Meet Ken Shirley;
Most folk won’t remember who Ken Shirley was, prior to his current ‘gig’ as CEO of the Road Transport Forum (RTF), representing road transport interests since July 2010.
From 1984 to 1990, Shirley was nominally a Labour Party MP. He was closely aligned with the likes of Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, and other right-wingers who had seized control of the party during the 1980s.
From 1996 to 2005, Shirley was an ACT Party MP. As such, he was an acolyte of the neo-liberal school of economics and a strong adherent of free market forces. Part of ACT’s policies is to scrap the minimum wage.
Indeed, to under-score ACT’s abhorrence of the minimum wage, ACT’s current leader (and sole MP), David Seymour, condemned a recent rise in minimum wage levels. On 26 February this year, Seymour was scathing;
“The new $15.25 minimum wage will hit regional employers especially hard… In Auckland, $15.25 might not sound like much, but small businesses in the regions who generally charge less will struggle to bear the cost. Hikes to the minimum wage will discourage new employment, and lead to more lay-offs and business failures.
The first employees to suffer will be young, low-skilled workers who won’t be offered a chance to prove their worth. Pulling up the jobs ladder will only add to poverty in low-income areas.
This is a wage set for the distorted Auckland economy. Why should the rest of the country have to bear the same costs?”
[Fun Fact: As a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Seymour is currently a taxpayer-funded beneficiary on a salary of $185,098 p.a. – which equates to nearly $89 per hour. One wonders if “small businesses in the regions who generally charge less will struggle to bear the cost” of Seymour’s salary?]
But returning to Ken Shirley; as an ex-ACT member of Parliament he is still most likely an advocate for the abolition of the minimum wage.
On 5 May, Shirley was invited to be a commentator on Radio NZ’s afternoon Panel, hosted by Jim Mora;
“Ken Shirley of the Road Transport Forum discusses what’s behind logging truck crashes and what needs to be done.”
At one point in the discussion, a suggestion was made that low wages in the trucking industry is not attracting the most highly-skilled and experienced workers;
Jim Mora: “How bad do you think, Ken, is this situation with truck driving?”
Ken Shirley: “Oh, the spate we’ve had in Northland is just unacceptable. There’s no excuse for roll-over[s]. We know we have some difficult roads in New Zealand with topography, Northland’s is particularly difficult.
But there’s an obligation on the drivers and the forestry companies who hire the drivers to make sure they drive to the conditions. That’s the obligation on all drivers, and the spate we’ve had is just unacceptable, and I think inevitably it seems it’s not mechanical failure, it is driver error.
Whether it’s speed, inattention, or fatigue.”
Jim Mora: “So, it’s a…what, is it a hiring of drivers problem, hiring the wrong drivers, or is it a keeping-costs down problem, Ken? What do you think?”
Ken Shirley: “Well, the two are related of course. We have a chronic shortage of H5 drivers in New Zealand. That’s the heavy combination driver, the truck and trailer. It’s a global problem, but it’s particularly severe in New Zealand at this time. We’ve had it for many years, but with the activity in the economy now, that we are currently having, there is a chronic shortage of drivers.
Many of our members throughout the country are just saying they simply cannot get drivers. And I guess inevitably, you can, in that situation, such a tight situation, out of desperation, you can perhaps hire someone who’s not as skilled as you would like or need, out of sheer necessity. But at the end of the day, there’s no excuse. This should not be happening. We’re taking it very seriously.
We’ve actually instigated a series of roll-over prevention seminars in conjunction with NZTA around the country. They started some six weeks back. And these are actually very good seminars. But we have to educate the drivers, the loaders, the dispatchers, the transport operators themselves, but we must not have this level of roll-over.”
Jim Mora: “Ken, is it the… what is it deep down? Is it the meager wages paid, as some people are saying? You’re just not attracting the skills to the industry?”
Ken Shirley: “Ah, no, you do, it’s, you know, you can have a driver error. But it’s, it’s… you have to have better training, better awareness, that has to be the answer.”
Jim Mora: “So, there was this work-force development strategy, wasn’t there, ah, put into place a wee while back to try and try to entice more people to become truck drivers because of that shortage. But what is the point of a work-force development strategy if we know what the problem basically is, which I’m interpreting as maybe a lack of training and a lack of procedures put in place in the industry – [garbled].”
After a further exchange between Jim More, Peter Elliot (one of the panelists), and Ken Shirley, the host returned the discussion to the matter of wage rates;
Jim Mora: “It does seem though, with the wage rates that we see talked about, that you might not be getting the optimum recruits for the job? Is that a fair criticism, or not?”
Ken Shirley: “Well we know that the skilled labour market across the economy, whether it’s a diesel mechanic, a skilled driver, all of of those industries are, are, reporting severe chronic shortages. And because they are so highly skilled, reliant on a high level of, of, of, experience, when there is a chronic shortage, there is a temptation to often, out of desperation [to] take what you can get. And, and, that’s, that’s when you start to get into issues that like we are seeing and that’s when you start introducing potential road safety problems.”
