Archive
Trumpwatch: Voter fraud, Presidential delusions, and Fox News
.
.
Trump’s campaign and presidency has been marked by a series of exaggerations, half-truths, and outright lies. One of Trump’s most recent lies is his allegation of massive voter fraud in the US 2016 presidential elections;
.
.
On 25 January, he told ABC News;
“You have people who are registered who are dead, who are illegals, who are in two states,” Trump told ABC’s David Muir. “You have people registered in two states. You have people registered in New York and New Jersey. They vote twice.”
.
.
This has been disputed, as explained for The Intercept;
For two months now, Donald Trump has appeared unable to accept the verdict of November’s election: that he is more popular than many of us wanted to believe, but less popular than Hillary Clinton.
As a result of this fixation, he is now promising “a major investigation” into the election that made him president, putting the full weight of the federal government behind his quest to prove that at least three million ballots were cast against him by “those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and even, those registered to vote who are dead.”
In an interview with David Muir of ABC News broadcast on Wednesday night, Trump tried to suggest that a 2012 Pew study on problems with people being registered in two states, or the voter rolls not being updated as soon as people die, was proof that illegal voting was taking place.
When Muir pointed out that the author of the Pew study, David Becker, had said that his work did not show any voter fraud, Trump, who clearly had not read the study, suggested, wrongly, that he had somehow retracted his research. Specifically, Trump accused Becker of “groveling”, just as he had when attacking Serge Kovaleski of The New York Times for undercutting his lie that thousands of Arab-Americans celebrated 9/11 in New Jersey.
As several observers quickly noted, members of Trump’s own family and senior White House staff are also registered in two states.
Trump’s bogus allegations have been backed up by an equally bogus “alternative news” website, “Infowars“. An article headed “Report: Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegal Aliens” made explosive allegations of wide-spread voter fraud in last year’s presidential election;
Three million votes in the U.S. presidential election were cast by illegal aliens, according to Greg Phillips of the VoteFraud.org organization.
If true, this would mean that Donald Trump still won the contest despite widespread vote fraud and almost certainly won the popular vote.
“We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens,” tweeted Phillips after reporting that the group had completed an analysis of a database of 180 million voter registrations.
Phillips said in another ‘;tweet’;
“Number of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million. Consulting legal team,” he added.
On closer investigation, it appears that “Greg Phillips” has no connection to VoteFraud.org, as the organisation made clear shortly after Infowars’ “story”;
We at Votefraud.org and ElectionNightGatekeepers.com had never heard of Greg Phillips when infowars.com carried an article circa November 14, 2016 reporting that Phillips had stated in a Twitter Tweet that, — claiming to having analyzed a database of 180 million voters, — 3 million illegal immigrants voted for Hillary Clinton.
[…]
Hillary did call for registering 3 million new voters a few months before the election. While we believe that it’s a reasonable claim that the Democrats succeeded in helping millions of illegals to vote for Hillary, — which is why almost all prominent Democrats, including Hillary and Obama, oppose voter ID laws, — we can find no proof that Hillary made an overt call to register illegal immigrants, or that this actually happened.
We would urge Mr. Greg Phillips to publish how his group made this determination (and we hope he can!).
Apparently, Trump is resting his ‘case’ on fake news, from an alt.right bogus-news website, quoting a non-existent member of another organisation, to assert unsubstantiated allegations of non-existent wide-spread voter fraud.
There is nothing even remotely credible about this farce.
Pro-Republican TV broadcaster, Fox News was equally unimpressed with Trump’s latest foray into the political Twilight Zone;
.
.
When even the right-wing, pro-Republican Fox News calls “Bullshit Alert!” on one of their own, you know it’s time for a healthy dose of mama’s reality-check elixir.
If anyone is in any doubt of Trump’s delusions on this issue, note the part where he says;
“Of those votes cast, none of ’em came to me. None of ’em came to me. They would all be for the other side. None of ’em came to me.”
Which – if true – would indicate that Trump was somehow able to look at each and every vote cast in “two states and some cases maybe three states” and determine which candidate the ballot was cast for.
This would be extraordinary.
How would he know “none of ’em came to me“? Voting in the United States is supposed to be secret.
Postscript
On 9 January, Trump accepted the CIA and FBI’s allegations that Russia engaged in cyber attacks during the U.S. presidential election last year. Trump, however, did not accept that the hacking interfered in the final results;
“While Russia, China, other countries, outside groups and people are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our government institutions, businesses and organisations including the Democrat (sic) National Committee, there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines.”
Perhaps Trump should ask “Greg Phillips“?
.
Final Word
“I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time – when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.” – Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, 1995
.
.
.
References
Twitter: Donald J. Trump – “voter fraud”
Youtube: Watch The Terrifying Way Trump Reacts When A Reporter Points Out He’s Wrong To His Face
The Intercept: Just 5 Clicks on an Internet Survey Inspired Trump’s Claim Millions Voted Illegally
Infowars: Report – Three Million Votes in Presidential Election Cast by Illegal Aliens
Youtube: Even A Fox News Anchor Just Called Out Trump’s Voter Fraud BS
Financial Times: Trump says hacking did not influence US election
Indy100: Carl Sagan’s terrifyingly accurate prediction about the future has resurfaced
Additional
Buzzfeed: Here’s A Running List Of All Of President Trump’s Lies
Previous related blogposts
Black Ops from the SIS and FBI?
The Rise of Great Leader Trump
The Sweet’n’Sour Deliciousness of Irony: Russia accused of meddling in US Election
Trump escalates, Putin congratulates
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 January 2017.
.
.
= fs =
The Mendacities of Mr Key # 19: Tax Cuts Galore! Money Scramble!
.
.
In troubled times, we are community
.
On 14 October, eight hours after two massive 7.8 earthquakes simultaneously rocked the entire country, our Dear Leader John Key made an impassioned (for him, it was impassioned) appeal to the people of Aotearoa on Radio NZ’s ‘Morning Report‘;
.
“The one thing I’d we’d just say to New Zealanders at the moment is stay close to your family and friends. Make sure you listen to the radio and listen to the best information that you’re getting. And if you do have certainly older neighbours or family, if you could go in and check up on them that would be most appreciated. Because there will be people feeling genuinely alone.“
.
It was an appeal to a sense of community that is rarely made by right-wing governments or their leaders. It was a tacit acknowledgement that No Man or Woman is an Island that that only by acting collectively can human beings survive and improve their own circumstances and for their children.
Unfortunately, a week later, Key’s sense-of-community-spirit was returned to it’s hermetically-sealed casket and re-buried alongside cryo-capsules containing New Zealand’s Once-Egalitarian-Spirit and International-Independent-Leadership-On-Moral Issues.
.
National dangles the “carrot”
.
On 21 November, Key announced that tax cuts were once again “on the table” and Little Leader/Finance Minister, Bill English confirmed it.
With a statement that was more convoluted than usual, Key said;
“We’ve identified from our own perspective if there was more money where would be the kinds of areas we want to go, not what is the make up … for instance, of a tax or family package, what is the make up of other expenditure we want?
Tax is one vehicle for doing that, it’s not always the most effective vehicle for doing that for particularly low income families.”
Tax could be effective higher up the income scale, but lower down it was not that effective because base rates were low or it was very expensive.
Over the fullness of time we’ll have to see whether we’ve got much capacity to move.
Making sure they can keep a little more of what they earn or get a little bit more back through a variety of mechanisms is always something we can consider. It could be a mix, yes.
In the end it’s about equity for New Zealanders and about .. having a rise in their standard of living, and there’s a number of ways you could deliver that.”
Key has once again dangled a billion-dollar carrot in front of New Zealanders as the country heads towards next year’s election.
.
National’s previous election “carrots”
.
During the 2008 General Election, as the Global Financial Crisis was impacting on our own economy, Key was promising tax cuts. In May 2008, he said;
“But in 2005 we promised tax cuts which ranged from about $10 to $92 a week, roughly $45 a week for someone on $50,000 a year.
“I described it as a credible programme of personal tax cuts and I’m committed to a credible programme of personal tax cuts,” he said.
Questioned on whether National’s tax cuts programme of 2005 was credible today given the different economic circumstances, Mr Key said: “Well, I think it is.”
“I believe that an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts that delivers the sort of magnitude that we’ve had in the past is potentially possible.
At the time, then Labour’s Finance Minister, Michael Cullen described National’s tax-cut-bribe as ‘reckless‘.
By October 2008, as NZ Inc’s economic circumstances deteriorated, Treasury issued dire warnings that should have mitigated against any notions of affordable tax-cuts;
John Key has defended his party’s planned program of tax cuts, after Treasury numbers released today showed the economic outlook has deteriorated badly since the May budget. The numbers have seen Treasury reducing its revenue forecasts and increasing its predictions of costs such as benefits. Cash deficits – the bottom line after all infrastructure funding and payments to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund are made – is predicted to blow out from around $3 billion a year to around $6 billion a year.
Key’s government won the 2008 election and proceeded with tax-cuts in 2009 and 2010.
Predictably, government debt – which had been paid down by the Clark-Cullen government – ballooned as the recession hit New Zealand’s economy and tax revenue fell;
.
.
Key himself estimated tax cuts to be worth between $3 or $4 billion.
In 2008, New Zealand’s core government debt stood at nil (net)
Current government debt now stands at $62.272 billion (net).
.
.
Nature intervenes in National’s “cunning plan” for a Fourth Term
.
According to Dear Leader Key, estimates for the re-build of earthquake damage in and around Kaikoura; State Highway One, and the rest of the South Island is likely to be at least “a couple of billion dollars“.
.
The repair bill from Monday’s earthquake near Hanmer Springs is estimated to be billions of dollars. Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King
.
Finance Minister Bill English has hinted the cost may be much more;
“The combination of significant infrastructure damage in Wellington, obvious damage in Kaikoura – all roading and rail issues – this is going to add up to something fairly significant. We also know that those estimates change over time.”
No wonder Labour leader Andrew Little was less than impressed at tax cuts being mooted. Echoing Michael Cullen from eight years ago, he condemned the irresponsible nature of Key’s proposal;
“Well this is crazy stuff, I mean in addition to a government having $63 billion worth of debt it is yet to start repaying, and you’ve got a billion dollars extra each year just in the cost of superannuation.
Now we have another major civic disaster that is going to cost in terms of repairs. I do not see how John Key can say tax cuts are justified in the present circumstances.”
.
National spends-up large on new prison beds
.
On top of which, English announced last month that National was planning to spend over $2.5 billion on new prison beds. He questioned whether tax cuts were affordable with such looming expenditure;
Finance Minister Bill English has warned an announcement today of plans for an extra 1,800 prison beds will reduce the room for the Government to consider tax cuts before next year’s election.
English told reporters in Parliament the extra beds would cost NZ$1 billion to build and an extra NZ$1.5 billion to run over the next five or six years.
“It will have an impact because it is a very large spend and, two or three years years ago, we probably thought this could be avoidable,” English said when asked if the extra spending would make it harder for the Government to unveil tax cuts and other spending before the next election.
“It’s all part of this rachetting up of tougher sentences, tighter remand conditions, less bail and taking less risk with people who commit serious offenses,” he added.
Asked if that meant there would be less room for tax cuts, he said: “I wouldn’t want to judge that because it is a bit early, but certainly spending this kind of money on prison capacity is going to reduce other options.”
.
The inevitable cost of tax-cuts
.
As billions more is wasted on prisons, money spent on health, education, housing, and other social services is being frozen; cut back, or not keeping pace with inflation.
This has resulted in appalling cuts to services such as recently experienced by 96-year-old Horowhenua woman, Trixie Cottingham;
.
.
Other social services have also been wound back – as previously reported by this blogger;
.
.
Cuts to the Health budget have resulted in wholly predictable – and preventable – negative outcomes;
.
.
A critic of National’s under-funding of the health system, Phil Bagshaw, pointed out the covert agenda behind the cuts;
New Zealand’s health budget has been declining for almost a decade and could signal health reforms akin to the sweeping changes of the 1990s, new research claims.
[…]
The accumulated “very conservative” shortfall over the five years to 2014-15 was estimated at $800 million, but could be double that, Canterbury Charity Hospital founder and editorial co-author Phil Bagshaw said.
Bagshaw believed the Government was moving away from publicly-funded healthcare, and beginning to favour a model that meant everyone had to pay for their own.
“It’s very dangerous. If this continues we will slide into an American-style healthcare system.”
As the public healthcare system faces reduction in funding – more and New Zealanders will be forced into taking up health insurance. In effect, National is covertly shifting the cost of healthcare from public to private, funding the public/private ‘switch’ through personal tax-cuts.
Tax dollars have previously been allocated to social services such as Education or Health. By implementing tax cuts, those “Health Dollars” become “Discretionary Dollars”; Public Services for Citizens becomes Private Choice for Consumers.
And we all know how “well” that model has worked out in the United States;
.
.
(Yet another) Broken promise by Key
.
But equally important is that, in promising to spend the government surplus on tax-cuts, Dear Leader Key has broken yet another of his promises to the people of New Zealand.
In July 2009, National suspended all contribution to the NZ Superannuation Fund. At the time Bill English explained;
“The Government is committed to maintaining National Superannuation entitlements at 66 per cent of the average wage, to be paid from age 65.
[…]
The suspension of automatic contributions will remain until there are budget surpluses sufficient to fund contributions. Under current projections, the Government is not expected to have sufficient surpluses for the next 11 years.
[…]
Once surpluses sufficient to cover automatic contributions return, the Government intends to contribute the amount required by the Fund formula.”
“We’re managing government spending carefully, the economy is improving a bit faster than we expected, and that means it’s six years instead of 10 years until we start making contributions to the fund. If the economy picks up a bit faster again, we’ll get to that point sooner.”
In 2011, John Key said;
“Once we’re back to running healthy surpluses, we’ll be able to auto-enrol workers who are not members of KiwiSaver, pay down debt and resume contributions to the Super Fund.”
