Archive
Health care workers pay increase – fair-pay or fish-hooks?
.
.
Some Context
$
“ The National Government said that their signature 2010 income tax cut package would be ‘fiscally neutral’ — paid for increased revenues from raising GST. That hasn’t happened. The net cost for tax cuts has been about $2 billion.
[…]
When National claims it must cut spending for vital public services like health and education to control its borrowing, it carries much of the blame.” – former Green Party Co-leader, Dr Russel Norman, 14 May 2012
$
“ The reliance of New Zealand, of all of us, on the emotional umbilical cord between women working as carers and the older people they care for at $13-14 an hour is a form of modern-day slavery.” – Judy McGregor, Equal opportunities commissioner, 28 May 2012
$
“ It’s one of those things we’d love to do if we had the cash. As the country moves back to surplus it’s one of the areas we can look at but I think most people would accept this isn’t the time we have lots of extra cash.
[…]
We put the money into cancer care and nursing and various other things. On balance, we think we got that about right.” – John Key, former Prime Minister, 28 May 2012
$
“ Cabinet today agreed to a $2 billion pay equity package to be delivered over the next five years to 55,000 care and support workers employed across the aged and residential care sector.”- Bill English, current Prime Minister, 18 April 2017
$
The Announcement
On 18 April, Health Minister Dr Jonathan Coleman and Finance Minister, Bill English, announced that healthcare workers in the disability, residential care, and home/community support sector had successfully won their pay-equity claim;
.
.
The response from the trade union movement was positive;
Unions representing care and support workers are pleased to be jointly announcing with government a proposed equal pay settlement to 55,000 workers across the aged residential, disability and home support sectors.
The proposed settlement is a huge win and will make a real difference in valuing the work of care and support workers and the people they support, workers in the sector say. It is a significant step in addressing gender inequality in New Zealand.
[…]
E tū Assistant National Secretary, John Ryall says the offer once ratified will mean a “once in a lifetime pay rise which will end poverty wages for this mainly female workforce and set them on the path to a better life. We’re delighted today’s proposed settlement recognises the justice of Kristine’s case and the wonderful work of Kristine and other professional carers.”
New Zealand Nurses Organisation Industrial Services Manager Cee Payne says that “This equal settlement delivers pay rates that truly reflect the skills and importance of the work that care and support workers undertake every day. Decent pay rates and the right to achieve qualifications will grow and retain skilled workers to care for our elderly. This will build public confidence that high quality care will be delivered to our families’ loved ones in our rest homes and hospitals.”
PSA National Secretary Erin Polaczuk says: “This settlement will make a real difference to our members. Our members in home support and disability support play a vital role in empowering people to live independent lives in their own communities. This settlement recognises the value of the work they do – and the people they support.”
Unions say the government is to be commended for agreeing to negotiate this settlement offer, rather than waiting for years before the legal process was finally exhausted.
However, there remain unanswered questions to this “deal”.
Questions raised
On 22 April I wrote to Health Minister Coleman;
.
– and took with the other;
.
.
When it comes to fish-hooks, National has prior ‘form’. Even when National announces an ‘increase’ in social spending, it often takes that funding from other areas. Even special-needs children are not exempt from National’s shell-scam, as reported in The Daily Blog in August last year;
Education Minister, Hekia Parata, revealed that primary and secondary schools’ funding for special needs students would be slashed, and the money re-directed to under-fives. As Radio NZ explained;
The [Cabinet] documents also indicated the government would reduce the amount of special education funding spent in the school sector, and dramatically increase the amount spent on those under the age of five.
“Analysis of the spend by the age range of the recipient indicates that a disproportionate amount of the funds are for school-age children. This is despite clear evidence in some areas that early support can have greater benefits in terms of educational outcomes.”
As implications of Parata’s scheme began to percolate through the education sector, reaction was scathing.
I won’t be celebrating until I read the fine print and get some answers.
Watch out for…
.
.
.
.
References
Infonews: Government’s 2010 tax cuts costing $2 billion and counting
Dominion Post: Resthome spy hails saint-like workers
TVNZ News: Cabinet agrees to $2 billion pay equity package for ‘dedicated’ low-paid care workers
Beehive: $2 billion pay equity settlement for 55,000 health care workers
NZCTU: Historic day as caregivers offered equal pay settlement
Beehive: Government to enter negotiations over pay for care and support workers
NZ Herald: Budget 2010 – Experts praise tax cuts for all
NZ Herald: GST rise will hurt poor the most
Fairfax media: Young workers out of pocket
Fairfax media: Prescription price rise hits vulnerable
Scoop media: Vulnerable children at risk from Family Court fees increase
Radio NZ: Govt to phase out ‘special needs’
Additional
Radio NZ: Settlement could help rest homes attract workers
Employment New Zealand: Previous minimum wage rates
NZ Herald: MPs’ pay rise officially confirmed
Radio NZ: MPs given 2.5 percent pay rise
Other Blogs
No Right Turn: A victory for women
The Daily Blog: Courts finally give the poorest workers what the Government wouldn’t and the Unions couldn’t
The Standard: Thank you health care workers
Werewolf: Gordon Campbell on the aged-care settlement
Previous related blogposts
1 March – No Rest for Striking Workers! (1 March 2012)
No Rest for the Wicked (23 March 2012)
“It’s one of those things we’d love to do if we had the cash” (28 May 2012)
Roads, grandma, and John Key (18 July 2012)
John Key’s track record on raising wages – 4. Rest Home Workers (11 November 2012)
Aged Care: The Price of Compassion (16 November 2012)
That was Then, This is Now #22 – Lowest wages vs Highest wages (31 January 2014)
The consequences of tax-cuts – worker exploitation? (31 October 2015)
Special Education Funding – Robbing Peter, Paul, and Mary to pay Tom, Dick, and Harriet (27 August 2016)
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 23 April 2017.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – Bill English dives head first into the cover-up cess-pool
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Listener <letters@listener.co.nz>
date: 4 April 2017
subject: Letters to the editor.
The editorThe Listener
.On 3 April, our esteemed Prime Minister, Bill English, announced that there would be no independent commission of inquiry into allegations of civilian deaths, injuries, and deliberately destroyed homes in a SAS-led raid in Tirgiran Valley in 2010. It was also alleged that a prisoner was handed over to Afghan security forces where torture was a well-known interrogation technique.
English’s excuse;
“After considering [that] briefing, [General Keating’s] letter to [Defence Minister] Gerry Brownlee and viewing video footage of the operation, I’ve concluded there is no basis for ordering an inquiry.”
I trust the facts as presented.”
English’s explanation for refusing an impartial inquiry defies credulity.
In effect, an instigator of an alleged crime – the NZ Defence Force – was asked to provide a reason to avoid an inquiry. The NZDF duly complied.
What did English expect, a full admission of wrong-doing by New Zealand forces in Tirgiran Valley? A written, signed confession?
Is this to be the new standard of accountability from National? That any allegations of impropriety is put to alleged offenders; they deny wrong-doing; and English accepts said denials without question?