Jim Mora: “I understand, but would you solve your chronic shortage if you paid higher wage rates?”
Ken Shirley: “Well, indeed, and all the members I speak to want to, but there’s been a race to the bottom, it’s –
[panelist scoffing (?) noise]
… such a fiercely competive industry…”
Shirley’s admissions are astounding.
His comments appear to be a frank admission that the free market has experienced a spectacular failure on a key point in the Northland logging industry; that if there is a shortage of skilled labour, the price of that labour (heavy-truck drivers in this case) should rise – not fall – to attract skilled labour. That is a basic tenet of supply and demand in the free market system.
As the guru of free market economics, Milton Friedman put it;
“But when workers get higher wages and better working conditions through the free market, when they get raises by firm[s] competing with one another for the best workers, by workers competing with one another for the best jobs, those higher wages are at nobody’s expense. “
And Investopedia described a free labour market thusly;
Assuming there are a large number of employers in a region, or that workers are highly mobile geographically, the wages that a company will pay workers is dependent on the competitive market wage for a given skill set. This means that any company is a wage taker, which is simply another way of saying companies must pay competitive wages in order to obtain workers.
None of which seems to be happening in Northland at present.
To the contrary, logging companies – according to their own spokesperson, Ken Shirley – are engaged in a “a race to the bottom” with drivers’ wages.
To compound the problem, in April of this year, Shirley specifically opposed and condemned outright any attempt to increase the wages of drivers;
“The link between remuneration and road safety is highly questionable and as a recent PWC report highlights, the system will result in a net cost to the Australian economy of more than A$2 billion over 15 years.
It is therefore very concerning that the Labour Party here advocated for the same policy and campaigned on it during the last election.”
National awards and government-imposed orders are not the way to lift industry wage rates or make the industry safer. All they do is saddle the industry with inflexible and time-consuming obligations and additional costs.
Let’s not repeat Australia’s mistake in New Zealand. It has been proven that national awards burden the economy and cost jobs and I hope that Labour and other political parties here will accept that reality and ditch the concept once and for all.”
Shirley’s comments last month are in stark contrast to his public lamentations on Radio NZ.
Not only has the free market failed in one of it’s key tenets – but Shirley is actively opposed to raising wages by any means necessary, to attract skilled, experienced truck drivers.
This should serve as a clear lesson that the innate contradictions of the free market ideology – many of which are little more than articles of faith – will eventually become more and more apparent.
Shirley has inadvertently helped with the slow dismantling of the neo-liberal fantasy.
Unfortunately, knowing how the system operates in this country, it will takes catastrophic events with several tragic deaths, before the government acts on this growing problem.
That’s how we roll in New Zealand.
Wikipedia: Ken Shirley
ACT NZ: Welfare and family
Parliament: Current MPs – David Seymour
Good Reads: Milton Friedman
Investopedia: Breaking down ‘Demand For Labor’
Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal: About road safety remuneration orders
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 10 May 2016.
= fs =
There aren’t very many times I agree wholeheartedly with our Dear Leader – but on this occassion I believe he spoke for those 99% of New Zealanders for whom common sense is as natural as breathing air.
ACT – with it’s long line of loopy leaders and coterie of strange MPs – has a record for saying and doing things that can best be described as “unwise” (in a Judith Collins sense of the word) – or just down-right Full Moon Barking Mad to be bluntly honest.
Case in point;
Whyte’s comments were further reported;
Dr Whyte said he had no view on what weapons shopkeepers should arm themselves with but believed firearms were appropriate, “if they felt that there was sufficient threat”.
Full. Moon. Barking. Mad.
When Whyte offered his views on incest on the blog, “The Ruminator“, ACT’s opponants (and there are plenty of them); the MSM, and blogosphere reacted with disbelief, derision and exasperation.
Personally, I took it as the musings of an “philosopher-intellectual” who had spent way too much time isolated in dusty University halls and had only recently returned to Planet Earth to mingle with us mere humans. Kind of akin to a left-wing Labour candidate musing out loud about enforced re-nationalisation of all privatised state assets, or their National counterpart musing out loud about banning all trade unions. Definitely stuff not meant for public consumption and best kept to one-self.
Except it appears that the incest gaffe was not an isolated incident, and Jamie Whyte’s insane suggestion to allow store owners to “bear arms” now confirms his reputation as someone whose grip on reality is questionable.
It was left up to the Prime Minister, New Zealand Association of Convenience Stores chairman, Roger Bull, and others, to inject some sanity into this American Gothic nightmare scenario that an ostensibly sober Jamie Whyte was casually promoting as a new way of life.