“The Government’s target is to return to surplus by 2014-15 so that we will then have choices about repaying debt, resuming contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, or targeting more investment in priority public services.”
“It remains our intention that contributions will resume once net debt has reduced to 20 percent of GDP, which is forecast for 2020.”
In 2014, English told Patrick Gower;
“… In this Budget we will have a paper-thin surplus , I mean we’ll just have a surplus but that’s the beginning of a series of surpluses and that means we have choices. And there’s a lot of choices. We’ve got the New Zealand Super Fund to resume contributions, an auto-enrolment for KiwiSaver, paying off debt more quickly, something for households to help them along. Those are choices that New Zealand fortunately will have if we have a growing economy and we stick to being pretty careful about our spending.”
In 2015, Key and English issued a joint statement saying;
“Through Budget 2015, the National-led Government will…
[…]
Reduce government debt to less than 20 per cent of GDP by 2020/21 when we can resume contributions to the NZ Super Fund.”
In October this year, English said;
“There has not been any broken commitment regarding the Superannuation Fund. We have said for some time that when the Government returns to a sufficient budget surplus and can contribute genuine savings rather than borrowing, National will resume contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The straightforward issue is that even when the Government shows surpluses under the operating balance before gains and losses measure, it does not always have cash surpluses until those accounting surpluses get reasonably big.
[…]
I remember that Sunday in 2009 in vivid detail, in fact, and constantly go back to it. The Government has outlined its position many, many times since 2009, and when there are sufficient surpluses and when we have debt down to the levels we think are prudent, which is 20 percent of GDP by 2020, then we will resume contributions, which we would like to do.”
In every year since National ceased contributing to the NZ Super (“Cullen”) Fund, both Key and English have reiterated their committment to resume payments when government books returned to surplus.
By hinting at tax cuts instead, Key and English have broken their promises, made over a seven year period.
Even their “qualifyer” of resuming contributions “when we have debt down to the levels we think are prudent, which is 20 percent of GDP by 2020” becomes untenable with their hints of an election-year tax-cut bribe.
By cutting taxes instead of paying down debt, resuming contributions to the NZ Super Fund is pushed further out into the dim, distant future.
The very suggestion of tax cuts is another potential broken promise. What’s one more to add to his growing list of promises not kept?
After all, there is an election to be fought next year.
Since National has not thought twice at under-funding the Health Budget, it certainly does not seem troubled at using tax-cuts as an election bribe, and undermining this country’s future superannuation savings-fund for selfish political gain.
Muldoon did it in 1973 – and got away with it.
Carrot, anyone?
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Morning Report – John Key urges New Zealanders to look out for their neighbours
Radio NZ: Morning Report – Key not ruling out tax cuts despite billion-dollar Kaikoura bill
Radio NZ: Morning Report – Government not ruling out tax cuts despite $1B Kaikoura bill
Fairfax media: John Key reveals plans for ‘tax and family’ package, but quake might affect plans
NZ Herald: National’s 2005 tax cut plans still credible – Key
Beehive: National ignores inflation warning
NZ Herald: Key – $30b deficit won’t stop Nats tax cuts
NZ Treasury: Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the Year Ended 30 June 2010 – Debt
Fairfax media: $4b in tax cuts coming
NZ Treasury: Fiscal Indicator Analysis – Debt as at 30 June 2008
NZ Treasury: Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the Year Ended 30 June 2016
Radio NZ: Earthquake’s billion-dollar bill won’t compare with Chch
Radio NZ: PM ‘irresponsible’ to talk tax cuts after quake – Labour
Interest.co.nz: English says NZ$1 bln capital cost and NZ$1.5 bln of operating costs for extra 1,800 prison beds reduces room for tax cuts
Radio NZ: Checkpoint – DHB threatens to cut off 96-year-old’s home help in Levin
Dominion Post: Women’s Refuge cuts may lead to waiting lists
NZ Herald: Govt funding cuts reduce rape crisis support hours
TV1 News: ‘Devastating news for vulnerable Kiwis’ – Relationships Aotearoa struggling to stay afloat
Radio NZ: Patients have ‘severe loss of vision’ in long wait for treatment
Fairfax media: Researchers claim NZ health budget declining, publicly-funded surgery on way out
Radio NZ: Patients suffering because of surgery waits – surgeon
Fairfax media: 174,000 Kiwis left off surgery waiting lists, with Cantabrians and Aucklanders faring worst
Fortune: How the U.S. Health Care System Fails Its Sickest Patients
NZ Super Fund: Contributions Suspension
Beehive: New Zealand Super Fund – fact sheet
Fairfax media: English signals earlier return to Super Fund payments
Scoop media: John Key’s Speech to Business New Zealand Amora Hotel Wgtn
Parliament Today: Questions and Answers – November 7
TV3 News: $23 billion in NZ Super Fund
Throng: Patrick Gower interviews Finance Minister Bill English on The Nation
Beehive: Budget 2015
Scoop: Hansards – Questions and Answers – 18 October 2016
Fairfax media: Compulsory super ‘would be worth $278 billion’
Additional
The Standard: The great big list of John Key’s big fat lies (UPDATED)
Other Blogs
The Standard: The eternal tax-cut mirage
Previous related blogposts
“It’s one of those things we’d love to do if we had the cash”
The Mendacities of Mr Key #3: tax cuts
The consequences of tax-cuts – worker exploitation?
Plunket and the slow strangulation of community organisations
The cupboard is bare, says Dear Leader
An earthquake separates John Key and ‘The Iron Lady’, Margaret Thatcher
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 27 Novembr 2016.
.
.
= fs =
The Mendacities of Mr Key # 18: “No question – NZ is better off!”
.
.
1. Credit where it’s due!
.
TV3’s The Nation on 2 July was probably the most incisive investigative journalism this blogger has seen for a long time. The only “fault” is that The Nation is ‘buried’ at the ghetto time-slot of early Saturday (and repeated early Sunday morning). Mediaworks is wasting a tremendous opportunity to use their current affairs journalistic team as a critical lynch-pin of their broadcasting line-up.
(Especially after the fiasco surrounding the cancellation of Campbell Live. But let’s not go there and rain on The Nation’s well-deserved parade.
In this episode;
- Patrick Gower interviewed John Key and elicited some eyebrow-raising responses from him
- An investigation by Phil Vine and Heather du Plessis-Allan into the Saudi sheep deal yielded disturbing revelations
.
2. Evidently, we’re “better off”?
.
Following on from Bill English’s tragi-comical assertion in Parliament on 29 June that “there is no evidence that inequality in New Zealand is increasing“, our esteemed Dear Leader repeated the mantra three days later in response to a question from Gower;
Patrick Gower: “Good morning, Prime Minister, and thank you very much for joining us. Now, I want to take you back to your first big speech as leader of the National Party – that speech about McGehan Close. You talked in that speech about streets in our country where helplessness has become ingrained and said we have to do better. Now, on McGehan Close, when you went there, people were living in homes. Now we are looking at people living in cars. Is that really better? Is that better?”
John Key: “I think there’s no question New Zealand’s better…”
As reported in a previous story (see: Foot in mouth award – Bill English, for his recent “Flat Earth” comment in Parliament) practically every metric used presents an unflattering picture of New Zealand in the early 21st century.
From the Children’s Commissioner;
Child poverty is now significantly worse than the 1980s. In 1985 the percentage of children in families experiencing income poverty was 15%, compared to 29% now
Put another way;
“305,000 New Zealand children now live in poverty – 45,000 more than a year ago”.
Statistics NZ’s reported;
“Between 1988 and 2014, income inequality between households with high incomes and those with low incomes widened“
And the OECD was also damning, stating;
“rising inequality is estimated to have knocked more than 10 percentage points off [economic] growth in Mexico and New Zealand.”
Perhaps the most credible indictment of Key’s misguided view that “there’s no question New Zealand’s better” is from Key himself, from 2011;
He said he had visited a number of budgeting services and food banks “and I think it’s fair to say they’ve seen an increase in people accessing their services. So that situation is there.”
The difficulty with Key’s statement that “there’s no question New Zealand’s better” is that no one believes it.
.
3. Unemployment is down?
.
When Gower pressed Key that things had not improved much since Key’s visit to Aroha Ireland in McGehan Close in 2007, Dear Leader responded;
“The unemployment rate in New Zealand is now falling pretty dramatically.”
Well of course “unemployment in New Zealand is now falling“. Unemployment has “dropped” from 5.7% to 5.2%.
But not because National’s policies have created twelve thousand new jobs.
But because Statistics NZ had conveniently revised its method of calculating the number of unemployed men and women by arbitrarily excluding those who were jobseeking using the internet;
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… Fewer people will be classified as actively seeking work, therefore the counts of people unemployed will be more accurate.
The utter cheek of Statistics NZ to claim that “therefore the counts of people unemployed will be more accurate” by excluding on-line job-hunting is matched only by Dear Leader Key who wasted no time in taking credit for “unemployment rate in New Zealand is now falling pretty dramatically“.
We are being lied to – and it is officially sanctioned.
.
4. Cosying up to Winston?
.
Gower then touched upon Key’s attitude toward NZ First leader Winston Peters, and asked;
Patrick Gower: “But what about deputy prime minister? Do you rule out Winston Peters being deputy prime minister in one of your governments?”
At this point, my mind immediately Quantum-Leaped back to 2008 and 2011 when Key categorically, absolutely, 100%, resolutely, ruled out any possibility of having Winston Peters in his government;
“Mr Peters will be unacceptable as a Minister in a government led by me unless he can provide a credible explanation [on the Owen Glenn donations scandal].” – John Key, 27 August 2008
“I don’t see a place for a Winston Peters-led New Zealand First in a government that I lead. Historically, he has always been sacked by prime ministers. It’s a very different style to mine and it’s rearward-looking. I’m about tomorrow. I’m not about yesterday. If Winston Peters holds the balance of power it will be a Phil Goff-led Labour government. ” – John Key, 2 February 2011
Seems fairly straight forward; Key was holding up his own “No” card, a-la Winston;
.
.
Except, in the next breath, Key over-ruled himself and his previous pronouncements;
John Key: “Well, I’m not going to rule those sorts of things out.”
Perhaps Key mis-heard Patrick Gower’s question. Perhaps Key had mistakenly thought that Gower had asked him; “But what about deputy prime minister? Do you rule out Moonbeam being deputy prime minister in one of your governments?”
So, being the fair-minded journo that Gower is, he repeated the question;
Patrick Gower: “Yeah, but do you rule out Winston Peters as John Key’s deputy prime minister?”
John Key: “No, because in the end, in 2017, we’re going to have an election, and when we have that election, what we’ll have to do is I’ll ultimately put together a government. I can’t determine that. The people of New Zealand determine that. What I have a responsibility to do is to put together a government — if I’m in the position to lead the largest party and to lead those negotiations — then to try and make that work. But I’m not going to say who’s a minister and who’s not or what role they have and what they don’t.”
So there you have it. John Key – a Man of his Word. And principled. And flexible. Flexible with his Principles.
Or else, the John Key of 2008 and 2011 is not the same man who calls himself “John Key” in 2016? An imposter?
The only reason that people like John Key can get away with back-peddling; mis-information; and bendy-truths is that the voting-public are more cynical than ever. (Hence the rise of anti-establishment figure, Donald Trump; the in-your-face “Brexit” vote, and the success of Independent candidates in the Australian elections.) Voters expect politicians to be dishonest, manipulative, and abandon all principles in pursuit of power.
In this respect, Key has not disappointed.
.
5. Matthew Hooton
.
Well known right-wing commentator, Matthew Hooton, has been scathing in his condemnation of Murray McCully’s “Saudi Sheep Deal”, and has conducted his own investigations into the scandal. His findings have been published on the National Business Review’s website.
Whilst Matthew and I hold wildly differing political views, and whilst his involvement in ‘Dirty Politics’ is questionable, his insightful analysis and commentary on McCully’s dealings with Hmood Al-Khalaf has to be respected.
Matthew was a valuable contributor in analysing the “Saudi Sheep Deal” on The Nation, proving a credible counter-foil to Michelle Boag’s slavish and occasionally near-hysterical defense of Murray McCully’s dubious actions.
.
6. Auditor-General
.
The panelists lamented the fact that the Auditor-General’s report into the Saudi Sheep Deal was “not imminent”. I do not share those feelings.
Next year will be Election Year, and the closer the report’s release is to Election Day, the better it will be for the Opposition. If the Auditor-General’s findings are as scathing as many believe it will be, McCully will be sacked from his Ministerial position. The inglorious demise of his career will add to public perception that National plays “loose” with laws if there is a “buck” to be made.
The release of the Auditor-General’s report next year would be a strategic coup for Labour, Greens, and NZ First.
.
7. Final Word
.
Final word from that outstanding episode of The Nation has to go to Victoria University political scientist, Dr Jon Johansson;
.
.
“ People are utterly fed up with their Establishment, their elites, never accepting accountability for anything.”
Nailed it, Doc.
.
.
.
References
TV3: The Nation
TV3: The Nation – Interview with John Key
Parliament Today: Questions & Answers – June 29
NZ Children: Child Poverty Monitor – Technical Report
Radio NZ: A third of NZ children live in poverty
Statistics NZ: Income inequality
OECD: Trends in Income Inequality and its impact on economic growth
NZ Herald: Key admits underclass still growing
NZ Herald: A day out with friends in high places
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey – Revisions to labour market estimates
Scoop media: Peters unacceptable in a National-led Government
NZ Herald: PM rules out any NZ First deal
Fairfax media: John Key’s Cat Moonbeam
NBR: Flying sheep endanger McCully
TV3: Panel – Jon Johansson, Conor English & Mike Williams
John Key: Man of Many Principles
An open letter to Winston Peters
John Key: When propaganda photo-ops go wrong
National Housing propaganda – McGehan Close Revisited
I have seen one future, and it is bleak
State house sell-off in Tauranga unravelling?