Let us not forget that on 21 March, the NZDF responded to allegations of civilian deaths and injuries at Naik and Khak Khuday Dad with a flat-out denial;
“The investigation concluded that the allegations of civilian casualties were unfounded.”
Six days later, Defence Force chief, Tim Keating admitted “possible” casualties;
“Subsequent information, received after Operation Burnham indicated that civilian casualties may have been possible […] The investigation team concluded that civilian casualties may have been possible due to the malfunction of a weapon system.”
Both statements are currently viewable on the NZDF website.
By resisting calls for an inquiry, English has implicated himself in a possible cover-up.
There is no other way to interpret his words...-Frank Macskasy
.
[address and phone number supplied]
.
Appendix
Email addresses for newspapers for other budding letter-writers wanting to express their demand for a Commission of Inquiry. (Maximum word-length stated in brackets)
Daily Post (250 words)
editor@dailypost.co.nz
Dominion Post (200 word limit)
letters@dompost.co.nz
Listener (300 word limit)
editor@listener.co.nz
NZ Herald (200 word limit)
editor@herald.co.nz
Otago Daily Times (150 words)
odt.editor@alliedpress.co.nz
The Press (150 words)
letters@press.co.nz
Southland Times (250 words)
letters@stl.co.nz
Sunday Star Times (150 word limit)
letters@star-times.co.nz
Waikato Times (200 words)
editor@waikatotimes.co.nz
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: ‘No basis’ for Afghan raid inquiry – PM
New Zealand Defence Force: NZDF Response To Book
New Zealand Defence Force: Speech notes for Press Conference on Operation Burnham (p6)
Previous related blogposts
Letter to the editor – Commission of Inquiry, NOW!
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 5 April 2017.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – Commission of Inquiry, NOW!
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: 31 March 2017
subject: Letter to the editor.The EditorDominion Post
.Since the release of Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson’s “Hit and Run” on 21 March, the public has been treated to denials and conflicting information from the NZDF.
On 21 March, the NZDF responded to allegations of civilian deaths and injuries at Naik and Khak Khuday Dad with this statement on their website;
“The investigation concluded that the allegations of civilian casualties were unfounded.”
Six days later, Defence Force chief, Tim Keating stated;
“Subsequent information, received after Operation Burnham indicated that civilian casualties may have been possible […] The investigation team concluded that civilian casualties may have been possible due to the malfunction of a weapon system.”
Both statements are currently viewable on the NZDF website. They are irreconcilable.
Journalists Hager and Stephenson have presented considerable evidence to back up their investigation findings, including death certificates for those killed in the SAS-led raid.Bill English has refused to undertake a commission of inquiry for reasons that remain unclear.
Until an Inquiry is held, there exists a cloud of suspicion hanging over the NZDF, and the SAS. This is not good enough, especially as there is ample evidence innocent people may have been killed.
What more does Mr English need to warrant an inquiry?
.
-Frank Macskasy
(Address and phone number supplied)
.
Appendix1
.
.
.
.
Appendix2
Email addresses for newspapers for other budding letter-writers wanting to express their demand for a Commission of Inquiry. (Maximum word-length stated in brackets)
Daily Post (250 words)
editor@dailypost.co.nz
Dominion Post, (200 word limit)
letters@dompost.co.nz
Listener (300 word limit)
editor@listener.co.nz
Otago Daily Times (150 words)
odt.editor@alliedpress.co.nz
The Press (150 words)
letters@press.co.nz
NZ Herald (200 word limit)
editor@herald.co.nz
Southland Times (250 words)
letters@stl.co.nz
Sunday Star Times (150 word limit)
letters@star-times.co.nz
Waikato Times (200 words)
editor@waikatotimes.co.nz
.
.
.
References
New Zealand Defence Force: NZDF Response To Book
New Zealand Defence Force: Speech notes for Press Conference on Operation Burnham (p6)
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 April 2017.
.
.
= fs =
The Rise and Rise of Daddy State: MSD blackmails NGOs for private data
.
.
Nanny State takes a Shower
What do showers have to do with this issue?
Wait and see.
Spying, Spooks, and Silly Journos
Nearly five years ago, the highly controversial Search and Surveillance Act 2012 was passed by National. As reported at the time;
The Search and Surveillance Act, which was passed through Parliament in March, extends production and examination orders to the police and legalises some forms of surveillance.
It will let more government agencies carry out surveillance operations, allows judges to determine whether journalists can protect their sources, and changes the right to silence.
[…]
Police could complete some forms of surveillance and searches without warrants, but [Police Assistant Commissioner Malcolm] Burgess said the situations were pretty common sense.
Yes, indeed. Police surveillance and seizure powers were being massively extended. But according to the Police Commissioner, citizens could rely on the Police using “pretty common sense” to use them.
Then-Justice Minister, Judith Collins offered this excuse for the extension of police powers;
“ The new Search and Surveillance Act 2012 brings “order, certainty, clarity and consistency” to messy, unclear and outdated search and surveillance laws.”
(Interestingly, the fact that Collins felt the need to use irony-quotation-marks, in her Beehive statement, to enclose the phrase order, certainty, clarity and consistency is revealing.)
This is the same Judith Collins who, in 2009, passed personal phone numbers of a civil servant to far-right blogger, Cameron “Whaleoil” Slater.
A year later, the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill was being hotly debated throughout the country.
Essentially, the Bill (since passed into law), would allow the GCSB to spy on New Zealand citizens which up to then had been the sole province of the NZ SIS.
National’s ‘spinned message’ – constantly parroted by Dear Leader Key – was;
“In addition, the Act governing the GCSB is not fit for purpose and probably never has been. It was not until this review was undertaken that the extent of this inadequacy was known…
[…]
The advice we have recently received from the Solicitor-General is that there are difficulties interpreting the legislation and there is a risk some longstanding practices of providing assistance to other agencies would not be found to be lawful.
[…]
It is absolutely critical the GCSB has a clear legal framework to operate within.”
In fact, the law was clear with it’s wording and intent and Section 14 of the Act (since altered to reflect the Amendment) stated with crystal clarity;
14Interceptions not to target domestic communications
-
Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.
Some journalists were too lazy to fact-check Key’s lies;
.
.
Journalists who failed to realise that Key was being disingenuous, and simply parroted the government’s official spin, did immense damage to public understanding of the issues involved.
Others, like Audrey Young and Tracy Watkins were sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable to recognise a government ‘stitch-up’ when they saw it;
.
“ The GCSB Act 2003 expressly forbids it from spying on the communications of New Zealanders. But, by a series of snakes and ladders through the stated functions and objectives of the act, it convinced itself it was allowed to help the SIS and police spy on New Zealanders.” – Audrey Young, 26 June 2013
.
“ The GCSB’s interpretation of the law was so loose it managed to spy on 88 New Zealanders even though the law specifically stated it was not allowed to do so.” – Tracy Watkins, 3 August 2013
.