Key pointed out the obvious;
“The reason I think it’s a bad idea is that firstly you’d be putting weapons in the hands of people that are not trained.
Those weapons could be used [against] the very shopkeepers themselves. It’s a recipe for disaster.”
And Roger Bull said matter-of-factly;
“Our policy has always been if there’s a robbery, you comply with the instructions of the person and you do not try to do anything quick or sudden because you don’t know the mental state [of the offender].
You comply and get them out of the way as quick as possible.”
Let me illustrate the type of wacky-doodle idea that Whyte is flirting with.
Soon after the September 11 attacks, more than one individual – exhibiting a decidedly dubious capacity for logic – suggested on several internet fora, that passengers be allowed to carry guns on flights, to protect against further terrorist attacks.
Yeah. Because gunfights on aircraft flying at high altitudes, is just such an amazingly good idea! Add to the scenario of gun-packing passengers, growing incidences of alcohol-fuelled high-altititude high-jinks, and the threat of hijacking becomes the least of our worries.
Take the same concept of people feeling threatened by random, high-profile crimes from 10,000 metres, and relocate it to West Auckland, and the only difference is the absence of the likelihood of explosive decompression when bullets miss their intended targets.
There is a disturbing bizarre pattern to Whyte’s pattern of “thinking”. Whether it is simplistic notions of removing the Resource Management Act or Three Strikes for burglary, his “solutions” are predicated on a naive, almost black and white world-view, that is reminiscent of an adolescent who has yet to come to terms with the complexities of society. Generally, pre-adolescent teenagers, when faced with pressing social issues and problems, will arrive at simplistic, knee-jerk “solutions” based on little more than their own limited life-experiences.
For a supposedly mature, well-educated, worldly individual to express similar naive beliefs suggests that Whyte’s own intellectual development has been ‘arrested’ at some point in his youth and has not progressed to understanding that the world around him is a vastly complex, messy, inter-twined mass of human threads. Tug on one thread, and there is no telling where that pressure will be exerted.
It does not take a genius to figure out what is wrong with the picture of allowing store owners to keep firearms for “self defence”.
Aside from how such weapons would be stored – under the counter? Easily stolen or picked up by kids. Locked away – then not much use to a store owner facing a robbery situation.
Or a gunfight in a store with other customers present – who else would be injured or killed?
Whyte obviously has not thought the issue through to it’s ultimate, deadly conclusion. And if he has, and if he is simply exploiting the tragedy of murdered shop-keepers for political gain to win votes – what does that make him?
I would be hard-pressed to work out which is worse; a parliamentary aspirant with a stupid idea that would most likely end up killing more innocent people?
Or a parliamentary aspirant with an idea that is exploitative of other people’s grief , just to win votes?
Even the right-wing, lock’em-up-throw-away-the-key, Sensible Sentencing spokesperson, Ruth Money, opposed “a crazy increase of firearms behind every counter“.
When even the so-called “Sensible Sentencing” recognise a patently lunatic proposal, you just know it’s a step too far into Wacky-doodle Land
Perhaps Whyte should have stuck with legalising incest. After all, what’s the worst that can result from incest? Idiot people with idiot ideas?
NZ Herald: Act policy a ‘recipe for disaster’ – Key
The Ruminator: Mr Ryght: An interview with ACT leader: Jamie Whyte
Previous related blogposts
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 14 September 2014
= 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" <email@example.com>
.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" <firstname.lastname@example.org> . 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
Taxpayers Union: A question of value for taxpayer money
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’
NZ Herald: John Drinnan – High-risk PR strategy flies
Previous related blogposts
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 19 March 2014.
= fs =
– Focus on Politics –
– Friday 7 March 2014 –
– Demelza Leslie –
A weekly analysis of significant political issues.
Friday after 6:30pm and Saturday at 5:10pm
After being officially appointed as the new ACT leader, Jamie Whyte is now being heralded as the saviour of the party that’s struggling to even register in political polls.
Click to listen: Focus on Politics for 7 March 2014 ( 16′ 37″ )
- Jamie Whyte,
- Three Strikes Law,
- John Banks
= fs =
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
From the Xtremely Looney Files
Right wing nuttiness knows no bounds. Public utterance by Garth McVicar, Colin Craig, and recently from ACT’s new leader, Jamie Whyte, are just too good for any self-respecting (or otherwise) blogger to pass up.