The Mendacities of Mr English – Fibbing from Finance Minister confirmed
Why is Paula Bennett media-shy all of a sudden?
Park-up in Wellington – People speaking against the scourge of homelessness
Lies, Damned lies and Statistical Lies
Foot in mouth award – Bill English, for his recent “Flat Earth” comment in Parliament
Lies, Damned lies and Statistical Lies – ** UPDATE **
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 7 July 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Lies, Damned lies and Statistical Lies – ** UPDATE **
.
.
Intro
A few days ago, this blogger reported how Statistic NZ had implemented a revision which would materially affect how unemployment stats were counted;
On 29 June 2016, Statistic NZ announced that it would be changing the manner in which it defined a jobseeker;
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
The result of this change? At the stroke of a pen, unemployment fell from 5.7% to 5.2%.
Simply because if a person was job-searching using the internet they were “not actively seeking work“.
Which beggars belief as the majority of jobseekers will be using the internet. It is the 21st century – what else would they be using?
Update
Four days later, our esteemed Dear Leader, John Key, was interviewed on TV1’s Q+A by Corin Dann;
.
.
“The unemployment rate in New Zealand is now falling pretty dramatically.”
Well, it would, wouldn’t it?
Of course unemployment would fall “pretty dramatically” if government statisticians are cooking the numbers.
It did not take Key very long to use the “revised stats” to his advantage.
Expect more BS from National ministers congratulating themselves about how well their “job creation” policies are working.
.
.
.
.
References
TVNZ: Q+A – Interview with John Key
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey – Revisions to labour market estimates
Scoop media: On The Nation – Patrick Gower interviews John Key
Previous related blogpost
Lies, Damned lies and Statistical Lies
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 6 July 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – Key discovers how to reduce unemployment in NZ
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>
date: Sun, Jul 3, 2016
subject: Letters to the editor.
The editor
Sunday Star Times.
On 29 June 2016, Statistics NZ announced that it would be changing the definition of what constituted an unemployment person being called a jobseeker;
“Looking at job advertisements on the internet is correctly classified as not actively seeking work. “
So an unemployed person, using the internet to look for work, is no longer considered a jobseeker?
Stats NZ then promptly “reviewed” the current employment rate of 5.7%, revising it down to 5.2%.
Four days later, on TV3’s “The Nation”, our esteemed Prime Minister patted himself on the back for “falling unemployment” saying;
“The unemployment rate in New Zealand is now falling pretty dramatically. “
Well, of course it’s “fallen”! Statistics NZ has ‘cooked’ the numbers! By arbitrarily deciding that any unemployed person using the internet to look for work is no longer considered officially a “jobseeker” – unemployment has “miraculously” dropped!
Now we now how Key’s government plans to reduce unemployment, and it’s not by job-creation.
Lies, damned lies, and statics indeed!
George Orwell would be mightily impressed!
.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
.
.
References
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey – Revisions to labour market estimates
Scoop media: On The Nation – Patrick Gower interviews John Key
Previous related blogpost
Lies, Damned lies and Statistical Lies
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – National’s “pennies from heaven”
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Sun, Jul 3, 2016
subject: Letter to the editor.
The Editor
NZ Herald.
At the recent National Party Conference, Key took a rather childish swipe at other political parties by suggesting that their economic policies were predicated on “pennies from heaven”, referencing Bing Crosbie’s song by the same name.
In the next breath, he advised faithful National party followers that his government would be borrowing $1 billion from overseas lenders, to build houses in a belated attempt to address growing homelessness in this country.
Maybe not “pennies from heaven”, but dollars from overseas banks?
Meanwhile, National is still hinting at more tax cuts to come. This will further increase indebtedness of the government (ie, all New Zealanders) from the current $60 billion (approx) to an estimated $93.9 billion (gross) by next year, according to Treasury.
All of which has to be borrowed and paid back.
There are no “pennies from heaven” – a lesson National has failed to learn.
Who, amongst us, still believe National are “sound, prudent” fiscal managers? Anyone?
.
-Frank Macskasy
.
[address and phone number supplied]
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: $1 billion fund to boost housing build
NZ Treasury: Residual Cash and Net Core Crown Debt (2016)
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – Dear Leader loses the plot in Parliament
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Thu, May 12, 2016
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor
NZ Herald.
The Prime Minister’s recent responses to revelations from the Panama Papers are becoming more unpredictable and bizarre by the day.
According to John Key, NZ is “only a bit player” when it comes to foreign trusts, even though we are mentioned 61,000 times in the Panama Papers.
John Key’s former lawyer, Ken Whitney, assured the Prime Minister that he had no connections to tax-haven promoter, Mossack Fonseca. The Prime Minister was satisfied with those assurances.
Then we learn that Whitney did indeed have close links to Mossack Fonseca. Which Key still refuses to accept.
Whitney was also part of a group of lawyers, with working connections to Mossack Fonseca, who lobbied Revenue Minister Todd McLay to “persuade” the IRD to discretely drop it’s review of foreign trusts in NZ.
On 11 May, Key’s hysteria forced the Speaker of the House to remove the Prime Minister from the Debating Chamber. This was after Key falsely accused the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Greenpeace of having trusts with Mossack Fonseca.
The Prime Minister has lost the plot on this issue.
All New Zealanders are required to pay their taxes.
Why is Key assisting the wealthy to avoid paying their taxes, to their respective countries?
.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Panama Papers hotly debated in Parliament
.
.
.
= fs =
The Mendacities of Mr Key # 15: John Key lies to NZ on consultation and ratification of TPPA
.
.
As this blogger reported last year, on 16 June;
In the ongoing debate on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations, Dear Leader John Key has been at pains to try to reassure New Zealanders that any TPPA document would be “first presented to Parliament”.
“With all [free trade agreements] the way that they work is that have to be ratified by Parliament, and we have to build a parliamentary majority, and all of that has to happen through the transparency of the deal.”
“…my advice is that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will require legislation, so, ultimately, once it has gone through the select committee and the public have had their chance to have input, and it has gone through all of those various stages, the Government of the day will require a parliamentary mandate, so by definition people would have had a lot of input.”
And on 31st March this year, Key asserted on NewstalkZB;
“In the end, this thing has to go through our Parliament has to be ratified by our Parliament and has to bear scrutiny and I believe is in the best interests of New Zealand.”
At every opportunity, our esteemed Dear Leader and other National MPs and Ministers have been eager to assure New Zealanders that the text of the TPPA would be submitted to a select committee; scrutinised, and ratified by Parliament before it was signed.
Key’s assurances were seemingly air-tight. (Though I, for one, am always skeptical of any assertion made by our esteemed Dear Leader.)
However, a media statement from Chile’s General Directorate of International Economic Relations head, Andrés Rebolledo Smitmans, has seemingly given the game away. On 5 January, Smitmans stated;
“En la oportunidad expuso en primer lugar sobre el contexto en que se desarrolló la negociación de este tratado, que será firmado el próximo 4 de febrero en Nueva Zelanda.”
Google translation;
“At the time I first spoke about the context in which the negotiation of this treaty, to be signed on February 4 was developed in New Zealand.”
Also, according to Bloomberg the impending signing-ceremony is confirmed by the Peruvians;
Peru’s Trade and Tourism Ministry (Mincetur) confirmed that Deputy Trade Minister Edgar Vasquez, the country’s TPP negotiator, will be on hand for the signing ceremony in New Zealand.
And the Mexican financial periodical, El Financiero, reported;
“Los 12 países integrantes del Acuerdo Estratégico Transpacífico de Asociación Económica ( TPP , por sus siglas en inglés), firmarán el documento el próximo 4 de febrero en Nueva Zelanda, informó el secretario de Economía, Ildefonso Guajardo.”
Google translation;
“The 12 member countries of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP, for its acronym in English), [will] sign[ed] the document on February 4 in New Zealand, the Minister of Economy, Ildefonso Guajardo said.”
The fourth of February is five days before Parliament resumes sitting, on 9 February.
Which makes a lie out of Key’s promises that the TPPA would be put before the House for Select Committee scrutiny and Parliamentary over-sight. By the time Parliament resumes, the TPPA will have been ratified by all participants according to the Chileans, Mexicans, and Peruvians.
Evidently someone forgot to mention to our South American friends not to reveal the up-to-now-secret ratification date, leaving Simon Bridges to do some fast-explaining;
“Arrangements for the signing of the Trans Pacific Partnership are not yet confirmed, as a number of countries are still working through their domestic approval processes required before signature.
Further details will be announced when and if they are confirmed.”
National’s media spin-doctors must still be on leave if that statement is the best damage-control they can come up with.
It is clear that National was planning on “pulling a swiftie” by keeping the ratification date secret from the public – a point not lost on University Law professor and TPPA-critic, Jane Kelsey;
“Consistent with the government’s obsessively secrecy throughout the TPPA process, we have to get confirmation of what is happening in our own country from offshore.
Polls have shown the government doesn’t have popular support for the deal. Presumably it wants to limit the chance for New Zealanders to make their opposition heard. We were reliably told by offshore sources some time ago that the meeting is in Auckland, but we expect the government to try to keep the actual venue secret until much closer to the day.”
National has (again) been caught attempting to deceive the public.
It beggars belief that they really thought no one would notice.
It is now up to other political parties – Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori Party, and Peter Dunne – not to support any enabling legislation put to Parliament on this trade deal. Otherwise they risk being associated with, and tarred, by a political process that has been uncovered to be patently dishonest.
Any government that has to employ deception to enact policy is afraid of it’s own people. National is not fit to govern.
.
.
.
References
TV3: Key accused of spreading TPPA ‘mistruths’
Parliament: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers
NewstalkZB: Key defends TPPA negotiations
Dirección General de Relaciones Económicas Internacionales: Direcon expuso sobre el TPP en el Instituto Nacional de Derechos Humanos (INDH)
Parliament: House sitting programme
Bloomberg: TPP Countries to Sign Trade Pact in New Zealand Feb. 4
TV3 News: TPPA to be signed in NZ – report
El Financiero: TPP se firmará el 4 de febrero en Nueva Zelanda
Scoop media: Ministers to sign TPPA in NZ on 4 February 2016
Additional
Salon.com: The 10 biggest lies you’ve been told about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (Note point 5 in this article)
Previous related blogposts
Some thoughts on the Plain Packaging Bill
Public opposition grows against TPPA – Wellington
Public opposition grows against TPPA – Wellington
Even Tim Groser was in the dark?!
The Mendacities of Mr Key # 14: The TPPA – “We’ve never, ever been sued”
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 8 January 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Key’s TPPA Falsehoods – “We’ve never, ever been sued” ***up-date ***
.
.
Previously blogged on 13 October;
.
4 October 2015 – TVNZ Q+A:- @ 13.04 “There has never been a case taken against New Zealand…” @ 16.24 “We’ve never, ever been sued…”
.
On 4 October, our esteemed Dear Leader assured New Zealanders that, under the various free trade agreements we are party to, “there has never been a case taken against New Zealand…” and “we’ve never, ever been sued…”.[…]
Key’s insistence that New Zealand is safe from lawsuits from foreign corporations indicates he was privy to the text of the finalised Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (which is still a closely guarded secret by Trade Minister Groser) and that we, as a nation, are now fully exposed to litigation from Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) processes.
It seems that Dear Leader spoke too soon.
Not even a fortnight passed since he uttered those fateful words – an apparent challenge to the gods – and New Zealand is now being sued;
.
.
In response to the lawsuit, our esteemed and much-loved Dear Leader stated;
“Quite frankly, you can get appeals both ways, so when Shanghai Pengxin was granted the right to buy the Crafar farms, there was also an appeal because that went through, and it was tested back in court – now it’s going the other way.
But look, in the end, if the courts determine that the Overseas Investment Office got it wrong, the Government will go and reflect on that and honour the law, we always do that.”
The only difference between scenarios envisaged under the TPPA and the Lochinver Station-Shanghai Pengxin-OIO case is that the latter is being tested under the jurisdiction of a New Zealand Court of law instead of an extra-judicial, and often-secret, corporate tribunal overseas.
This is cold comfort.
We now have a situation in our own country where, if we determine not to sell to an overseas investor, that decision can be over-turned. Our laws now allow foreign interests to be on an equal footing with New Zealand citizens.
You no longer have to be a tax-paying citizen (born or naturalised) to hold certain rights.
You can be a foreign corporation (or wealthy individual) with deep pockets and a small militia of flinty-eyed lawyers.
Money is now all it takes.
Mark 15 October 2015 in your diary as the day when our sovereignty was forfeit in the pursuit of global finance. If we dare say ‘No’, they have ways of changing our minds.
This will be the first, of many to come, “legal” challenges to our sovereignty.
And the worst aspect to where we have arrived, 31 years after David Lange’s government was elected and Roger Douglas began his so-called free-market “reforms”?
As a nation, Kiwis have allowed it to happen. We did this to ourselves.
.
.
.
References
TV1 Q+A: PM on TPP – ‘We’ve never ever been sued’
Fairfax media: Shanghai Pengxin going to High Court over Lochinver decision
Additional
MFAT: New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement
New Zealand China Free Trade Agreement (text)
Government could have faced lawsuit
Previous related blogposts
Three Questions to Key, Williamson, Coleman, et al
Another of John Key’s lies – sorry – “Dynamic Situations”
Time to bend over again, fellow Kiwis (part # Rua)
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)
Some thoughts on the Plain Packaging Bill
Public opposition grows against TPPA – Wellington
Public opposition grows against TPPA – Wellington
Even Tim Groser was in the dark?!
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 17 October 2015.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – John Key; “We’ve never been sued” (up till now)
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>
date: Fri, Oct 16, 2015
subject: Letter to the editor.
