in the Budget.
The growth track is lower by around 0.5 percentage points a year.
It reflects downwards revisions to expected growth among New Zealand’s trading partners, and a kiwi dollar expected to remain around present levels until the first half of 2014, so that net exports subtract from growth for the next couple of years.
Unemployment has been revised higher; it is 7.3 per cent now and still expected to be 5.6 per cent by March 2016.
See: Outlook slashes tax-take by $8b
The forecast rate of tepid growth is on top of low to negative growth in the last four years,
.
Source: tradingeconomics.com
.
So what caused the drop in government tax revenue? And why did the lower tax revenue impact on higher unemployment and lower domestic growth?
The answer, in part, is not hard to uncover, and the following reports tell the story of how National undermined (sabotaged?) our nation’s government accounts.
First, we were offered The Bribe,
.
.
Then we got the warning signs,
.
.
.
.
We were not exempt from the looming storm that was the coming Global Financial Crisis ,
.
.
National’s response?
The prudent step to take would have been to cancel the tax cuts as simply unaffordable. (Labour’s Phil Goff generously promised to support National had it taken such a prudent measure. See: Labour would support deferral of tax cuts)
As a nation, we would then maintain social services (education, housing, healthcare, justice system, early childhood education, superannuation, etc) – or cut taxes. We could not have both. Not without even further massive borrowings from overseas.
National’s decision to persevere with their taxcuts beggered belief for those who understood the seriousness of the GFC and the recession we had fallen into,
.
.
The consequences of National’s irresponsible cutting of taxation revenue was utterly predictable,
.
.
.
Writing for the NZ Herald, Brian Fallow put the cost of taxcuts at $8 billion. (See: Outlook slashes tax-take by $8b)
Only a fool (or devoted National supporter – the two are not mutually exclusive) could believe that we could give away billions in tax cuts without resorting to massive borrowings to cover the shortfall.
The result was a government deficit rising fourfold from 2008 to 2012, as the above Treasury stats clearly show.
National then desperately needed to balance the books. It scrimped and scrapped by cutting the state sector; raising taxes (gst, fuel tax, ACC levies, government charges, etc) elsewhere; closing tax exemptions for property investors; and cutting back on services (see: Student allowances a thing of the past for post-graduate students ).
Even paper delivery kids were not exempt from the grasp of this Scrooge-like ‘government’. See: Budget 2012: ‘Paper boy tax’ on small earnings stuns Labour)
It also desperately needed to proceed with it’s state asset sales.
A cynic with a conspiratorial ‘bent’ might suspect that National deliberately manufactured it’s own debt crisis so that it could justify the partial privatisation of Meridian, Genesis, Might River Power, Solid Energy, and Air New Zealand, to it’s corporate/investor/aspirationist constituent-base.
In doing so, not only was the door left open for their privatisation agenda – but the side-effects of tax cuts left National with few options and manouvering room for job creation policies.
With net government debt quadrupling in four years from $10.2 billion (2008) to $50.6 billion (2012), and taxation revenue falling from $56.7 billion (2008) to $55 billion (2012), their hands were seemingly “tied”.
Compounding matters, National cut back state services and fired thousands of state sector workers, resulting in a further drop in expenditure, all of which impacted harshly on the economy.
Whether Free Marketeers like it or not, the state is the #1 business generator in our economy and society. When it cuts spending, the flow-on effects on other, down-stream businesses, is inescapable.
.
.
With higher income earners either saving their tax cuts or paying down debt, tax cuts failed to “fire” the economy as Little Leader said in 2009 and Dear Leader adamantly predicted in 2010,
“By taking firm, early and decisive action, the Government is managing the downturn to cushion the immediate impact on New Zealanders and to enhance future growth.” – Bill English, 28 May 2009
See: Budget 2009 – House goes into urgency
“We’ve cut all personal income tax rates, GST has increased to 15%, and we’ve boosted NZ Super, Working For Families, and benefit payments by 2.02% to compensate for the rise in GST.
Today’s changes are just one part of our comprehensive plan to grow the economy, create jobs, boost incomes, and raise living standards for all New Zealanders. The tax package improves incentives to work, and tilts the economy towards savings, investment, and exports.” – John Key, 1 Oct 2010
See: Tax cuts today
In May 2010, Key had even used the migration issue as justification to cut taxes for higher income earners, professionals, and others in top brackets,
“We can be envious about these things but without those people in our economy all the rest of us will either have less people paying tax or fundamentally less services that they provide.
They include doctors, entrepreneurs often, scientists, engineers, lawyers, accountants, school principals and nurses.
On Thursday you will see a deliberate attempt to make sure those people stay and put their skills to work here in our economy.” – John Key, 18 May 2010
See: Key again defends tax cuts
BS. All of it is, BS.