National ignored strong public opinion wary of extending the GCSB’s surveillance powers. The Bill became law on 26 August 2013.
The Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Act was followed by the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act (TICS), made law on 11 November 2013.
The TICS law made it mandatory for all electronic communications companies (telcos) to comply with spy agencies demands to intercept and decrypt phone calls, txt-messages, and emails.
The excuse for this piece of intrusive legislation from Communications Minister, Amy Adams;
“ The fundamental reason that I have sought to introduce this bill is to safeguard New Zealand public safety and security. ”
The Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act was, in turn, followed by the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill (split into several Bills after it’s Second Reading in Parliament on 9 December 2014).
This Bill, covering three existing laws, allowed the SIS to conduct surveillance on terrorist suspects without requiring a judicial a warrant for up to 24 hours; to conduct secret video surveillance on private property; gave SIS access to Customs Department data in relation to suspected terrorism, and allowed the Minister of Internal Affairs increased powers to arbitrarily suspend or cancel a passport.
The Labour Party were so opposed to this law change that they voted for it. (NZ First, the Maori Party, and the Greens, to their credit, voted against it.)
Then Dear Leader Key used the usual “defending Kiwis against terrorist” bogeyman to justify the State’s growing surveillance powers;
“ The threats faced by New Zealand have grown and it is important that we have the ability to respond to that. The Government has a responsibility to protect New Zealanders at home and abroad…”
Simultaneously in 2014, the IRD signed an agreement to share data with the Police;
Taxpayer information is required to administer New Zealand’s tax system effectively. This information can be supplied by taxpayers, or it can be collected by Inland Revenue during an audit.
Broadly, the government’s current legislative position is that this information is not shared with other government departments on the basis that it is ‘tax secret’.
However, there are instances where sharing taxpayer information relating to serious crime could bring offenders to justice, support the goals of other government departments, and offer the State broad efficiencies.
Up until that point, the IRD expected everyone who earned money – whether from legal or illegal mean – to pay tax. This meant that, for example, sex workers prior to 2003 would be expected to pay tax on their earnings regardless of the fact it was an illegal activity.
The tax department didn’t care where or how the money was earned – they just wanted their “fare share”.
After 2014, the IRD abandoned that policy, and data-sharing with Police was implemented. It means that taxing other illegal activities such as the production and sale of cannabis, is no longer feasible. This has unintentional consequences – such as the hoarding of cash; use of firearms to protect that cash; and violence.
This is part of an on-going wider process of government departments sharing private information with each other.
The Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Act, Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act, and Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill all follow on from previous extensions of State power, notably the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.
This poorly thought-out law was Labour’s contribution to George Bush’s ill-conceived “War on Terror”.
Throughout National’s three terms in office, it has extended Police powers; widened the scope for the GCSB and SIS to spy on New Zealanders; and created a vast data-sharing network amongst it’s bureaucracy.
MSD, NGOs, and Demands for Data
To date, New Zealanders have been mostly apathetic as the government build up it’s ability to spy and store personal information on us. Most of the government’s “targets” have been so-called “terrorists”, immigrants, criminals, student-debt defaulters, and those on welfare benefits or living in state houses.
Most of Middle New Zealand find it difficult to identify with these elements of our society.
Recently, however, Radio NZ has been running a series of stories and interviews on a disturbing development regarding state aquisition of personal information.
.
.
On 2 March, on Radio NZ’s Nine To Noon programme, Kathryn Ryan interviewed Brenda Pilott, the chairperson of ComVoices (an umbrella organisation for NGOs).
At issue was the disturbing revelation that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), presumably under direction from National ministers, was forcing NGOs to collect and pass private information about their clients back to the Ministry, in return for on-going funding. This proviso was to be written into new contracts set to take effect in July this year after negotiations had concluded after Easter.
>Kathryn Ryan interviews Brenda Pilott – 2 March<
Accordingly to Comvoices, NGOs were expected to pass on;
- names of clients
- birth dates
- ethnicity
- other personal details such as dependent children’s names
NGOs that refused to share this information with MSD would forego funding. The result would be predictable;
.
.
According to Brenda Pilot, the Ministry’s excuse to demand this data was;
“ They want to be able to find out what services are effective. And that this will provide information over time that will allow sensible decisions to be made about government funding and where to apply that funding.”
Ms Pilot voiced concerns that private, identifiable information would be used for tracking individuals who used NGO services. She said that vulnerable people needing to use services such as counselling, Women’s Refuge, Rape Crisis, etc, would be reluctant to engage those organisations and would “walk away”. Ms Pilot was concerned that passing personal, identifiable data to MSD would force NGOs to violate Privacy Laws.
Ms Pilot said that the Privacy Commissioner was also concerned at MSD’s intentions to obtain such data, and was investigating. She said the Commissioner would most likely report on the issue by the end of this month.
On 3 March, Radio NZ reported; grave concerns held by at least one NGO, Women’s Refuge;
Women’s Refuge chief executive Ang Jury said agencies would have to abide by the contract change if they wanted to keep their funding.
“If agencies choose not to share this information they won’t be contracting with the ministry. That’s pretty much where it sits.”
Dr Jury said it was not an ideal situation for the refuge but they were not in a position to say no.
“This is not something that we would happily go out and say, ‘yes, this is exactly what we want to do’.
“If it is going to happen, our job now is to make sure we get the sort of safeguards built around that information that we need to keep our women and children safe,” she said.
At least one privacy lawyer doubted the legality of MSD’s demands;
Privacy lawyer Kathryn Dalziel said the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) looked to be on shaky ground.
“This is a potential breach of privacy because they don’t appear to have identified, anywhere, the purposes for which they are collecting that information.
“There doesn’t seem to be any transparency around it … I also don’t think it’s fair,” she said.
“Principle 2 of the Privacy Act says that if you want to collect information from third party, you have to have a good reason.
“You also have to have … lawful and reasonable purposes for collecting that information in the first place. Now, none of that has been done.”
However, what really raised fears was Ministry of Social Development deputy chief executive, Murray Edridge’s responses to Kathryn Ryan’s questions. His answers not only failed to reassure, but raised serious concerns as to MSD’s intentions regarding the storage and end-use of personalised, identifiable data.
Edridge parroted the usual monetarist rhetoric of “the New Zealand public demands that government spend it’s money well”.
When Ms Ryan put it to Edridge that MSD was attempting to track NGO service-users, he denied it;
“ No we’re not tracking them. What we’re doing is we’re saying to providers, look, for us to understand the effectiveness of services, to understand where the resources are best invested, where we will decide between priorities in terms of investment we need to understand who the people are and what value they get from the services. For some time we’d had concern that investment’s been made in social services where they’re not the most effective mechanism for the people that require them, and this is part of the mechanism by which we understand the clientele better and we understand how we can serve them better and invest in services that are going to support them.”
When Ms Ryan put it to Edridge that anonymised data would work just as well, Edridge kept referring back to needing to know “who these people are“.