The EditorSunday Star Times
.On 4 October 2015, on TVNZ’s Q+A, our esteemed Prime Minister reassured New Zealanders that we had nothing to fear from the newly signed TPPA, and it’s controversial provisions for corporations to sue us.Key insisted, “There has never been a case taken against New Zealand…” and “We’ve never, ever been sued…”
Barely a fortnight has passed since he uttered those resolute words on our television screens – and New Zealand is now being sued.Chinese corporation Shanghai Pengxin – the same company that bought the 17 Crafar Farms last year – was recently denied permission to purchase the vast 14,000 hectare Lochinvar Station.
Even the current National government believed that was a step too far.
John Key’s words that “There has never been a case taken against New Zealand…” and “We’ve never, ever been sued” now ring hollow in our ears.
The first (of many) lawsuit by a foreign corporation has begun. With it, the beginning of the end of our sovereignty, as overseas interests now force their way further into our country, and economy, irrespective of our wishes.
And the TPPA’s provisions to allow further lawsuits by corporations has not even been implemented yet.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
.
.
References
TV1 Q+A: PM on TPP – ‘We’ve never ever been sued’
Fairfax media: Shanghai Pengxin going to High Court over Lochinver decision
.
.
.
= fs =
To Annette King – we’ll hold you to that!
.
.
Right up until last week, National’s ‘spin’ on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) was that it would not be permitted to impact on Pharmac or it’s ability to buy cheap, generic medicines.
Four years ago;
“We have laid down the fundamentals of a position which says our public health system is not up for negotiation, not part of any trade negotiation, and I can’t conceive of any New Zealand government that would change that view.
Pharmac is an incredibly valuable institution that provides high quality medicines to many New Zealanders at very, very highly subsidised, reasonable prices. The fundamentals of that model are not up for negotiation. ” – Tim Groser, 16 November 2011
Three years ago;
“If the Government agreed completely with the demands of American pharmaceutical companies, the negotiation would probably be over. It is not. It is a long, complex negotiation, and the New Zealand Government’s position is to preserve the role and effectiveness of Pharmac. ” – Bill English, 6 December 2012
Two years ago;
“I think it’ll have a very marginal impact, at the end of the day. It certainly won’t result in higher prices for pharmaceutical products for New Zealanders. This is really about protecting the model of Pharmac to ensure that they’re in a tough negotiating position with international pharmaceutical companies, and we’ve got some very good negotiators who are doing just that. ” – Tim Groser,
Last year;
“There will be no fundamental change in Pharmac’s operations as a result of the trade agreement.”
You’ll have to wait to see the final agreement but any decisions we take in terms of trade-offs will protect the essential public health system of this country.” – Tim Groser, 22 October 2014
And this year, only a week ago;
“…yes, I can guarantee that we’ve made it absolutely clear that we are not going to dismantle the fundamental of Pharmac. The provisions that guarantee affordable medicines – we don’t want to change the system of health we’ve got in our country so that people can get medicines only if they can afford it. We’ve got a very good system, and we’re not going to let any trade agreement interfere with that.” – Tim Groser, 25 July 2015
Barely three days later, there was this startling admission from our esteemed Dear Leader, John Key, that all was not quite so ‘rosy’ in the Land of Free Trade Deals;
“That means the Government will have to pay for the original drug rather than the generic for a little bit longer. But for consumers that won’t make any difference because, you know, on subsidised drugs you pay $5 for your prescription so the Government may incur slightly more costs there.”
Which vividly illustrates how, for the past four years, National has been lying to us, the New Zealand public.
It was only as TPPA negotiations drew to a close, that Key had to finally concede that there would be an impact on Pharmac and it’s ability to purchase low-cost generic medicines. The same TPPA will also impact on non-subsidised medicines purchased by New Zealanders, as not all attract subsidies by Pharmac.
On 29 July, Labour’s response was damning of the TPPA, and Health Spokesperson, Annette King stated matter-of factly;
“Some people are going to pay with their lives because if they extend the patent, particularly on drugs for cancer and heart disease, and we can’t get access to the generic drugs for longer, then people are not going to get that access and they won’t have the opportunity to extend their lives.”
.
“Some people are going to pay with their lives.” – Labour’s Health Spokesperson, Annette King
.
In which case, an incoming Labour Government has two options;
1. Raise taxes for those New Zealanders who voted National last year.
This is their responsibility, and should foot the bill for any increases to Pharmac’s purchasing budget. After all, National maintains itself as the “Party of Personal Responsibility“, so National voters should bear the costs of this mess; ie, ‘You voted for it, you pay for it’.
But since it is difficult to ascertain who voted for National last year, this option may not be practical.
2. Withdraw from the TPPA.
We simply cannot be party to an international trade agreement (or any other agreement for that matter) where “some people are going to pay with their lives”. That is simply untenable – especially for a Labour–led government.
The seriousness of the TPPA’s effects on Pharmac (and non-subsidised medicines) is such that Labour must not be allowed to back-track on it’s criticisms, and has a duty to withdraw from this appalling “trade” agreement.
If “some people are going to pay with their lives because … they extend the patent, particularly on drugs for cancer and heart disease”, then the TPPA must go. No New Zealander’s life is worth a “trade” agreement, no matter how much milk-powder we might sell overseas.
National ministers such as John Key, Tim Groser, Bill English, et al, have consistently, unashamedly, lied to us over the years. I do not expect Labour to follow in those footsteps.
This will be an issue I will be following, and I will be relentless in pursuing it, post-2017 (or earlier).
.
.
.
.
at 12:00pm
New Zealand Parliament Buildings
at 5:00pm
Palmerston North City Library
at 1:00pm
Midland Park, Lambton Quay
at 1:00pm
Napier
at 1:00pm
Timaru
Saturday, August 15
at 11:00am
Kohukohu Village Green
.
References
Interest.co.nz: Pharmac fundamentals not on TPP table, Trade Minister Groser
Scoop media/TV1: Tim Groser adamant Trans-Pacific Partnership good for NZ
Radio NZ: Medicines ‘won’t cost more under TPP’
TV3: The Nation – Transcript – Trade Minister Tim Groser
Radio NZ: TPP – Key admits medicine costs will rise
Radio NZ: Govt warned TPP could put lives at risk
National Party: About National
Previous related blogposts
Citizen A – 29 Nov 2012 – TPPA Special
TPPA: Business launches propaganda campaign
TPPA: Doomsday scenarios, Critics, and flights of fancy
Open message to the Middle Classes about the threat of the TPPA
Nationwide Rally Against the TPPA – Day of Action!
They marched against the TPPA and the threat to our sovereignty (part tahi)
They marched against the TPPA and the threat to our sovereignty (part rua)
The Mendacities of Mr Key #5: Has Tim Groser shown the P.M. to be a liar on the TPPA?
Nationwide Day of Protest Captures Public Attention on TPPA
Opposing the TPPA – the Heavens hold their deluge ’till the People speak
Letter to the editor – More reassurances from our esteemed Dear Leader?
Action
Facebook: Lunchtime rally against TPPA WELLINGTON
Facebook: It’s Our Future – Kiwis concerned about the TPPA
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 August 2015.
.
.
= fs =
Awash with alcohol and lies in the Internet Age
.
.
Our country has been described as “awash by alcohol” by more than one observer. In New Zealand, buying alcohol is easier than buying a car fuse at a petrol station. (I know this, I’ve tried.)
On Tuesday 29 July, I noticed the following signage at Kilbirnie’s busy Pak’N’Save supermarket;
.
.
Indeed, the entire liquor section at the supermarket – a not inconsiderable area of the complex – had been blockaded by a Great Wall of Loopaper, chippies, sugary soft-drinks, and other highly-processed, salted snack-foods;
.
.
.
Perhaps what really caught my attention was the wording of the yellow signage, at regular intervals adorning the Great Wall;
.
.
Liquor products are currently unavailable.
Liquor products are currently unavailable due
to an issue with our liquor license. This will be
resolved by Thursday 30th July.
We would like to apologise for the inconvenience
this issue has caused and we appreciate your
understanding.
Pak N Save
Kilbirnie
Really?
Breaking the law and selling liquor to sixteen year olds is defined as an “issue” by Pak N Save’s management?
The term “issue” has supplanted the previous terms that might also be applicable in this case; “problem”; “stuff-up”; or simply, “breaking the terms of our liquor license by illegally selling to young people under 18”.
Any one of those terms would be more honest than a hazy veil of euphemism, referring to losing a liquor license for five days as an “issue”.
Forgetting to reapply for a liquor license might be deemed an “issue”. Selling to under-age kids is a major screw-up. (Also somewhat illegal.)
I wonder if the supermarket’s owner would be as forgiving of a shoplifter caught with a dozen Whittaker’s chocolate bars (Whittakers being better quality than Cadbury, any day) down her blouse, casually apologising for the “issue” of not paying for the goods?
There seems to be a casual – almost dishonest manner – by which the supermarket has presented their transgression to the public. As if National had loaned Pak N Save a couple of their spin-doctors, to minimise any public disapproval of the “issue”.
Our government has the very best of spin-doctors, and we are daily mis-informed; distracted; deflected; and outright lied to by Ministers who have been caught engaged in questionable activities.
John Key’s assertion that a prisoner at Mt Eden Prison “fell” of the balcony, rather than being pushed by fellow in-mates, was his version of Pak N Save’s “issue” with their liquor license;
“One of the claims that had been made, I think, was that someone had been thrown off a balcony – in fact, actually, Serco say that the person jumped off the balcony, or tripped, or fell.”
It is ironic that in the Age of the Internet; of near instantaneous communication and super highways of information, that we have more misinformation; half-truths; “spin”; and sheer lies thrown at us than ever before.
It is not just alcohol we are awash with – it’s lies.
In the case of politics, the irony is that we, the tax-payer, pay spin-doctors to help government ministers, to lie to us.
.
.
.
References
Fairfax media: Kilbirnie Pak ‘n Save in booze ban after selling to pair of 16-year-olds
Fairfax media: Corrections Minister looking at options for Serco-run prisons after allegations of ill-treatment
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 29 July 2015.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – More useless reassurances from our Dear Leader
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Wed, Jul 29, 2015
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor
NZ Herald.
Admissions by our esteemed Prime Minister that the TPPA will impact on Pharmac’s ability to source cheap, generic medicines from overseas, are deeply troubling.
On 25 July, Trade Minister, Tim Groser, said;
“…yes, I can guarantee that we’ve made it absolutely clear that we are not going to dismantle the fundamental of Pharmac. The provisions that guarantee affordable medicines – we don’t want to change the system of health we’ve got in our country so that people can get medicines only if they can afford it. We’ve got a very good system, and we’re not going to let any trade agreement interfere with that.”
Three days later, Key conceded;
“That means the Government will have to pay for the original drug rather than the generic for a little bit longer. But for consumers that won’t make any difference because, you know, on subsidised drugs you pay $5 for your prescription so the Government may incur slightly more costs there.”
It is not the government that ” will have to pay for the original drug rather than the generic for a little bit longer”. That honour falls on the taxpayer.
Those extra costs may be reimbursed by the government – at the expense of other health services which will see their budgets slashed. National has a track record of shifting money around in the Health Budget.
Will National increase prescription charges again, as they did in 2013? Increasing prescription charges from $3 to $5 hit poor families the hardest.
The secretive nature of negotiations have proven that there was good reason to be suspicious of the TPPA.
.
-Frank Macskasy
.
[Address and phone numbr supplied]
References
Radio NZ: TPP – Key admits medicine costs will rise
TV3: The Nation – Transcript – Trade Minister Tim Groser
Previous related blogposts
Children’s Health: not a high priority for Health Minister Tony Ryall
.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – More reassurances from our esteemed Dear Leader?
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Listener <letters@listener.co.nz>
date: Wed, Jul 29, 2015
subject: Letter to the editor.
The Editor
The Listener.
Recent admission by our esteemed Prime Minister that the TPPA will likely see an increase in pharmaceutical costs for Pharmac is both disturbing but unsurprising. The secretive nature of the TPPA negotiations hinted at a “sting in the tail” that would impact on our healthcare.On 25 July, Foreign Trade Minister, Tim Groser, promised hand on heart in an interview on ‘The Nation’;
“…yes, I can guarantee that we’ve made it absolutely clear that we are not going to dismantle the fundamental of Pharmac. The provisions that guarantee affordable medicines – we don’t want to change the system of health we’ve got in our country so that people can get medicines only if they can afford it. We’ve got a very good system, and we’re not going to let any trade agreement interfere with that.”
But only three days later, Key conceded;
“That means the Government will have to pay for the original drug rather than the generic for a little bit longer. But for consumers that won’t make any difference because, you know, on subsidised drugs you pay $5 for your prescription so the Government may incur slightly more costs there.”
Key’s assurances are questionable.
It should be pointed out that it is not Government that “will have to pay for the original drug rather than the generic for a little bit longer” – it is the taxpayer.
That extra cost for medicines will have to come from the Health Budget and one has to ask what will be cut back? Hip operations for the elderly? Grommets for children? Eye cataract surgery for the blind? National has a track record for shifting money from one area of healthcare to another, to appear as if funding has been “increased” for the lucky recipient.
Or will National simply increase prescription charges to cover increased pharmaceutical costs for Pharmac? National has already increased prescription charges from $3 to $5 in 2013 – a move that impacted on the sickest, poorest, and most vulnerable in this country.
Not for one moment do I accept Key’s assurances on this issue. He has gone back on his word before, and I expect him to do it again.
-Frank Macskasy
.
[address and phone number supplied]
References
Radio NZ: TPP – Key admits medicine costs will rise
TV3: The Nation – Transcript – Trade Minister Tim Groser
Previous related blogposts
Children’s Health: not a high priority for Health Minister Tony Ryall
.
.
.
= fs =
National Tinkers while Auckland Property Prices Burn
.
.
When it comes to tax cuts for the rich; state asset sales; slashing public services; and corporate welfare – National can move at relativistic velocities that Einstein concluded were beyond the realms of physical laws in our Universe.