None of it worked, of course. The economy not only failed to grow – it stagnated or contracted (see: Economic recovery stagnates – NZIER). And despite two tax cuts, migration to Australia skyrocketed – ten thousand higher than under the previous Labour government’s last four years. (see related blogpost: Johnny’s Report Card – National Standards Assessment y/e 2012: migration)
Up until 2011, two of our most important industries – manufacturing and construction – contracted, at a time when the Christchurch re-build should have been growing their turn-over and profitability. The downturn in manufacturing and construction had a flow-on effect on the Wholesale Trade sector,
.
Source: New Zealand in Profile: 2012 – Economy
.
Other measures of the economy show no sign of improvement,
Bank profits back over $3 billion while economy stagnates (24 April 2012)
then “good news”,
Pickup in economic growth predicted (29 Aug 2012)
followed two months later by bad news,
Businesses gloomy about economic growth (9 Oct 2012)
Current Account Deficit Widens (19 Sept 2012)
Trade deficit widens as dairy values fall (27 Nov 2012)
Terms of trade continue to drop (4 Dec 2012)
Govt deficit up as tax take dips (5 Dec 2012)
Deficit $169m wider than predictions (6 Dec 2012)
Growth forecast cut, debt seen higher (18 Dec 2012)
Current account gap narrows as trade balance shrinks (19 Dec 2012)
Outlook slashes tax-take by $8b (19 Dec2012)
Whichever way one looks at it, it’s a mess.
And it’s simply a bad joke for Key to reassure us,
“While I think we have to acknowledge that the last three years have been pretty tough with the Global Financial Crisis, on a relative basisNew Zealand’s been doing a better than a lot of other countries.” – John Key, 17 Nov 2011
See: Key and Goff Q&A: Creating jobs
Trying to suggest that we are nowhere as bad off as other nations such as the US, Spain, Greece, etc – so our current stagnating economy is somehow acceptable – is sheer rubbish.
One might as well justify National’s poor performance and reckless decision-making by stating we are better off than Zimbabwe, Haiti, or Bangladesh,
.
.
We should not be “worse off” than those nations – we headed into the Global Financial Crisis with relatively good economic indicators!
There is Always An Alternative!
A responsible government would have abandoned any prospect of taxcuts and prepared policies to keep people in work; off the unemployment queues; paying taxes; and contributing to the economy.
Policies such as,
With Option #3, National appears to have missed the obvious.
Injecting several billion into a crash-programme to build ten thousand homes for New Zealanders, who are currently struggling to buy their own houses, makes sense.
The Christchurch re-build has proven this to be the case, as the NZ Herald reported on 20 December 2012,
The economy grew at an annual pace of 2.5 per cent, and was 2 per cent higher than the same quarter a year earlier. Revisions to previous quarters showed New Zealand dipped back into recession in the second half of 2010, with two 0.3 per cent contractions in each quarter.
The New Zealand dollar dropped to 83.33 US cents after the figures were released, from 83.60 cents immediately before.Construction kept the economy ticking over with a 4.5 per cent expansion, contributing 0.2 of percentage point to overall GDP. Electricity, gas, water and waste services grew 4.4 per cent in the quarter, contributing 0.1 of a percentage point in growth to GDP, underpinned by an increase in hydroelectric generation.
“Residential and non-residential building activities were both up strongly this quarter, and both were boosted by Canterbury,” Statistics NZ said in its report. “The upper North Island also contributed to the growth in residential building activity.”
The Canterbury rebuild, which is expected to top $30 billion, is widely seen as the saving grace for an economy that has struggled to recover from its deepest recession in two decades, and has been getting some help from a resurgent property market in Auckland in recent months.
See: Economy grows 0.2pc – saved by construction
Statistics NZ national accounts manager Rachael Milicich didn’t split hairs. She bluntly stated,
“The growth in the latest quarter was driven by construction.”
See: Economic activity up 0.2 percent
As for the tax cuts stimulating the economy with extra spending – you can forget that pipedream. According to Statistics NZ,
Household consumption expenditure, which measures the volume of spending by New Zealand households, was flat this quarter (0.0 percent).
See: IBID
National not only bought the 2008 election with promises of unsustainable, unaffordable tax cuts – Key, English, Joyce, et al, squandered an opportunity to keep 70,000 New Zealanders in paid employment (see: Employment graph, 2008-2012).
It was all so unnecessary.
Addendum
In March 2008, the then Finance Minister, Michael Cullen said,
“Even before these challenges hit home John Key wants to increase our debt to at least 25 per cent of GDP. But he does not pretend he wants to borrow more to pay for more services and he does not really believe he needs to borrow more to pay for roads. He only wants to outspend Labour on tax cuts.”
See: [Labour]Government will not borrow for tax cuts
According to Treasury, the current net government debt as at 30 June 2012 stands at… 24.8% of GDP – just shy of 25%,
.
Source: Treasury – Financial Statemement of the Government of New Zealand
Cullen called it 100%.
It’s a shame that 1,053,398 voters couldn’t look past their own selfishness, and the lure of cash dangled before them, by a Party that was hell-bent on it’s own agenda to win power at any cost.
For New Zealand, that cost measured $50 billion and 175,000 unemployed.
.
.
.
= fs =
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 