Moments later, Edridge contradicted himself by admitting “we know who the clients are, we know all about them“. If that wasn’t creepy enough, Ms Ryan then asked Edridge why MSD demanded further information about NGO service-users. She asked why MSD needed to know who was approaching (for example) Women’s Refuge for assistance..
Edridge’s response was further contradictory and throughout the twelve minute interview he could provide no satisfactory answer why MSD was requiring personalised data from NGOs. At one point he attempted to cloud the issue by stating that MSD required “demographic information”.
Ms Ryan dismissed that claim by remind Edridge that MSD was seeking names, addresses, ethnicities, children’s names and that was not simply “demographic information”.
When Ms Ryan suggested that NGO service-users might not want their details passed on to MSD or other ministeries, Edridge could only respond,
“ Well, we need to know where to get the money in the right place.”
Four days later, Rape Crisis draw a line in the sand and announced it would flat out decline to sign contracts with MSD in return for passing private information about service-users in exchange for on-going funding.
>Rape Crisis reject “data-for-funding” contracts – 7 March<
By 16 March, pressure on MSD and Minister Tolley was such that the ministry caved, and was forced to step back from demanding personalised data from some NGOs dealing with sexual violence.
>Temporary reprieve over ‘private data for funding’ contracts – 16 March<
The “reprieve”, however, was only temporary, and would last for only one year until MSD “works out how to securely collect and store their clients’ private data”. It also did not apply to all NGOs.
The Creep of Big Brother and the Daddy State
Up till this point, data-collection has centered on those who come in contact with the Justice system; WINZ beneficiaries; and Housing NZ tenants. These are generally New Zealanders who are usually the most deprived and vulnerable socially and financially, and rely on State assistance to survive.
A person seeking help from WINZ and Housing NZ is forced to supply both ministeries their private data. To refuse means no help. Next stop; the street;
.
.
A citizen in contact with the Justice system has even less option to refuse to provide private data.
MSD’s demand for personalised data from NGO service-users marks a new stage in National’s slow advancement in building a data-base on every person in the country.
NGO service users may not necessarily be unemployed beneficiaries or live in state houses or have broken the law in some way – but their details will still be required to be collected and supplied to the Ministry of Social Development.
The ministry has assumed the de facto role of collecting and storing data on New Zealanders who – up till this point – may never have come into contact with any governmental organisation such as Housing NZ, WINZ, or Police.
The implications of this are staggering.
The net to scoop up data on as many citizens as possible, has just widened considerably.
If you think you – the reader – may never need the services of Women’s Refuge or Rape Crisis, consider for a moment that there are thousands of NGOs operating in this country and hundreds that are funded by the State.
Victim Support is just one state-funded NGO;
.
.
So if you’ve just become a victim of a crime; Victim Support enters your life; the State now has your personal data on file;
- Client: Name, address, gender, date of birth, primary ethnicity, Iwi.
- Dependents: Name, date of birth, relationship to client.
- Service Level: Information Programme/service name, start date and end date.”
Middle-class New Zealanders who may never have had cause to have personal data collected on them may soon be on file with various ministeries. With data-sharing, personal information from MSD can end up throughout other ministeries. Or on the desks of ministers;
.
.
Never mind “Nanny State” – this is the muscular arm of Daddy State flexing it’s strength to reach out to grab more and more of our private information.
And it won’t end with this.
Not until we say “Enough is enough. No more“.
Back to Showers
Remember this?
.
.
In the lead-up to the 2008 general election, National attacked the then-Labour Government for “Nanny Statism”.
Following on from a disastrous drought in 2007 that cost the country’s economy over $2.8 billion (in 2008/09 dollars), the then-Labour government sought out ways and means to conserve water. The alternative was the possibility of further water-shortages or costly storage and irrigation systems. Labour opted for conservation. This included measures to save water in residential areas.
It could be suggested that water-saving shower heads and energy-efficient light-bulbs are the least of our concerns. National has surpassed anything that Labour envisaged, as this government reaches further and further into our private lives.
If there is one thing that history has taught us – governments that spy on their own people do not trust their people, and are fearful of them.
National must be very frightened of us.
.
.
.
References
NZ Legislation: Search and Surveillance Act 2012
NZ Herald: New police search and surveillance law in force
Beehive: Search and Surveillance Bill becomes law
Radio NZ: Collins defends giving details to blogger
NZ Legislation: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill
Beehive: John Key – PM releases report into GCSB compliance
Legislation.govt.nz: Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003
NZ Herald: Spying on NZ: More power to watch us
Dominion Post: Spy bungles start to entangle PM
Fairfax media: Kiwis do care, prime minister
Parliament: Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill
Parliament: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill
Fairfax: Spying bill passes into law
Parliament: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Third Reading
Parliament: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill
NZ Herald: Foreign fighters bill passes 94 – 27
Fairfax media: Labour backs anti-terror laws, despite attacking it
IRD: Information sharing with New Zealand Police
IRD: Cross-government Information-sharing to Identify, Stop or Disrupt Serious Crime
MacNicol & Co: Tax News – IRD to share information with police
NZ Legislation: Terrorism Suppression Act 2002
Wikipedia: Terrorism Suppression Act 2002
Radio NZ: Government demands private data from NGOs
NZ Family Violence Clearinghouse: Relationships Aotearoa to close; funding models and issues in spotlight
Radio NZ: Govt on shaky ground over data-for-funding contracts, lawyers say
Radio NZ: Rape Crisis reject “data-for-funding” contracts
Radio NZ: Temporary reprieve over ‘private data for funding’ contracts
Comvoices: HomePage
Victim Support: Where does your funding come from?
NZ Family Violence Clearinghouse: MSD to require individual client level data from community agencies
NZ Herald: Bennett gets tough with outspoken solo mums
Dominion Post: Minister defends releasing private details
Fairfax media: Bennett won’t rule out releasing beneficiary details
Scoop: Showers latest target of Labour’s nanny state
NIWA: 2007 – much drier than average in many places
Beehive: Drought costs NZ $2.8 billion
Additional
Fairfax media: UN privacy expert slams government stance on privacy and ‘big data’
Other Blogs
The Standard: Social investment meets the surveillance state
Previous related blogposts
OIA Request points to beneficiary beat-up by Minister Chester Borrows
Audrey Young, Two Bains, old cars, and… cocoa?!?!
National Party president complains of covert filming – oh the rich irony!
An Open Message to the GCSB, SIS, NSA, and Uncle Tom Cobbly
Dear Leader, GCSB, and Kiwis in Wonderland
One Dunedinite’s response to the passing of the GCSB Bill
The GCSB Act – Tracy Watkins gets it right
The GCSB – when plain english simply won’t do
The GCSB law – vague or crystal clear?
The Mendacities of Mr Key #1: The GCSB Bill
Campbell Live on the GCSB – latest revelations – TV3 – 20 May 2014
The real reason for the GCSB Bill
Letter to the Editor: John Campbell expose on Key and GCSB
A letter to the Dominion Post on the GCSB
Dear Michael Cullen: the GCSB is not International Rescue!