When it comes to social problems like child poverty; increasing greenhouse emissions from agriculture; and a housing crisis in Auckland (denied again, recently, by our esteemed Prime Minister) – the National government can tinker and prevaricate in ways that would do a two year old, at an early childhood centre, proud.
It has opposed, resisted, condemned, criticised, and generally done everything within it’s power not to implement any form of capital gains tax in this country. Suggesting to National that a CGT could be one tool (of many) to quell housing speculation in Auckland has been like inviting a Vegan to a spit-roast barbecue.
Belatedly, as is usual for this government, after considerable pressure from multiple political, community, business, and state sectors, Key has decided to move – albeit at a glacial pace, and with a tentative single step – to introduce a limited Capital Gains Tax.
Introducing a new bright line test to tax gains from residential property sold within two years of purchase, unless it’s the sellers main home, inherited or transferred in a relationship property settlement.
As Key explained;
“It’s not unreasonable to expect that if you buy an investment property and sell it for a gain within two years, then you should be taxed on that gain.”
Fair enough to. It is not unreasonable, especially when the rest of us have no choice but to pay tax on all our other earnings, whether it be as a wage-slave; self-employed; retailer; contractor, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc…
Even property investors admit it is fair, as NZ Property Investors’ Federation CEO, Andrew King, pointed out;
“As we have been saying for years, people trading property have always had to pay tax on their profits and this move will help to clarify this. This should finally put to rest all the unfounded comments from people who say that property has a tax advantage.”
But – two years is the “bright line”?!
So, property speculators/investors who sell their assets in, oh, say, two years and one day are safe?
I’m sure this has escaped the attention of every property speculator/investor in the country. Plus their accountants. Plus tax specialists. Plus the chap who mows the lawns.
Shhhh! Be vewy, vewy quiet! Don’t tell anyone.
As long as no one knows of the two year “bright line”, the law is “perfectly workable”…
.
.
Tinkering – best left to a National government. They are expert at it.
.
.
.
References
Fairfax media: No housing crisis in Auckland – John Key
NZCity: Capital gains tax on property announced
NZCity: Capital gains tax – what’s been said
Other blogs
Bowalley Road: The Least They Could Do
Gordon Campbell on the government’s belated moves on property speculation
No Right Turn: Winning the argument on taxing capital gains
Polity: At the end of the day what most New Zealanders ackshully accept is… (Housing edition)
Polity: More-tax-on-capital-gains-but-not-at-all-a-capital-gains-tax
The Dim Post: Progress
The Standard: CGT – the focus groups made Key do it
The Standard: Capital gains tax to be introduced
The Standard: Herald praises Cunliffe for CGT policy
Previous related blogposts
National spins BS to undermine Labour’s Capital Gains Tax
Why should tradies be prosecuted for doing “cashies” and not paying tax?
Letter to the Editor – A Claytons Capital Gains Tax?
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 21 May 2015.
.
.
= fs =
The Mendacities of Mr Key # 12: No More Asset Sales (Kind of)
.
.
On 25 February 2014, Dear Leader John Key announced to the nation that his government’s asset sales programme was over;
.
“Just as we did before the last election we’re making our position on share sales clear to New Zealanders before we go to the polls later this year. We’ve achieved what we wanted with the share offers in energy companies and Air NZ. We’re now returning to a business-as-usual approach when it comes to [state-owned enterprises]. The truth is there aren’t a lot of other assets that would fit in the category where they would be either appealing to take to the market or of a size that would warrant a further programme, or they sit in the category that they are very large like Transpower but are monopoly assets so aren’t suited.”
Like so many of the Prime Minister’s promises, that “Key Committment” did not last long. Not even a year.
As Fonterra’s payout to farmers collapsed and weakening exports to China’s slowing economy began to impact on the government’s tax-take, Bill English’s much-heralded promise of a Budget surplus sank deeper than the m.v. Rena in 2011. English promised almost exactly a year ago on 16 May 2014;
“It’s a real surplus and it follows a string of improvements in deficits starting at $18 billion four years ago, this year about $2.5b and next year a surplus of $370 [million], and then bigger surpluses after that.”
Barely three months after the 2014 elections, Treasury had bad news for English and the National government;
Treasury this morning delivered a body blow to the Government’s hopes of returning to surplus, saying it now expects a deficit of over half a billion dollars for the June financial year.
At this morning’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, Acting Treasury Secretary Vicky Robertson said despite solid growth in the economy, the Crown’s finances would take a hit from lower than previously forecast tax take.
That had seen Treasury change its forecast operating balance before gains and losses (Obegal) for the 2014-15 year from a slim surplus of $297 million to a deficit of $572 million.
Treasury said softer outlook for economic drivers of the tax such as lower dairy prices and interest rates had seen the expected tax take for the year fall by $600 million.
In the same Herald report, English and Key were both frantically doing their best King Canute impersonations since King Canute took a day to go to the beach;
But Finance Minister Bill English was this morning still clinging to the hope Treasury is wrong and the books will indeed be back in black this year as he and Mr Key have promised for some years.
“I’m hopeful we will,” Mr Key told reporters this afternoon.
“The view of the Minister of Finance is that we can still achieve that surplus. There’s a lot of different factors moving around here at the moment.”
By 2 May of this year, even National’s spin-meisters had run out of steam, and on TV3’s ‘The Nation‘, English was forced to admit that the world was indeed round and not flat; money-printing pixies did not exist; and dreams of a budget surplus were a Tory fantasy;
“No, I don’t call it a failure. It is what it is, and that is for the 14/15 year, we budgeted $370 million surplus. It looks like it will be a $500 or $600 million deficit, and the surplus will be the next year. So we’re on track.”
So “the surplus will be the next year“?
The Minister had better be hoping that the Christchurch re-build; the Auckland housing boom; and renewed growth in China’s economy, will continue to stimulate the economy. Otherwise, that “500 or $600 million deficit” will balloon into $1 billion or $2 billion or…
National’s expensive, multi-billion dollar 2009 and 2010 tax cuts may not have been such a clever move after all.
English, though, is not about to surrender. His government’s policies may be predicated on tax revenue from re-building a semi-destroyed city; an unsustainable housing boom in Auckland; and waning dairy exports – but National’s Finance Minister has other ideas up his sleeve.
In his 2 May interview on ‘The Nation‘, English committed the government not to cut spending;
Lisa Owen: “Okay. Well, before on The Nation, you said that the Government would not make any cuts to reach surplus. Is that still your plan?”
Bill English: “That’s right. We’re not going to make any specific extra decisions now just because our tax revenue’s a percentage point – 1 percent down.”
English has committed the government not to “make any specific extra decisions now just because our tax revenue’s a percentage point – 1 percent down”.
It’s just a shame we can’t believe a word of what he says. The cuts had begun long before English uttered his lies to Lisa Owen.
The story unfolds…
16 May 2014…
.
.
National’s “economic whizz-kid” had promised the country a “$372 million surplus” – as well as “an increase to paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18, free doctors’ visits and prescriptions for children under 13, extra money to ease the cost of early-childhood education, eligibility for paid parental leave extended, and the existing parental tax credit to rise“.
Labour’s social policies had been nicked by National. English basked in political glory. Sceptics were ignored. The country went to the polls four months later.
20 September 2014…
.
.
And then reality began to reassert itself.
16 December 2014…
.
.
National’s core policy; it’s raison d’être; it’s reputation amongst New Zealanders who are only vaguely politically conscious – is it’s so-called “reputation for fiscal prudence and responsible economic manager”, and it was rapidly being sucked down a flushing toilet of indebtedness. If it couldn’t deliver on it’s promise of returning the books to surplus – as Labour’s Finance Minister, Michael Cullen, had done between 2000 and 2008 – then what good was it?
English looked at his options to cut spending, and to raise money without creating headlines that shrieked “panic” or “broken promises”.
28 January 2015…
.
.
So much for Key’s assertion that “the truth is there aren’t a lot of other assets that would fit in the category where they would be either appealing to take to the market or of a size that would warrant a further programme”.
Truth and John Key parted company a long time ago. Key’s announcement that up to 8,000 State houses could be sold came only eleven months after his earlier committment to New Zealanders that no further state assets would be sold.
13 April 2015…
John Key denies there is a housing crisis in New Zealand;
“No, I don’t think you can call it a crisis. What you can say though is that Auckland house prices have been rising, and rising too quickly actually.”
21 April 2015…
.
.
National’s broken promise flew in the face of committments made prior to last year’s general election, as then-Health Minister, Tony Ryall said;
Free doctors’ visits and prescriptions for children aged under six will be extended to all children aged under 13 from July next year, Health Minister Tony Ryall says.
“Budget 2014 is investing $90 million over three years from 1 July 2015 so primary school-aged children can go to a doctor for free, any time of the day or night, and get their prescriptions free as well,” he says.
“National brought in the policy of free GP visits and prescriptions for children under six, including free after-hours visits. Thanks to our prudent management of the health budget, we are extending this policy to all children under 13.
“This is what careful financial management can deliver to Kiwi families.
Interestingly, there was a very minor – but all-important word missing between two otherwise identical Facebook postings by John Key and the National Party;
.
.
.
Note the one missing word – “all” – from Key’s Facebook statement. Otherwise, the statement is identical to the National Party Facebook page. Someone in the National Party’s politburo obviously wasn’t keeping track of re-writing their election promises.
Green Party Health and ACC spokesperson, Kevin Hague, hit the nail on the head when he demanded;
“If one in ten kids have to pay up to $38 to go to the doctor when they have an accident, then that visit is not free and that’s a broken promise. It begs the question: what other promises are the Government going to renege on this year in a bid to save a bit more money? This shows how desperate the Government is to reach a surplus that it’s trying to pinch pennies from injured children.”
30 April 2015…
.
.
Attempting to justify the transfer, English announced;
“Over half of the new houses will be sold to help offset construction costs, and the remainder will be retained as social housing. Our bottom line is that there will be at least as many social houses in Tāmaki as the 2800 there now.”
As with previous promises, National’s assurances cannot be relied upon. Ministers will utter soothing reassurances one day – and weeks, months, or years later will find justification why they had to retract.
National ministers simply cannot be trusted to keep their word. Even if 7,500 new homes are built, there is no guarantee that “half of the new houses will be … retained as social housing“. National will find a reason to sell them.
English further stated;
“The Government owns one in 16 houses in Auckland and we need to do a better job with them for the sake of tenants and aspiring homeowners, as well as for the neighbourhoods they live in and the wider city…
…This transfer of ownership of HNZC properties and the responsibility for tenancy management to TRC will enable faster construction of warm, dry and safe houses that better meet people’s needs.”
His comments are a repetition of National’s spin that NZ Housing properties are ‘badly run down and in dire need of maintenance’;
Finance Minister Bill English has confirmed the Government will need to spend $1.5 billion upgrading state houses as they are sold to social housing providers.
Mr English conceded many state houses were not up to standard and had not been properly maintained.
He said the cost of deferred maintenance had risen to $1.5 billion and that the matter had been raised during discussions with social agencies considering buying state houses.
“They’ve highlighted that. So part of the benefit of the process we’re going through is that these agencies are going to apply a very tight scrutiny to the state of the houses that maybe they might be looking at buying.”
Mr English blamed the former Labour-led Government, saying it had focused more on building new state houses than on maintaining existing homes.
English’s apportioning of blame to the previous Labour government is disingenuous.
The sole reason why Housing NZ has not been able to maintain it’s properties is that it has had to pay dividends from income (rent paid by low-income/beneficiary tenants) to successive governments. According to National’s Building and Housing Minister, Dr Nick Smith;
“The average dividend under the 5 years so far of this Government has been $88 million. The dividend this year [2014] is $90 million…”
Fairfax reported Nick Smith as stating;
Smith said the dividend had been been fairly consistent in the past several years – $71m in 2010, $68m in 2011, $77m in 2012 and $90m in 2013.
Four years worth of dividends – $306 million – were paid to the government’s Consolidated Fund. No wonder Housing NZ is unable to maintain it’s properties.
National was brutal in it’s expectations of huge windfalls from Housing NZ;
The letters reveal that on six occasions ministers asked for dividends to be hiked, or paid faster. In March 2010, Maurice Williamson wrote: “I expect . . . a significantly higher annual return to the Crown.”
Phil Heatley, when he was housing minister, asked that in 2011-12 and 2012-13 the dividend be $45m higher than that forecast in the 2011 Budget. Later he revised expectations upwards, to $251m over three years.
In July last year, Smith said “dividend levels should be significant enough to represent a challenge”.
These demands from National ministers were placed on a government department charged with housing the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. Williamson, Heatley, and Smith were content to bleed Housing NZ and let tenants live in cold, damp, miserable conditions.
Williamson, Heatley, and Smith – National’s 21st century slumlords.
As with Solid Energy, National exploited government departments and SOEs such as ACC, as “cash cows”, with which to balance their books to return to Budget surplus. (see: Solid Energy – A solid drama of facts, fibs, and fall-guys )
It is also worthy to note that National Ministers are employing spin when it comes to state house sales. English and other ministers use the term “transfer” and not sale.
On 6 May, Bill English stated that houses would not be sold “unless tenants get better services and taxpayers get fair and reasonable value“.
On TVNZ’s Q+A on 10 May, Minister for Social Housing, Paula Bennett, admitted that her government was selling state housing;
@ 2.13
Corin Dann: “But the point is, they are going to get these houses, they’re going to be sold these houses, aren’t they? You say transfer but it’s a sale of houses at a discount, right?”
Paula Bennett: “Well, I’m sure it’ll be less than the market value, yes.”
These are sales, not a transfer. “Transfer” implies a change of ownership without cost or exchange of money. There is Big Money involved in state house sales.
[Incorrect information deleted. – FM]
6 May 2015…
.
.
The Great Sell-off of Housing continues under National – with the government disposing of all state housing in Tauranga and Invercargill. Radio NZ reported;
The Government has announced it will begin selling off up to 1600 state houses in Tauranga and Invercargill to social housing groups.