From the laughable, on the chemtrail conspiracy theory,
“Our party has no formal position on chemtrails. I am aware of the theory that chemicals are being released at high altitude for some nefarious purpose, but don’t know whether there is any truth in this or not.” – Colin Craig, December 2012
… and more snorts of laughter on the conspiracy theory that the moonlandings were a hoax,
“I don’t have a belief or a non-belief in these things. I just don’t know. I have no idea, mate. That’s what we’re told. I’m sort of inclined to believe it. But at the end of the day I haven’t looked into it. There are very serious people that question these things. I don’t have to have an opinion on these things, I don’t have time to look into it.” – Colin Craig, 4 December 2013
… to the offensive,
“Why should, say, a 70-year-old who’s had one partner all their life be paying for a young woman to sleep around? We are the country with the most promiscuous young women in the world. This does nothing to help us at all.”- Colin Craig, 9 May 2012
… to nasty, ignorant, religion-inspired judgementalism,
“The marriage institution being a relationship between a man and a woman predates government. It is not the job of government to start re-defining marriage… New Zealand has had enough social engineering; it’s time to bring government back to core services” – Colin Craig, 11 May 2012
“I think most people recognise that there are other influences such as upbringing, such as events in life. For homosexuals, they are statistically far more likely to have suffered child abuses as a child… It certainly can make a difference in someone’s choices in life, there’s no question about that in my mind.” – Colin Craig, 4 August 2012
“Yes, we are discriminating between relationships. We are saying that marriage between a man and a woman is recognised. We are saying that a relationship between a man and a man, for example, goes down the path of a civil union.” – Colin Craig, 23 January 2013
… to this very strange exchange on TV3,
He was so sure that homosexuality was a choice, he bet his own sexuality on it.
“Do you think you could choose to be gay if that is the case?,” he was asked.
“Sure. Sure I could,” he responded.
“You could choose to be gay?,” he was asked again.
“Yea, if I wanted to,’ he replied. – Colin Craig, 27 July 2012
Meanwhile, new ACT leader, Jamie Whyte took a walk on the Very Wild Side on incestuous relationships,
“I don’t think the state should intervene in consensual adult sex or marriage, but there are two very important elements here – consensual and adult. I wonder who does believe the state should intervene in consensual adult acts? I find it very distasteful I don’t know why anybody would do it but it’s a question of principle about whether or not people ought to interfere with actions that do no harm to third parties just because they personally wouldn’t do it.
The probability of having some problem with the children is greater when the mother is over the age of 35 but I’ve never heard anyone suggest that anyone over the age of 35 shouldn’t be allowed to have sex.” – Jamie Whyte, 26 February 2014
Mind you, this is the character who referred to the minimum wage as “cruel”,
“ …those businesses which don’t directly lay off workers will be discouraged from employing more, or replacing those who leave voluntarily in future. The best thing that low skilled workers can do is get work experience. It’s hard to think of a crueller policy than passing a law that bans the people most in need of work experience from getting any.” – Jamie Whyte, 25 February 2014
– because as we all know, paying someone $1 an hour is not *cruel*.
… and has no problem in abolishing health and safety regulations to protect workers,
“ I do believe that the regulatory framework around labour and health and safety in New Zealand should be liberalised, and I think there’ll be many advantages to workers in liberalising them. I’m not sure that we’re going to campaign hard on that, but I certainly believe that.” – Jamie Whyte, 3 February 2014
– because 29 men killed at Pike River Mine, and dozens killed in the foresty industry, is not a sufficient sacrifice on the alter of Libertarianist ideology.
… and plucking bizarre beliefs out of thin air (on the marriage equality Bill),
“ The marriage amendment bill will not benefit society at all and will ultimately have detremetal [sic] effect on crime at all levels .” – Garth McVicar, 20 January 2012
“If you look at the court stats, most of the crime that has been committed has been committed by fatherless kids .” – Garth McVicar, 21 January 2012
Although that rationale seems more than a bit odd. If “most of the crime that has been committed has been committed by fatherless kids” – having two fathers should all but eliminate crime!?!
That would be a Good Thing, right?
But that’s prejudice for you. It collapses very quickly under a groaning weight of blind prejudice and weak foundations based on irrational ‘logic’.
On a positive note, even society’s fringe elements can count on Parliamentary representation.
Fairfax: Craig focusing on ‘upside’ of media
Otago Daily Times: NZ women ‘most promiscuous in the world’
Dominion Post: Colin Craig: Gay marriage is ‘social engineering’
Scoop Media: National bows to minimum wage myths
NZ Herald: Society right to discriminate – Craig
The Ruminator: Mr Ryght: An interview with ACT leader: Jamie Whyte
Newstalk ZB: Don Brash surprised by ACT’s new direction
NZ Herald: McVicar stands by claim over gay bill
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
= fs =
– Politics on Nine To Noon –
– Monday 3 March 2014 –
– Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams –
Today on Politics on Nine To Noon,
Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams discuss the recent political polls.
Click to Listen: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams (22′ 38″ )
- ACT, ACT’s conference, Jamie Whyte,
- Labour Party, 2014 election, Matt McCarten,
- David Cunliffe, secret trust,
- Tony Ryall, health portfolio,
- Labour candidate-selection,
- Paid Parental Leave,
- John Key-Helen Clark
= fs =