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 March 2017.
.
.
= fs =
2017 – Ongoing jobless tally
.
.
Continued from: 2016 – Ongoing jobless tally
By the numbers, for this year;
.
Events
.
January
- Gateway Housing Trust: 7 redundancies
- Pumpkin Patch: 560 redundancies
February
- Westland Milk: unknown
- Wellington City Council: 17 redundancies
- Solid Energy/Spring Creek Mine: unknown
- Cadbury Dunedin: 380 redundancies
- The Warehouse: 130 redundancies (est.)
- ABB: 59 redundancies
March
- Credit Union South: 8 redundancies
- Marcs and David Lawrence: 44 redundancies
- Suncorp: 100 redundancies (est.)
- Auckland Libraries: 74 redundancies
- TVNZ: unknown – t.b.a.
April
Otago University: unknown
May
- Silver Fern Farms: up to 370 redundancies
.
Unemployment Statistics* at a Glance
.
.
(* See caveat below)
.
Caution: Official Unemployment Statistics
.
On 29 June 2016, Statistic NZ announced that it would be changing the manner in which it defined a jobseeker. This so-called “revision” would materially affect how unemployment stats were counted and reported;
.
.
Change: Looking at job advertisements on the internet is correctly classified as not actively seeking work. This change brings the classification in line with international standards and will make international comparability possible.
Improvement: Fewer people will be classified as actively seeking work, therefore the counts of people unemployed will be more accurate.
The statement went on to explain;
Change in key labour market estimates:
- Decreases in the number of people unemployed and the unemployment rate
- Changes to the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate range from 0.1 to 0.6 percentage points. In the most recent published quarter (March 2016), the unemployment rate is revised down from 5.7 percent to 5.2 percent
- Increases in the number of people not in the labour force
- Decreases in the size of the labour force and the labour force participation rate
When Statistics NZ ‘re-jigged’ its criteria for measuring unemployment in June, unemployment dropped from 5.7% to 5.2% (subsequently revised again down to 5.1%).
All unemployment data from Statistics NZ should therefore be treated with caution. Unemployment is likely to be much higher than Statistics NZ figures indicate.
.
.
.
References
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey – Revisions to labour market estimates
Statistics NZ: Labour Market Statistics – June 2016 quarter
Trading Economics: New Zealand Unemployment Rate to January 2017
Previous related blogpost
Lies, Damned lies and Statistical Lies
National exploits fudged Statistics NZ unemployment figures
Lies, Damned lies and Statistical Lies – ** UPDATE **
2016 – Ongoing jobless tally and why unemployment statistics will no longer be used
.
.
.
The Mendacities of Mr English – The covert agenda of high immigration
.
.
Context
Bill English was recently caught on-the-spot when challenged why National was permitting high immigration at a time when unemployment was still high, and rising.
Make no mistake, National has opened the floodgates of immigration because it is an easy way to artificially stimulate the economy. This was pointed out in May 2011, by then-Immigration Minister, Jonathan Coleman, who trumpeted the contribution made by immigration to economic growth;
“All of us have a vested interest in immigration and I’m pleased to share with you some specific actions the Government is taking to enhance Immigration’s contribution to the economy, service improvement and changes to business migration.
[…]
…I’m confident that you will acknowledge the partnership approach that Immigration is now taking to provide tangible improvements to help support New Zealand’s economic growth.
[…]
Considering the economic challenges the country faces, lifting immigration’s economic contribution takes on more importance.”
Justifying the need for high immigration to generate economic growth, Coleman cited “New Zealand [going] into deficit in 2009 after several years of surpluses and the economic situation has been compounded by the September and February earthquakes” and unsustainably “borrowing $300 million dollars a week to keep public services ticking over“.
Coleman admitted that “If we were to close off immigration entirely by 2021… GDP would drop by 11.3 per cent“. He revealed that, “new migrants add an estimated $1.9 billion to the New Zealand economy every year“.
Easy money.
The downside to high immigration has been to put strain on critical services such as roading and housing, and reduce demand for locally trained workers to fill vacancies. There is a downward pressure on wages, as cheaper immigrant-labour is brought into the workforce.
As Treasury pointed out in June last year;
“There is a concern that recently there has been a relative decline in the skill level of our labour migration. The increasing flows of younger and lower-skilled migrants may be contributing to a lack of employment opportunities for local workers with whom they compete.”
Faced with increasingly negative indicators from high immigration, English was forced to explain why we were seeing high immigration at a time of rising unemployment;
.
.
English’s response was predictable if not offensive.
.
Playing National’s Blame Game
As per usual strategy, English defaulted to National’s strategy of Default Blame-gaming. When in trouble;
- Blame the previous Labour government
- Blame ‘welfare abuse’/Release a ‘welfare abuse’ story in the media
- Blame Global Financial Crisis or similar overseas event
(If the trouble is Auckland-centered, Default #4: Blame Auckland Council/RMA/both.)
This has been the pattern of National’s policy to shift blame elsewhere for it’s consistently ineffectual policies;
.
.
The Blame Gaming was applied recently to National’s appalling do-nothing record on housing;
.
.
Resorting to Deflection #2, English had the cheek to blame young unemployed for our high immigration level;
“One of the hurdles these days is just passing the drug test … Under workplace safety, you can’t have people on your premises under the influence of drugs and a lot of our younger people can’t pass that test.
People telling me they open for applications, they get people turning up and it’s hard to get someone to be able to pass the test – it’s just one example.
So look if you get around the stories, you’ll hear lots of stories – some good, some not so good – about Kiwis’ willingness and ability to do the jobs that are available.”
His comments on 27 February were echoing previous, similar sentiments in April last year, when he again abused unemployed workers as “hopeless”;
.
.
Quite rightly, English’s comments were condemned by many. English admitted that his comments were based solely on “anecdotal evidence” . This is the worst form of evidence possible as absolutely no confirmation by way of actual, real data is involved. “Anecdotal evidence” panders to prejudice – a difficult thing to shift even when real evidence proves to the contrary.
Real evidence surfaced only a day after English made his slurs against the unemployed, when it was revealed that out of over 90,000 (approx) welfare beneficiaries, only 466 failed pre-employment drug tests over a three year period. That equates to roughly to 155 failed tests out of 30,000 per year.
Government figures show beneficiaries have failed only 466 pre-employment drug tests in the past three years.
[…]
The Ministry of Social Development said the 466 included those who failed and those who refused to take the test.
Some failed more than once.
The ministry did not have the total figure for how many tests were done over the three years, but said there were 32,000 pre-employment drug tests in 2015.
Those 466 over a three year period consisted of (a) those who failed the test, (b) those who refused to take the test, and (c) some failing more than once.
Put another way, 155 failed tests out of 30,000 per year equates to half a percent fail rate.
Which means that 99.5% of beneficiaries are clean, according to MSD’s own collected data.