There are 370 state houses in Invercargill and 1250 in Tauranga and it’s understood all of them could be sold if buyers come forward.
Only vetted and registered community housing providers will be able to buy them and, depending on their negotiations with the Government, they may not have to pay the market price.
There is nothing to stop private developers from acquiring state houses through back-door means, as this report on a landlords website explained;
The state houses will only be available for sale to registered Community Housing Providers (CHPs).
However, Housing NZ Minister Bill English said that registered CHPs can partner with other organisations to acquire and develop social housing.
“Any transfer of houses will not affect the rent tenants pay or their eligibility for subsidised housing, and properties transferred as social houses will also have to stay as social housing unless the Government agrees otherwise. In both Tauranga and Invercargill, Housing New Zealand owns a significant number of houses so there is potential for more than one organisation to acquire houses for community ownership.”
This means there could be scope for private investors to get involved in the provision of social housing – either by becoming a registered CHP or by partnering with a registered CHP.
Speaking on TVNZ’s Q+A on 10 May, Minister for Social Housing, Paula Bennett confirmed that private investors could “partner” with Community Housing Providers to purchase state houses; re-develop the properties; and sell new residences at a profit.
On 6 May, English assured the public;
“Any transfer of houses will not affect the rent tenants pay or their eligibility for subsidised housing, and properties transferred as social houses will also have to stay as social housing unless the Government agrees otherwise.”
Of course National will agree. This is a wholesale sell-off of state housing. Why wouldn’t they agree to new owners on-selling these properties for a profit? Otherwise new owners would be stuck with old, dilapidated properties, requiring expensive repairs, and soon getting into deep debt.
This is privatisation, by stealth, through the back-door, using intermediaries. This is a whole new level of government subterfuge.
It also exposes John Key’s assurance – that state assert sales have ended – as a lie.
Conclusion
Finance Minister Bill English is desperately scrabbling for every dollar he can claw back. Miserly does not even begin to aptly describe this government’s actions.
It seems that the tax cuts of 2009 and 2010 are being paid for by paperboys and girls; sick children; welfare beneficiaries; and Housing NZ tenants.
It remains to be seen what further cuts in social spending Bill English has planned. His reassurances on 2 May 2015 – that there would be no cuts to social spending – are to be treated with the same contempt as other promises, assurances, and committments that have been made, and broken, by John Key, Bill English, et al.
Governments are at their worst and most dangerous, when desperate. And this is a desperate government.
Addendum1
Karol, writing for The Standard, has more on this issue. See: “Key Govt asset stripping state housing‘.
Addendum2
Registered community housing provider, Habitat for Humanity Invercargill-branch chairman, Stephen Falconer, is an enthusiastic cheerleader for National’s covert privatisation programme. He told the Otago Daily Times on 7 May;
“We’re a private organisation, essentially, and we think that private enterprise can actually do a better job than Government on most things.”
Because private enterprise has done such a stirling job thus far in meeting demand for housing in Auckland, Christchurch, and elsewhere?
It is disappointing that an ostensibly community organisation like Habitat for Humanity has bought into the government narrative, complete with parroting neo-liberal cliches that “private enterprise can actually do a better job than Government“.
If it were true that “private enterprise can actually do a better job than Government“, then why does Habitat for Humanity exist?
Addendum3
Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett is interviewed by Corin Dann on TVNZ’s Q+A. Along with Bill English’s admissions, her comments are a disturbing indication where National is going with state housing. See: Govt social housing target 3000 homes
.
.
.
References
NZ Herald: PM – no more SOEs to sell after Genesis
John Key: My key commitments to you
NBR: Weak dairy prices prompt analysts to pull back Fonterra forecast payout for next season
The Independent: How China’s slowing GDP growth could drag down the global economy
TV3 News: National Party wins third term
NZ Herald: No surplus this year – Treasury
Fairfax media: Budget 2014 – Surplus real, says English
TV3: The Nation – Bill English
Fairfax media: Budget 2014 – Surplus real, says English
TV1 News: Up to 8,000 state houses could be sold under John Key’s radical plan
Radio NZ: Key denies Auckland housing crisis
NZ Herald: No free GP visits for all children – Government
National Party: Free doctors’ visits, prescriptions for under 13s
Facebook: John Key
Facebook: National Party
Scoop media: Govt breaks free doctors visit promise to kids
Fairfax media: Government offloads 2800 state houses to Auckland development company
Radio NZ: Govt to spend $1.5b fixing up state houses
Parliament: Hansards – Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers – 8 May 2014
Fairfax media: Nats milking Housing NZ – Labour
Fairfax media: Not much in the cupboard for English to dine on
NZ Herald: State houses in Tauranga and Invercargill to go on the market
TVNZ Q+A: Govt social housing target 3000 homes
Landlords – For Kiwi Property Investors: State houses to go on sale in Tauranga & Invercargill
NZ Herald: Budget 2012 – ‘Paper boy tax’ on small earnings stuns Labour
Fairfax media: Invercargill and Tauranga chosen for first state house sales
Radio NZ: Tauranga, Invercargill state houses to be sold
Otago Daily Times: Invercargill among first state house transfer sites
Previous Related Blogposts
Can we do it? Bloody oath we can!
Budget 2013: State Housing and the War on Poor
Budget 2013: State Housing and the War on Poor
National recycles Housing Policy and produces good manure!
National Housing propaganda – McGehan Close Revisited
Housing; broken promises, families in cars, and ideological idiocy (Part Tahi)
Housing; broken promises, families in cars, and ideological idiocy (Part Rua)
Housing; broken promises, families in cars, and ideological idiocy (Part Toru)
“It’s fundamentally a fairness issue”- Peter Dunne
Solid Energy – A solid drama of facts, fibs, and fall-guys
The Mendacities of Mr Key #11: Sorry, Prime Minister, what ‘mandate’ were you referring to?!
Other blogs
Polity: Housing horrors
The Jackal: Nationals housing failure
The Standard: Key Govt asset stripping state housing
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 10 May 2015.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – This is how much John Key really, really cares for Northland
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Sun, Mar 29, 2015
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editorNZ Herald
.
During the Northland by-election, our esteemed Prime Minister was at great pains to show Northland voters how really, truly, deeply concerned he was for the regions.
So much so that he and other Ministers took their tax-payer funded ministerial limousines around Northland, campaigning for votes.
So much so, that lots of promises were made by Mr Key – promises that more cynically-minded critics cruelly dismissed as election bribes.
So much so, that when it came to election night, Mr Key showed his earnest support for his candidate and for the Northland electorate… from the MCG where the Black Caps were playing against our Aussie brethren. Speaking from Melbourne, Key voiced his love for Northland and how much his thoughts were with the people of that region;
“I am delighted to be attending the final between New Zealand and Australia.”
With support like that, Northlanders, as well as other New Zealanders, can begin to understand how much this current government really, truly, cares deeply about them.-Frank Macskasy
.
[Address and phone number supplied]
.
References
Scoop media: PM to attend the Cricket World Cup Final
.
.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – Northland voters have been warned
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Northern Advocate <editor@northernadvocate.co.nz>
date: Thu, Mar 19, 2015
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor
Northern Advocate
.As National’s candidate struggles to gain traction in the Northland by-election, various government ministers would have us believe that the promised up-grade to ten single-lane bridges; a suggested roll-out of fast-broadband in the North; and bringing forward the Puhoi to Wellsford motorway are not bribes.On 10 March, our esteemed Prime Minister said he “unashamedly” wanted to win the by-election.Northland voters should be wary of whatever promises Key makes.He has a steady track record of fudging, back-flipping, and out-right breaking promises when he suits him politically.Many of National’s recent promises have hundred-million dollar price tags, and will impact negatively on the government’s books. Bill English will not be pleased as he tries to balance government accounts back to surplus as well as find hundreds of millions for election bribes.Remember that it was Finance Minister Bill English who firmly squashed any suggestion of tax-payers footing a $130 million subsidy toward the Skycity convention centre on 11 February when he said,“There’s no contingency for that. If the less preferred option ended up being the option then that money would be part of the Budget process.”
Northlanders should brace themselves that if the National candidate wins, many of the promises will most likely be delayed, wound back, or dumped altogether for fiscal reasons.Key’s track record on keeping promises is not reassuring. Voters have been warned..-Frank Macskasy
.
[address and phone number supplied]
.
References
Radio NZ: Government pulls out the stops for Northland
NZ Herald: John Key unapologetic about Northland byelection promises
Fairfax media: Government rolls out more ultrafast broadband
Interest.co.nz: Finance Minister prefers not to spend taxpayer cash to avoid Sky City ‘eyesore’; no money in Budget 2015 for it
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 March 2015.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – Getting the government we deserve
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Northern Advocate <editor@northernadvocate.co.nz>
date: Wed, Mar 11, 2015
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor
Northern Advocate.
On Radio NZ’s Morning Report, on 10 March, our esteemed Prime Minister openly admitted that his government was engaged in naked bribing of the Northland electorate. He vainly attempted to justify the policy announcements-cum-bribes with this noble-sounding explanation;
“We’re in an election and in election campaigns you announce your policies what you’re going to do. There’s no point in us, you know, waiting two months and saying to the people of Northland ‘Oh by the way, this is what we’re intending to do’. I mean they’re entitled to know upfront, before they vote, what our intentions are and we intend to make a number of policy announcements.”
It’s a shame that Key does not hold the same view that Northlanders are “entitled to know upfront, before they vote” why the former National MP, Mike Sabin, was forced to suddenly step down as Northland’s MP.
Are Northland voters not “entitled to know upfront, before they vote” what prompted Sabin’s resignation?
And why did the National Party keep the circumstances a secret prior to the general election last year?
Whatever potential scandal surrounds Mr Sabin, with National Party connivance to keep it secret; it seems that Northlanders are now being offered ‘lollies’ to keep them happy.
If the new National candidate is elected to Parliament, then never before has the old adage – that we deserve the government we get – been ever truer.
-Frank Macskasy
.
[address & phone number supplied]
.
.
.
Reference
Radio NZ: Government pulling out all the stops for Northland (audio)
.
.
.
= fs =
The Mendacities of Mr Key #11: Sorry, Prime Minister, what ‘mandate’ were you referring to?!
.
.
It seems that Dear Leader is still making it up as he goes along. On “The Nation” this weekend (28 February), he told the people of New Zealand;
“Look, I’ve made it quite clear, for instance, to the Australian Prime Minister that we’re out in two years. That’s our mandate that we’ve got. That’s what we intend to follow through.”
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Sat, Feb 28, 2015
subject: Letter to the editor.
The Editor
Dominion Post.
Did I hear John Key correctly, on TV3’s “The Nation”, on 28 February, when he confirmed that NZ military personnel will leave Iraq after two years;
“Look, I’ve made it quite clear, for instance, to the Australian Prime Minister that we’re out in two years. That’s our mandate that we’ve got.”
What “mandate” is Key referring to?
It can’t be a resolution from the UN Security Council – no such resolution has been enacted to my knowledge.
It can’t be a Parliamentary vote – Key will not allow MPs to debate and vote on such a critical issue.
And it certainly can’t be an election mandate – last year Key categorically ruled out any NZ involvement in Iraq aside from humanitarian aid. (See “Stuff” story, “No New Zealand forces to Iraq, says Key”, 18 June 2014) That is what New Zealanders voted for: no military involvement in Iraq.
So neither the UN Security Council, New Zealand Parliament, nor the voters in last year’s election have given Key any “mandate” whatsoever.
If he has some other mandate from some other authority, I for one, would be curious to see it.
Otherwise, NZ forces in Iraq? No, not in my name, Mr Key!
.
-Frank Macskasy
.
[Address and phone number supplied.]
.
References
TV1: The Nation – Transcript – Prime Minister John Key
Previous Related Blogposts
That was Then, This is Now #26 – John Key will let slip the dogs of war
The Mendacities of Mr Key #10: “Only two years!!”
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 March 2015.
.
.
= fs =
The Mendacities of Mr Key #10: “Only two years!!”
.
.
In his recent statement to Parliament, Dear Leader Key made this commitment to the people of New Zealand when announcing that troops would be sent to Iraq;
“The deployment will be reviewed after nine months and will be for a maximum two-year period.”
The question that should be in everyone’s mind is; why should we believe a politician who has repeatedly told lies; gone back on his word; or mis-represented previous situations?
It was only last year, before the September election, that he poo-pooed any suggestion of sending anything but humanitarian aid to Iraq;
But Key said he did not believe it likely New Zealand special forces would be deployed or requested.
“I don’t think that’s likely,” he said.
“We’re just so far away from probably ever having to make that call.
“But in the end in so much as with any global issue, as things play out New Zealand would always look to the [United Nations] Security Council for its view and its sanction of anything that may happen.
“So you can never say never in a world where the Security Council decides that Iraq needs support of some sort – engineers or whatever it might be. That could always be considered but I think that’s very unlikely.”
Asked if that meant he could rule out New Zealand special forces soldiers being deployed to Iraq, even in an advisory capacity, Key responded; “I would say yes’.
He said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was working on a proposal for aid and “I don’t think our involvement in Iraq [will be] any greater than that.”
Eight months later – Key is standing in Parliament explaining why NZ troops are being sent to Iraq. Not humanitarian aid, as he promised in June last year.
This is the same man who;
- stated categorically that he knew nothing about an upgrade of the ministerial limousine fleet – then was proven to have lied when documents were unearthed bearing his signature
- “committed to honouring our Kyoto Protocol obligations” – then walked away from Kyoto II negotiations in Doha, in November 2012
- reneged on including agriculture in the Emissions trading scheme, when he had earlier promised “it’s unlikely it would be amended“.
- reneged on his promise not to raise GST (then increased it in 2010)
- claimed he was told that Standard & Poors would have downgraded New Zealand’s credit rating under a Labour government – something strenuously denied by S&P
- promised not to sell any further state assets during the election campaign last year (and then subsequently announced the sale of thousands of state houses)
- lied about when he had received txt-messages from a right-wing blogger
- and many other instances of untruthfulness, broken committments, etc.
So why should New Zealanders believe any utterances from John Key about limiting New Zealand military involvement in Iraq – when less than a year ago he had categorically stated there would be no such involvement in the first place?
Predictions:
1. If National wins the 2017 election, expect NZ Army personnel to remain in Iraq longer than two years.
2. Expect the SAS (or other NZ military forces) to be increasingly involved in military operations in Iraq – known as “mission creep”.
3. Expect casualties.
John Key will break his committment to bring home NZ troops after two years.
We have no reason to trust him.
.
References
NZ Herald: ‘Sending our forces to Iraq is not an easy decision’ – John Key’s full speech
Fairfax Media: No New Zealand forces to Iraq, says Key
NZ Herald: Govt backtracks on limo statements
Fairfax Media: PM signed papers relating to BMWs
National Party: John Key, Speech: Environment Policy Launch
Science Media Centre: NZ forgoes Kyoto for new climate plan – experts respond
Fairfax Media: Key ‘no GST rise’ video emerges
Parliament: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2012
NZ Herald: ETS changes ‘unlikely’ despite pleas
Interest.co.nz: Key stands behind comment that S&P more likely to downgrade Labour govt than National
NZ Herald: S&P contradicts Key downgrade claim
Radio NZ: PM rules out more asset sales
Fairfax Media: Key claims confusion over texts with Slater
Previous related blogposts
Johnny’s Report Card – National Standards Assessment y/e 2012 – environment
The Mendacities of Mr Key #8: A roof over your head, and boots on the ground
The Mendacities of Mr Key #9: The Sky’s the limit with taxpayer subsidies!
That was Then, This is Now #26 – John Key will let slip the dogs of war
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 27 February 2015.
.
.
= fs =
Witnessing the slow decay of a government past it’s Use-By date
.
.
There is something unpleasantly familiar about the recent appalling events surrounding the current National government and it’s embattled leader, John Key and his strange relationship with Cameron Slater.
Searching my memory, it dawned on me: I am witnessing a replay of the closing years of the Shipley Administration, before it was eventually turfed out of office in November 1999.
The Shipley-led minority-National government was racked with crises.
One such was the Saatchi Affair, where then-PM, Jenny Shipley, was found to have lied about a dinner engagement with Saatchi & Saatchi boss, Kevin Roberts. Shipley’s recall of that dinner engagement – and the topics of discussion – were at variance with what Roberts had claimed took place.
Shipley had misled public; the media; and the public. The headlines at the time pilloried her;
.
.
Sound familiar?
To call the National government of that time a “decaying government” would be a gross under-statement. As well as beset with scandal after scandal; cuts to the budgets for police, health, education, etc; deeply unpopular measures such as state house sales, and a crazy, hundred-million-dollar plan to move/demolish the Beehive (and extend the original Parliament Building); there were other events which drew a rising chorus of criticism and condemnation from a wide sector of society.
On 27 November, 1999, New Zealanders had had a gutsful and threw out the National government.
The recent “txt-gate” scandal is simply the most recent scandal to envelope the current Prime Minister, John Key.
.
.
In terms of past events; past scandals; and past instances where the PM has been caught out – it is by no means the worst.
This time, however, matters have reached a critical flash-point. The media has awoken to a smell of a government on the defensive and where Dear Leader has pushed the envelope once too often. Journalists and media commentators are no longer as tolerant; no longer awed; and no longer willing to be mollified by a popular prime minister.
The Shipley Factor has kicked in.
At this point, nothing that National does will counter the same style of growing clamour of criticism it’s predecessor faced in the late ’90s.
Even the distractions of a costly flag referendum; growing ‘softening’ of the public for a New Zealand presence in Iraq; or another bout of bene-bashing will not work to deflect attention from an increasingly embattled PM. Such distractions will be quickly revealed, and dismissed, for what they are.
If National’s current problems translate into public odium, the upcoming flag referendum may well become a referendum on Key’s administration – much like the September 1997 referendum on compulsory retirement savings became a referendum on the National-NZ First Coalition government.
An extraordinary 80.3% of voter turn-out resulted in 91.8% voting “No”. However, the wisdom at the time suggested that the massive “No” vote was more of a reflection on the National-led government of the day, rather than the actual issue of superannuation.
Perhaps the clearest indication that the tide has turned against Key (and his government) is that the most trenchant criticism has come – not from the Left; nor from the Parliamentary Opposition; nor even from Key’s nemesis, Kim Dotcom – but from the Right and a previously compliant media.
On 25 November last year (2014), John Armstrong, from the NZ Herald wrote;
The Key administration has plumbed new depths of arrogance and contempt for the notion of politicians being accountable for their actions in its response to today’s hugely embarrassing report by the independent watchdog who maintains oversight over the Security Intelligence Service.
Rather than take the findings of the report by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn on the chin, National sought to bury the report.
[…]
John Key may have effectively been cleared by Gwyn for having only a “very limited” involvement in the disgraceful release of information by the SIS to Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater.
That gets Key personally off the hook. But that does not absolve him of ministerial responsibility. In fact. he is doubly responsible both as the the minister-in-charge of the intelligence agencies and as the person responsible for the behaviour of his Beehive office.
This morning’s statement by the Prime Minister in reaction to the Gwyn report places all the blame for this shoddy affair on the SIS.
Key’s statement unsurprisingly makes no mention of an email revealed in the report from one of his political advisers, Jason Ede, the man who Hager cites as central to the dirty tricks campaign being run out of Key’s office. In the email to Slater, Ede said that “he might be in the shit” over the way he has used SIS information. Slater replied that he would simply state he had a source within the SIS – a statement Gwyn took to mean that Slater was seeking to protect Ede.
No heads will roll. Most of the participants in this unsavoury episode have since moved on or retired, while Key gives assurances that lessons have been learned and a more effective oversight regime is now in place.
That is not good enough. The public need an assurance that nothing like this will ever happen again…
Four days later, Armstrong offered yet more trenchant criticism of Key’s administration;
The subsequent fibs, half-truths, memory blanks and – worst of all – the misleading of Parliament on the Prime Minister’s part in the wake of the report’s release has so far not seen the electoral ground that Key has so successfully occupied for so long shifting from under him.
Key has been his own worst enemy in seeming to be in denial of Gwyn’s confirmation of the dirty tricks operation run out of his office and first exposed by Nicky Hager in his book Dirty Politics.
[…]
Key then topped that by misleading Parliament by not fessing up to his text conversation when specifically asked whether there had been any such contact.
Such reckless and consequently self-incriminating behaviour left most observers and voters completely gob-smacked. So gob-smacked that the torrent of criticism raining down on Key went into temporary abeyance.
When it came to trashing his credibility, Key seemed to be doing enough on his own without assistance from outside.
Armstrong continued by really putting the boot firmly into Key’s backside;
But the absence – so far – of any public backlash against the Prime Minister bar those who already detest him is a source of of intense frustration for Opposition parties. And more so the more Key’s memory lapses impede on serious matters of state.
What began with a failure to recall whether he was for or against the 1981 Springbok Tour was followed by forgetfulness over how many Tranz Rail shares he owned.
Then there was the inability to remember how he voted on the drinking age, along with the sudden case of amnesia surrounding the identity of the passengers who flew to New Zealand aboard a mystery CIA jet.
Things started to get even more worrying when Key confessed to being unsure if and when he was briefed on Dotcom by the Government Communications Security Bureau.
They got even more dodgy when Key professed he could not remember whether he had phoned the brother of an old school pal urging him to apply to become the director of the GCSB.
This is the power and collective memory of the media at work. Citing past instances which paint a consistently negative picture of a political figure is something usually left to bloggers these days. One of the best examples was a list of lies, half-truths, broken promises, etc made by Key and compiled by a writer-known-only-as “BLiP”.
No doubt that list will be much lengthier, nearly two years later.
It will prove to be a valuable resource for any journalist digging back into Key’s track record since 2008.
Meanwhile, the media are running stories openly questioning Key’s integrity, such as this piece by Hamish Rutherford, in November last year;
Prime Minister John Key is fighting off accusations of lying, claiming confusion about his contact with WhaleOil blogger Cameron Slater stemmed from wanting to give a “general” answer to reporters rather than a specific one.
Yesterday he was forced to admit he had corresponded with Slater on several occasions since Nicky Hager’s book, Dirty Politics, was published.
On Tuesday, Key told reporters that Slater “sent me a text one time, but I can’t remember when that was”.
It later transpired that Key and Slater had corresponded by text message the previous evening, in what Key has now described as a “gossipy” exchange.
The details emerged after Key admitted he had misled Parliament on Wednesday, when he denied having corresponded with Slater about a report by Justice Lester Chisholm into the conduct of former justice minister Judith Collins and the intelligence watchdog report on disclosures of SIS information.
Key claimed he misunderstood the question, citing noise in the debating chamber, leading him to believe Labour MP Megan Woods was referring only to one report.
In fact, Woods asked two consecutive questions about both reports.
This editorial in Rotorua’s Daily Post, was unequivocal;
You would think that with the stench of Dirty Politics still lingering in the corridors of power after this year’s madcap election build-up, Mr Key would know better than to conduct a text conversation with the figure at the centre of the controversy.
Mr Key, who gave Mr Slater his new cellphone number after he changed it during the election campaign, says he is “fundamentally not” in contact with Mr Slater, and hadn’t rung him or “proactively texted” him.
Though according to at least one report he also said he phoned Mr Slater on Wednesday to confirm his recollection of what they discussed in their text exchange on Monday night as he’d deleted the texts.
On Wednesday night he had to back down on his earlier claims he’d had no contact with Mr Slater ahead of the release of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn’s report into the SIS’s role in Slater’s 2011 political attack on former Labour leader Phil Goff.
[…]
Earlier news reports say Mr Key refused to answer questions about his contact with Mr Slater, saying it was in his capacity as National Party leader, not as Prime Minister.
That really doesn’t cut it. When you’re Prime Minister, everything, even dropping your kids off at school, is done in your capacity as Prime Minister.
Fran O’Sullivan was equally scathing;
There is considerable angst that Key is continuing to engage with a high-profile blogger at the expense of his own reputation as Prime Minister. The texting bout episode when he responded to a communication from that particular blogger when prudence would have dictated that he should have just blanked Whale Oil is a case in point.
Key’s failure to realise he would be likely to be filleted when it was inevitably leaked defies credibility.
But trying to mask the obvious backtracking was a step too far.
[…]
There are many inconsistencies in the Prime Minister’s response to the inquiry by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security into the release of information by the Security Intelligence Service to a blogger.
A simple apology on behalf of his office for the obvious black ops would have done a great deal to defuse the issue.
But Key has simply resorted to semantics and tried to hold his ground.
NZ Newswire political columnist, Peter Wilson, described Key’s actions as “causing more trouble than the dubious tactic was worth“, and wrote;
Key’s assertion that he was acting in his capacity as leader of the National Party when he spoke to or texted Slater is raising issues as well.
Radio New Zealand pointed out that the High Court has ruled Slater is a journalist.
That being the case, in what capacity does Key interact with press gallery journalists?
Winston Peters is wondering whether Richard Nixon would have been allowed to escape responsibility for Watergate if he’d argued that he was acting in his capacity as leader of the Republican Party.
And Slater suggests Maurice Williamson should ask for his ministerial job back, because surely he was acting in his capacity as an electorate MP when he called the police to ask about a court case.
Brent Edwards, from Radio NZ, injected a large measure of sarcasm into Key’s denials of reality;
The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Cheryl Gwyn, apparently wrote two reports into the way the SIS released information embarrassing to former Labour Party leader Phil Goff in 2011.
There is the report Ms Gwyn released publicly on Tuesday which found the Security Intelligence Service had released inaccurate and misleading information leading to unfounded criticism of Mr Goff.
This report also found that staff in Prime Minister John Key’s office had passed on information to right-wing blogger Cameron Slater about briefings the then SIS director, Warren Tucker, had said he had given to Mr Goff about speculation Israeli spies had been caught up in the February 22 earthquake in Christchurch in 2011.
The other report – the one Mr Key apparently received – does not find that his staff played any part in feeding Mr Slater information or in helping the blogger make his Official Information Act request to the SIS.
John Key is adamant the report finds no such thing. It’s a line repeated by his ministers, including the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson.
Yet on page 63 of the report Ms Gwyn states: “I did, however, find that Mr Ede provided the details of relevant documents to Mr Slater and was in fact speaking to Mr Slater by phone at the exact time that Mr Slater submitted his OIA request.”
When not publishing pieces by right-wing columnist, or editorials, all attacking this government that they are supposedly friendly to – there are other stories appearing which also paint a less-than-rosy picture of Key’s administration.
This op-ed by Bruce Bisset, last September in Hawkes Bay Today, outlined hard facts that have rarely been published in msm papers – and usually more the province of political blogs. Bisset wrote;
Back when Labour was in power we had constant carping about Clarke’s “nanny state” and how welfare and social reforms were running up debt like there was no tomorrow.
Still we hear that mantra repeated – and surprisingly, most of the time it goes unchallenged.
But it’s pure myth. New Zealand’s national debt was less after nine years of Labour than when they were elected. The Clarke government was fiscally ultra-conservative, because the books really did balance.
Contrast that with debt under Key’s government. Starting at around $18 billion, it has blossomed to a staggering $86 billion today. That’s a five-fold increase, in just six years.
Yes, we’ve had the global financial crisis and Canterbury earthquakes and tax cuts for the wealthy that have to be paid for somehow. We’ve also had record commodity prices, significant departmental cost-cutting, and the sell-off of major state-owned assets. Plus very little new spending.
Yet we’re running up debt at more than $13 billion per year – to merely tread water.