There was further confirmation of low fail rates from another media story. On the same day as the Ministry of Social Development released it’s data on failed drug tests, The Drug Detection Agency revealed that fail-rates were as low as 5%;
While the rate of positive tests has remained at about 5 percent, the company is doing more tests and therefore failing more people, said its chief executive, Kirk Hardy.
“We’ve seen an increase overall in our drug testing and we now, annually, conduct about 144,000 drug tests,” he said.
Looked at another way, 95% of the workforce was clean.
Which simply confirms Bill English to be the typical manipulating, lying, politician that the public so consistently distrust and despise.
However, English has his own sound reasoning for blaming welfare beneficiaries for this country’s immigration-caused problems. He has to do it to obscure the two reasons why National has opened the tap on immigration as far as they can possibly get away with…
.
Cargo-cult Economics
Remember that in May 2011, then-Immigration Minister, Jonathan Coleman revealed;
“If we were to close off immigration entirely by 2021… GDP would drop by 11.3 per cent“.
A 11.3% fall in GDP would have pushed New Zealand into a deep recession, matching that of the early 1990s.
This was especially the case as only a few years ago the economy was suffering with an over-valued New Zealand dollar. Manufacturing and exports had slumped;
.
.
Combined with the multi-billion dollar Christchurch re-build, mass-immigration was National’s “quick-fix” solution to boosting the economy. It might cause problems further down the track, but those were matters that National could address later. Or better still, leave for an incoming Labour-Green government to clean up the resulting socio-economic mess.
This is quasi-cargo-cult economics, 21st century style.
.
The Not-so-Free-Market
In Coleman’s May 2011 speech, he also referred – indirectly – to the second rationale for opening the floodgates of mass-immigration;
“If we were to close off immigration entirely by 2021… The available labour force would drop 10.9 per cent“
This was critical for National.
A crucial tenet of free market capitalism (aka neo-liberalism) is that the price of labour (wages and other remuneration) should be predicated on supply and demand;
The higher the wage rate, the lower the demand for labour. Hence, the demand for labour curve slopes downwards. As in all markets, a downward sloping demand curve can be explained by reference to the income and substitution effects.
At higher wages, firms look to substitute capital for labour, or cheaper labour for the relatively expensive labour. In addition, if firms carry on using the same quantity of labour, their labour costs will rise and their income (profits) will fall. For both reasons, demand for labour will fall as wages rise.
Note the part; “At higher wages, firms look to substitute capital for labour, or cheaper labour for the relatively expensive labour“.
Mass immigration may or may not supply cheaper labour per se, but more people chasing a finite number of jobs inevitably “stabilises” or even drives down wages, as migrants compete with local workers. As pointed out previously, this is precisely what Treasury warned off in June last year;
“There is a concern that recently there has been a relative decline in the skill level of our labour migration. The increasing flows of younger and lower-skilled migrants may be contributing to a lack of employment opportunities for local workers with whom they compete.”
National is wary of wages rising, thereby creating a new wage-price inflationary spiral, reminiscent of the 1970s and 1980s. English said as much on TVNZ’s Q+A in April 2011;
Guyon Espiner: “Can I talk about the real economy for people? They see the cost of living keep going up. They see wages really not- if not quite keeping pace with that, certainly not outstripping it much. I mean, you said at the weekend to the Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum that one of our advantages over Australia was that our wages were 30% cheaper. I mean, is that an advantage now?”
Bill English: “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.
[…]
Well, it is a good thing if we can attract the capital, and the fact is Australians- Australian companies should be looking at bringing activities to New Zealand because we are so much more competitive than most of the Australian economy.
[…]
Well, at the moment, if I go to Australia and talk to Australians, I want to put to them a positive case for investment in New Zealand, because while we are saving more, we’re not saving more fast enough to get the capital that we need to close the gap with Australia. So Australia already has 40 billion of investment in New Zealand. If we could attract more Australian companies, activities here, that would help us create the jobs and lift incomes.”
National is circumventing their own neo-liberal ideology by importing large numbers of workers, to drive down wages (or at least permit only modest growth).
In times of scarce labour, wages should grow. Demand. Supply.
This is the counter to recessionary-times, such as the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, when wages remain static, or fall, due to heightened job losses and rising unemployment. Supply. Demand.
But National is subverting the free market process by ‘flooding the labour market’ with immigrant labour. The price of labour cannot rise because National has interfered with the process of supply by widening the field of the labour market. The labour market is no longer contained with the sovereign borders of our state.
This reveals “free market economics” to be a fraud. It is permitted to work unfettered only when it benefits the One Percent, their business interests, and their ruling right-wing puppets.
The moment there is a whiff that the “free market” might benefit workers – the goal-posts are shifted. (Just ask Nick Smith about shifting goal-posts.)
The game is fixed. The dice are loaded. We cannot hope to beat the House at their game.
Time to change the game.
Inevitable Conclusion
Welfare beneficiaries. Drugs. Drug testing. It was never about any of those.
The real agenda is for National to create a false impression of economic growth and reign-in wage growth, through immigration. Anything which threatens to expose their covert agenda is to be countered. Especially before it becomes fixed in the public consciousness.
Welfare beneficiaries are very useful as National’s go-to scapegoats. Or herring of a certain hue…
.
.
Postscript: A case of REAL workplace drug abuse
Meanwhile, in what must constitute the worst case of workplace drug abuse, took place on 14 June 1984;
.
.
…Muldoon had made up his mind. In one of the biggest miscalculations in our political history he decided that he would go to the country. At 11.15pm a visibly intoxicated Muldoon made his announcement to waiting journalists.
.
.
.
References
NZ Herald: Beyond the fear factor – New Kiwis can be good for us all
Fairfax media: NZ unemployment jumps to 5.2 per cent, as job market brings more into workforce
Fairfax media: New Zealand’s economic growth driven almost exclusively by rising population
Beehive: Immigration New Zealand’s contribution to growing the economy
NZ Herald: Budget 2016 – Feeling the Pressure
NZ Herald: Treasury warns of risk to jobs from immigration
TV3 News: Bill English blames unemployment on drug tests
Radio NZ: Employers still struggling to hire NZers due to drug use – PM
Radio NZ: Farmers agree Kiwi farm labourers ‘hopeless’
Radio NZ: Tens of thousands drug-tested, hundreds fail
Radio NZ: Drug use not the whole worker shortage story – employer
NZ Herald: Willie Apiata our most trusted again
Radio NZ: Exporters tell inquiry of threat from high dollar
Wikipedia: Cargo cult economics
Economics Online: The demand for labour
TVNZ: Q+A – Guyon Espiner interviews Bill English – transcript
Radio NZ: Unemployment rises, wage growth subdued
Statistics NZ: When times are tough, wage growth slows
Fairfax media: Shock rise in unemployment to 7.3pc
TVNZ: Frontier Of Dreams – 1984 Snap Election
Additional
TV3 News: Government gets thumbs down on housing
Other Blogs
The Standard: English hammered on druggies smear
Previous related blogposts
Election ’17 Countdown: The Promise of Nirvana to come
When National is under attack – Deflect, deflect, deflect!
National under attack – defaults to Deflection #2
National under attack – defaults to Deflection #1
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 5 March 2017.
.
.
= fs =
Election ’17 Countdown: The Promise of Nirvana to come
.
(Or, “The Duplicities of Dr Smith: Dirty rivers, Dubious standards, and Double-talk” )
.
.
“…We should always measure a Government’s environmental rhetoric against its environmental record.” – John Key,
.
__________________________
Water Quality & Shifting Goal Posts
__________________________
On 23 February, Faux-Environment Minister, Dr Nick Smith, announced a seemingly “bold” plan to clean up New Zealand’s waterways by 2040;
.
.
The Government has announced a new target to have 90 per cent of New Zealand’s lakes and rivers reach swimmable water quality standards by 2040.
The target will be based on meeting the water quality standard at least 80 per cent of the time in line with European and United States definition, Environment Minister Nick Smith said.
Currently 72 per cent by length meet that definition and the target is to increase that to 90 per cent by 2040.
Faux-Environment Minister Smith tried to re-assure New Zealanders;
“This ambitious plan to improve the water quality in our lakes and rivers recognises that New Zealanders expect to be able to take a dip in their local river or lake without getting a nasty bug.
This 90 per cent goal by 2040 is challenging and is estimated to cost the Government, farmers and councils $2 billion over the next 23 years. It will make us a world leader in water quality standards for swimming, and that’s important for New Zealand’s growing tourism industry. It will return our rivers and lakes to a standard not seen in 50 years while recognising that our frequent major rainfalls mean a 100 per cent standard is not realistic.”
A day later, on Radio NZ’s ‘Morning Report’, however, his assertions were taken to task with a more critical style of interviewing by Susie Ferguson.
Smith claimed that new levels of e.coli contamination were set to international standards;
“The level, the 540 e.coli, is the level that is set by the World Health Organisation, it the level that is set both by the E.U. and by the U.S.”.
Ferguson challenged Smith’s assertions by pointing out that other international organisations and jurisdictions held lower e.coli level for permissible contamination levels. At one point she asked the Faux Minister for the Environment how rivers currently rated as “swimmable” will now be able to have twice the amount of faecal matter in it and still remain safe to swim in.
Smith’s reply was waffly, suggesting that Ferguson was attempting to mix “Medians” and “95 percentile” figures. He ducked Ferguson’s question.
Green Party water-spokesperson, Catherine Delahunty, pointed out that National had simply re-designated pollution levels by “shifting the goalposts“;
“The Prime Minister thinks he can pull a fast one on New Zealanders by just shifting the goalposts and calling what was ‘wadeable’ now ‘swimmable’.”
The Fairfax article in which Delahunty made the accusation did not disclose what “goalposts” she was referring to.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, also referred to a shifting of “goalposts”;
“There have been some goalposts moved, or some ways of measuring things moved, and it’s very difficult to tell whether things are being tightened or loosened. That’s a big concern of mine.”
Radio NZ reported Dr Wright as being highly critical that the 90 percent target-catchment included waterways that no-one would swim in, such as rivers in very remote/very cold regions of New Zealand;
“It’s where do people want to swim and at what time of the year … There’s sort of a dilution that’s gone on by putting the whole length of these rivers in, and the whole areas of these lakes.”
There was further evidence of “shifted goalposts” to come…
.
.
.
__________________________
Media Analysis & What was left out
__________________________
When Faux-Environment Minister Smith announced a grandoise “plan to improve the water quality in our lakes and rivers recognises that New Zealanders expect to be able to take a dip in their local river or lake without getting a nasty bug“, he omitted to mention a salient fact.
Radio NZ’s , reported on the morning of 24 February (the day after Faux-Environment Minister Smith made his much heralded announcement;
The government has weakened the threshold for what qualifies as the best quality waterway to swim in as part of its target to make 90 percent of New Zealand’s rivers swimmable by 2040.
Under the old system, for a waterway to be considered the best for swimmability the acceptable level of E coli was less than 260 per 100ml of water.
That equated to a low risk of infection, up to 1 percent, when a person was taking part in activities that were likely to involve full immersion.
Now, the government has changed the whole system so that for a waterway to be considered excellent it cannot exceed a new E coli level of 540 per 100ml [of water] more than five percent of the time, which equates to a less than five percent risk of infection.
To give waterways an “Excellent” rating, National has more than doubled the permissable level of e.coli bacteria in a given river or lake from 260 per 100ml of water to 540 per 100ml of water.
When pointedly asked by a journalist that “the Ministry of Health recommendation is 260 E.coli – how does that relates to the 540 level?“, Smith tried the “baffle-them-with-bullshit-science” response;
“We are saying at 540 E.coli the risk is one in 20 (of getting sick). But that one in 20 is at the 95 per cent confidence level. So there is an extra level of cautiousness. Even if you put 20 people in water and it has a 540 E.coli level it’s not saying on average one person gets sick out of 20. It’s saying one in 20 of 20 groups will have one in 20 get sick.”
Smith’s “ one in 20” explanation was so confusing, he ludicrously managed to contradict himself on Radio NZ;
Under the old system, for a waterway to be considered the best for swimmability, the acceptable level of E coli was less than 260 per 100ml of water.
That equated to a low risk of infection, up to 1 percent (one in 100), when a person took part in activities likely to involve full immersion.
Under the new system, for a waterway to be considered excellent it could not exceed an E coli level of 540 per 100ml more than 5 percent of the time.
That equated to a less than a 5 percent (one in 20) risk of infection.
When it was put to him that the new swimmable standard allowed for one in 20 people to become sick, Mr Smith said, “That is junk science”.
Even Smith can’t keep up with his own bullshit.
Unfortunately, not all media reports (initially) referred to National shifting the e.coli goalposts from 260 per 100ml of water to 540 per 100ml of water; such as Fairfax’s “New Government target to see 90 per cent of rivers and lakes ‘swimmable’ by 2040“; Radio NZ’s “Govt plans to make 90% of NZ waterways swimmable by 2040“; TVNZ’s “Govt wants to make 90% of lakes and rivers clean enough to swim in by 2040“; and NBR’s “Government bows to pressure, adopts ‘swimmable’ target for lakes and rivers“.
The public reading those stories would not have realised that National was effectively doubling the permissable level of e.coli contamination in our waterways.
However, TV3 News (“Govt aims to get 90pct of rivers swimmable by 2040“) and NZ Herald (“Government sets 2040 ‘swimmable’ rivers target“), got it right on the first day (23 February).
To be fair, National’s media release on 23 February – “90% of rivers and lakes swimmable by 2040” – was also missing the crucial detail of e.coli levels being increased.
It was a detail which the Faux-Environment Minister did not want publicised, when he fronted up to the media on the 23rd.
Interestingly, commentors on Stuff.co.nz and NBR seemed very aware on 23 February that Smith was trying to pull a ‘fast one’ over the public’s and media’s eyes;
.
.
.
(Note “Two days ago” correlated to 23 February.)
.
.
.
______________________________
Past Targets & Election Year Gimmickery
______________________________
The 2040 “target” for supposedly cleaning up our rivers and lakes was not National’s first attempt at setting long-term goals.
National ministers have been setting target-goals for themselves as a kind of “feel good” story for the public. Usually these targets are released to the media in an election year. And usually the target dates are set years, if not decades, into the distant future.
Who can forget these targets;
In 2011 (election year!), National announced that New Zealand would be smokefree by 2025;
The Government has set a long-term goal of reducing smoking prevalence and tobacco availability to minimal levels, thereby making New Zealand essentially a smokefree nation by 2025.
In 2014 (election year!) and announced by Minister for Stomping on Crushed Cars, Anne Tolley, National set this ambitious target for themselves;
Reducing crime
Our aim
-
By June 2017, reduce the crime rate by 15%, reduce the violent crime rate by 20%, and reduce the youth crime rate by 25%.
-
By June 2017, reduce the re-offending rate by 25%.
Another target-goal, set in 2014 (election year!), and announced by Social Welfare minister, Paula Bennett;
…has set a new target of getting benefit numbers from 295,000 to 220,000 by 2017 – a 25 per cent drop. She is also looking for a 40 per cent drop in youth on benefits – getting 21,000 more young people off the benefit.
And this one, released in June last year (strangely, not an election year);
New Zealand to be Predator Free by 2050
Prime Minister John Key has today announced the Government has adopted the goal of New Zealand becoming Predator Free by 2050.
[…]
“That’s why we have adopted this goal. Our ambition is that by 2050 every single part of New Zealand will be completely free of rats, stoats and possums.”
The budget for this herculean feat to eliminate “rats, stoats and possums” from “every single part of New Zealand” was set at an ‘extra’ $28 million (above $60 – $80 million already budgetted for pest control) – an amount which was derided for it’s utter inadequacy.
So how are we doing with these laudible, “feel good” target?
Not too well.
In 2015, a Fairfax story revealed that National’s ambitious goal to eliminate smoking from New Zealand was lagging far behind;
However as the deadline looms for Smokefree 2025 – a commitment by the Government to help reduce smoking to minimal levels in New Zealand in 10 years – anti-smoking organisations are calling for it to take bolder steps to preserve New Zealand’s position as a world-leader in the fight against tobacco.
[…]
Even the Ministry of Health admits it’s off track…
[…]
In New Zealand, tobacco manufacturers’ returns supplied to the Ministry show consumption has declined 6 per cent per year since 2010, or 23 per cent since 2010.
[…]
“At this rate, New Zealand will not meet the target of Smokefree 2025,” [Emeritus Professor at the University of Auckland Robert] Beaglehole said. “But it is achievable, and we know what to do to get back on track.”
Perhaps the worst target-goal that has failed was National’s (dubious) committment to cut large numbers from welfare benefits, as conceded by Anne Tolley in July 2016;
Anne Tolley has effectively conceded that National is unlikely to meet its objective of moving 65,000 people off the benefit within the next two years.
In excusing her government’s failure to meet one of their own self-imposed target-goals, Tolley gave this illuminating explanation;
“It’s a very aspirational target.”
Within those five simple words, Tolley has revealed the the eventual outcome and excuse whenever one of National’s target-goals fails: they are only “aspirational”.
This is critical, because like the “Predator Free New Zealand by 2050” or “90 per cent of rivers and lakes ‘swimmable’ by 2040”, the target dates for these goals to be accomplished are so far into the future that (a) no one will recall these committments being made (b) most National ministers who made them will be long-retired, residing in rest-homes and having drool wiped from their slack-jawed faces by under-paid caregivers or (c) dead.
In short, no one will ever be held to account for these failures of policy.
The great mistake made by National is that, at the beginning when they dreamed up these feel-good gimmicks, they set target-goal dates too close to the present. For example, when John Key and Bill English published a document entitled “Better Public Services” in February 2014, issuing a whole raft of target-goals, they set the date for accomplishment at 2017 (for most, though not all).
That left National minister in office only three years later having to explain their failure to achieve their target-goals.
In Tolley’s case, she could only offer the lame excuse that they were “aspirational” goals only.
As Susie Ferguson pointed out to Nick Smith on Radio NZ’s ‘Morning Report‘;
“The long time frame of this though means that you are going to be long gone whether we see that this has happened or not.”
The ultimate Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card for a politician.
In the meantime – stay out of the rivers and lakes. Nick Smith has been seen bull-shitting in them.
.
.
.
.
.
References
Scoop media: John Key – Speech to the Bluegreens Forum
Fairfax media: New Government target to see 90 per cent of rivers and lakes ‘swimmable’ by 2040
Radio NZ: Nick Smith defends new swimming standard for rivers and lakes
Radio NZ: ‘Very confusing’: Watchdog critical of water quality changes
New Zealand Yearbook: 1984
Radio NZ: Water quality measure ‘less stringent’
Fairfax media: The new ‘swimmable’ fresh water target: Nick Smith defends his plan
Radio NZ: Water quality criticism based on ‘junk science’ – Nick Smith
NBR: Government bows to pressure, adopts ‘swimmable’ target for lakes and rivers
New Zealand Yearbook: 2008
Ministry of Health: Smokefree 2025
Beehive: Better Public Services
NZ Herald: National pledge to cut benefit numbers by 25 per cent
Beehive: New Zealand to be Predator Free by 2050
Fairfax media: Smokefree 2025, predator-free 2050 criticised for a lack of follow through
Beehive: New Zealand to be Predator Free by 2050
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
Statistics NZ: Agricultural Production Statistics: June 2015
Additional
Fairfax: Cattle belonging to Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias’ repeat offenders
Scoop media: Swimmable rivers – Greenpeace says look below the surface
Scoop media: Big Backdown by Smith on Swimmable Rivers
Other Blogs
Green blog: Nick Smith thinks New Zealanders are stupid
Greenpeace: Don’t get freaked by the eco
My Thinks: Come swim with me
No Right Turn: A literal bullshit standard
The Civilian: What’s all the fuss about these rivers? I drank some water once and it wasn’t any bloody good
The Civilian: Government vows that by 2040, 90% of New Zealand’s rivers will be ‘vaguely liquid in nature’
The Daily Blog: National’s ‘swimmable’ rivers policy is another ‘alternative facts’ moment and why we can’t allow it
The Daily Blog: David Parker – Flammable rivers – Smith’s swimmable river con ignites outrage
The Standard: Just allow more shit – a metaphor for this government
Previous related blogposts
TDB Investigation into what is happening in our water
Election ’17 Countdown: The Strategy of Ohariu
Election ’17 Countdown: Joyce – let the lolly scramble begin!
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 February 2017.
.
.
= fs =
Call me a cynic, but I sense fish-hooks in the detail. When National cut taxes in 2010, they gave with one hand;
.