It doesn’t add up. These guys are supposedly the whizz-bang flash moneymen. So how come we’re so indebted it now costs over $4 billion per year just to service the interest?
Truth is, the economic recovery is itself a myth.
Since last year, the noise surrounding Slater/txt-gate/SIS report all but died down. They have become largely forgotten by the public who are fed a daily diet of dumbed down “news” on TV1 and TV3; puerile garbage as entertainment, but precious little serious current affairs analysis; and a dazzling, mesmerising, cornucopia of ever-increasing consumer-goods dangled in front of their slack-jawed faces.
Radio NZ temporarily joined the mind-numbing dumbness of commercial radio’s ranks from December 24 to January 19. Insight, analysis, and commentary were on temporary hiatus for nearly a month.
If the last six years have shown us one thing, it is that the next scandal and revelations of dodgy ministerial practices and inept Prime Ministerial behaviour is not too far away.
The media are alerted. The public now have some awareness of dirty politics behind the scenes. And journalists are starting to exercise a form of collective memory.
It is said that the public no longer care about politics, and that Key has “de-politicised” it. But, like the continuing bad stories that finally destroyed Jenny Shipley’s government, continuing negatives stories can have a corrosive effect on this government.
The more times Key is caught out lying or being tricky with the truth or breaking promises – the more that the public will slowly but surely distrust his “brand”.
Even four years ago, a sizeable ‘chunk’ of the public were suspicious of Key’s honesty;
.
.
It will only get worse for Key and his cronies. Especially as social issues continue to dog this government.
Housing is fast becoming a real problem in this country as more and more New Zealanders find themselves locked out of the market and forced into a lifetime of renting.
Housing was also a critical issue during the dying days of Shipley’s government, as they enacted an unpopular policy of selling state houses.
New Zealanders may have surrendered their Citizenship in preference to becoming zombified Consumers – but housing is a commodity, and Consumers will not be denied the opportunity to acquire said commodity.
Even if it means a change of government
.
References
NZ Herald: Shipley on the run
MKiwi: Beehive Parliament Buildings Wellington
Wikipedia: 1999 General Election
Fairfax media: Key claims confusion over texts with Slater
NZ Herald: John Key defends cost of flag referendums
Radio NZ: PM spells out IS deployment dangers
Wikipedia: Referendums in NZ
NZ Herald: John Armstrong – National’s response not good enough
NZ Herald: John Armstrong – Outrageous behaviour leaves Key on the edge
The Standard: An Honest Man?
Fairfax media: Key claims confusion over texts with Slater
The Daily Post: Editorial – Key’s whale of a tale
NZ Herald: Fran O’Sullivan – Key’s choice: bloggers or business community
NZN: Key’s question time tactic goes wrong
Radio NZ: POWER PLAY with Brent Edwards – PM’s over-sight not very intelligent
Hawkes Bay Today: Bruce Bisset – Nats have buried us in debt
Dominion Post: John Key – Safe hands, forked tongue?
NZ History: The state steps in and out – State housing
Previous related blogposts
Are Cameron Slater and Judith Collins bare-faced liars?
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)
When the teflon is stripped away
Letter to the editor – Witches, foreign fighters, and other bogeymen
Associated groups
Facebook: Housing NZ Tenants Forum
Facebook: Tamaki Housing Group- Defend Glen Innes
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 February 2015.
.
.
= fs =
The Slater-Key Txt-Messages Trip-Up – Did Cameron Slater Plan this?
.
Cameron Slater (L) and John Key (R)
.
Timeline
Sunday 23 November:
John Key apologises to right-wing blogger Cameron Slater over the publication of an email that forced Justice Minister Judith Collins’ resignation.
Monday 24 November:
John Key and Cameron Slater exchange txt-messages regarding impending release of Cheryl Gwyn report. Slater claims Labour is trying to kill him;
Cameron Slater: gave it away to me…Goff leaked SIS report
John Key: It’s a joke isn’t it. They will attack Jason for talking to u and they break the confidentiality agreement. Classic lab.
Slater: Yup…I’m very angry over it…Goff is the one who leaked oravida stuff too.
Slater: They still have standard bloggers on staff
Slater: And Mccarten was involved in hack
Key: Hopefully it will all come out in time
Slater: I wish they would hurry up…they played the real dirty politics…even tried to kill me…I have evidence of.
Tuesday 25 November:
Key denies he had been in contact with Slater, after RadioLive reporter, Jessica Williams, asked John Key the following;
Jessica Williams: Have you spoken to Cameron Slater since this report came out yesterday night?
Mr Key: Well I haven’t spoken to him on the phone for months and months and months on end. He sent me a text one time but I can’t remember when that was.
Jessica Williams: Has he text you about this particular report?
My Key: No.
Wednesday 26 November:
Earlier in the day: MP for Wigram, Megan Woods asked John Key this question in Parliament;
Megan Woods: Did he have communications with Cameron Slater between the 23rd and 25th of November regarding the Chisholm inquiry or the Inspector General’s inquiry?
John Key: Mr Speaker no.
Late afternoon: A screen-shot of Cameron Slater messaging an unknown person ’emerges’, confirming that he had been txting John Key (Hat-tip Anthony Robbins on The Standard.)
Late evening: Key returned to Parliament later three hours after answering question to Ms Woods, to make a “correction“,
John Key: “On Monday the 24th of November, I received an unsolicited text message from Mr Slater with a reference to the IGIS [Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security] report. There was a very short exchange where I briefly acknowledged that text message.”
Later that night: Key’s Office released a transcript of the text exchange.
Thursday 27 November:
Key denies he was caught out lying over Slater’s txt-messages;
“No I haven’t been caught out. No absolutely not. I haven’t had a brain fade.“
“When the particular question was asked, there was quite a lot of noise in the House. If I’d heard the other bit, I’d have answered it fully.”
“Just to be clear, I never said the Labour Party were trying to kill me. That’s the spin the Labour Party have put on it this morning.”
“You’re now asking me, in a period of three months where I’ve dealt with an election campaign, where I probably deal with, I don’t know, a thousand text messages a day from hundreds and hundreds of people, you’re now telling me I have to remember exactly the number.”
.
Preface
From an earlier blogpost, penned two and half years ago;
Slater is National’s “asset”, doing their ‘dirty work’ . When the National hierarchy does not want to dirty their own hands with mud – but still want to make public damaging information to embarress a political opponant – Slater is their go-to man.
Slater’s role in such nefarious activities is even more useful to National after Paula Bennett’s clumsy mis-handling of private information belonging to two solo-mothers, which she disclosed to the media. There is still a complaint pending against Bennett for abusing her position as Minister for Social Welfare.
Somewhere, sometime, a top National Party apparatchik would have instructed each and every minister and MP not to repeat Bennett’s mistake. S/he would have given firm instructions that releasing damaging information to discredit an opponant had to be done surreptitiously, using a Third Party.
That Third Party would be Slater.
That would give National “plausible deniability” when the sh*t hit the fan and fingers were pointed.
“Frankly Speaking“, 29 March 2012 (See: Born to rule )
.
Past Prime Ministerial porkies and mendacities
To those on the Left or who have followed John Key’s career, his lies over his txt-messaging with Cameron Slater will come as no surprise. With regards to bending the truth; misleading by omission or exaggeration; or outright mendacity, Key has ‘form’.
One political commentator, using the pseudonym ‘BLiP’, has put together a list of lies from the Prime Minister that is eye-opening and deeply troubling. More could be added to that list, which is now over a year and a half old.
Some early instances of Key being ‘sprung’…
In February 2011, Key denied all knowledge of the National Government’s intention to buy 34 new BMW limousines for ministerial use. By 22 February, it was revealed that Key had actually signed the documents to authorise the purchase;
Prime Minister John Key signed four documents that referred to a deal to buy a fleet of luxury cars – and at least three other ministers were briefed, documents reveal.
Mr Key – who is responsible for Ministerial Services – says he was in the dark about the deal until a conversation with his driver two weeks ago. But an embarrassing paper trail, dating back to 2009, and issued yesterday by the Government shows there were a series of documents referencing the deal.
And in July last year his chief of staff Wayne Eagleson met the manager of VIP Transport Service, Geoff Knighton, to discuss the renewal of a contract with BMW to supply 34 new cars.
Mr Key said he was “not going to make excuses” and acknowledged “the matter should have been handled better by everybody, including myself”.
“The whole thing has been sloppy and frankly the public deserves better.”
Mr Key said Mr Eagleson could not recall the meeting, despite a series of emails between July 19 and 20. He has since apologised to Mr Key and offered to resign.
In March and April 2009, Mr Key and minister for internal affairs at the time Richard Worth signed off on three documents – drafts of the Department of Internal Affairs Statement of Intent – which referred to the fleet replacement. Then last March he signed off on another statement of intent which made two mentions of the new cars.
Mr Key said yesterday he had not read the documents.
In April 2011, Key was once again hot water over his propensity for mis-leading people.
Prime Minister John Key has done an about-face after denying he had a discussion with MediaWorks bosses before the Government decided to give the company a $43.3 million helping hand.
He has now admitted meeting then-MediaWorks boss Brent Impey two months before, when Mr Impey pressed his case for a scheme the Government initially turned down.
The scheme, announced in October 2009, allowed radio companies to spread payments on 20-year broadcasting licences over five years, instead of one lump-sum payment.
On Monday, in answer to written parliamentary questions, Mr Key said he had not had any discussions with MediaWorks, which owns TV3 and a network of radio stations.
But on Wednesday, he issued a correction, saying he “ran into Brent Impey at a social event [in August] where he briefly raised the issue”.
On 4 October 2011, Key’s credibility took another hammering over a dubious “Standard & Poors email”, when he made this astounding claim in the Parliamentary Debating Chamber,
“When Standard & Poor’s were giving a meeting in New Zealand about a month ago, what they did say was there was about a 30% chance we would be downgraded – that’s what happens when you’re on negative outlook. They did go on to say though, if there was a change of government, that downgrade would be much more likely.”
The comment was made under Parliamentary privilege.
Five days later, and after mounting media and political pressure, on 10 October, Key “explained” that the comments had come to him in an email, from an un-named “friend”. As questions swirled around the alleged comment by Standard & Poors, Key relented and released released the text of the email,
.
.
Subsequently, Key held a press conference where he was grilled by journalists,
.
.
Key’s body language, tone, and expressions speak volumes whether or not he was being truthful. That “email” could easily have been written by any number of Key’s Beehive staffers, including National’s “black ops” man, Jason Ede.
Standard & Poors, though, had differing views on what really happened at the Auckland conference;
Ratings agency Standard and Poor’s has contradicted a claim by Prime Minister John Key that a credit downgrade would be more likely with a change of Government in New Zealand.
Mr Key was questioned in Parliament last week by Labour leader Phil Goff about the agency’s downgrading of New Zealand’s long-term foreign currency rating from AA+ to AA.
Mr Key claimed Standard and Poor’s had said at a meeting last month that “if there was a change of Government, that downgrade would be much more likely”.
The next election is on November 26.
Standard and Poor’s sovereign rating analyst Kyran Curry, who attended the meeting in Auckland, said that would not have happened.
“In Auckland last month, I might have talked about the importance of the Government maintaining a strong fiscal position in the medium term but I would never have touched on individual parties.
“It is something we just don’t do,” Mr Curry said. “We don’t rate political parties. We rate Governments.”
These are a few examples where Key’s willingness to be “loose with the truth” has come unstuck and become known to the public.
Little wonder then, that a Fairfax/Ipsos poll last year had nearly 59% of respondents not believing what Key said. Only 23.5% – National core-constituency – said they fully believed him.
Two years before that, a Fairfax Media-Research International Poll had similar results, with 34.9% of respondents replying that Key was more likely to “bend the truth” than then-Labour leader, Phil Goff, at 26%. A further 21.3% stated that both would “bend the truth – pushing Key’s results up to 56.2%.
He may be Mr Popular – but the majority don’t seem to trust him.
For good reason, it seems.
.
Txt-Messages – the further undoing of a Prime Minister
Slater landed Key in the deep doo-doos by making public the txt-messages from Monday night. He knew full well that passing them on to another person (in this case another blogger, Josh Forman, of the so-called ‘Slightly Left of Centre‘ blog) would, in only a short matter of time, find their way to the media’s scrutiny.
This is especially the case when, as blogger Danyl Mclauchlan, from The Dim Post, recently reported, there seems to be a very strange and less-than-clear relationship between Forman and Cameron Slater. (See: The very odd Slightly Left of Centre)
Why did Slater release details of his conversation with Key, on Monday night, to Forman?
Why did Slater acknowledge his on-line conversation with an unknown person by confirming the validity of a screenshot of the exchange? (Especially as Slater has no hesitation to lie when it suits his agenda or to save his own backside.)
Why is Slater feeding the media on this issue?
What does he have to gain?
On 28 November, Political scientist Bryce Edwards made this astounding assertion on Radio NZ’s “Checkpoint”;
“It’s obvious that Cameron Slater has dirt on the Prime Minister. And that’s why he’s very vulnerable. He’s… I mean, I wouldn’t call it blackmail, but it’s like he’s leveraged by Cameron Slater, and he can’t escape him. I mean, it’s obvious that the Prime Minister would want to be saying ‘ef off Cameron, don’t talk to me again’, because he’s so toxic, but I understand Cameron Slater does have dirt on the Prime Minister and National and he’s talked about going nuclear in the past-“
So what is the ‘dirt’ that Slater has on National and John Key?
Plenty, I would hazard a guess. As Nicky Hager’s expose, ‘Dirty Politics‘ showed, Slater has been the recipient of much information from ministers such as Judith Collins, and has connections with other MPs.
Why would Slater “go nuclear” on National?
Slater has good reason (in his own mind and twisted worldview).
As Nicky Hager reported in his book, in this exchange between Collins and Slater;
Cameron Slater: he is a very silly man, because I could stop the people who are going against him. But now, he is just is going to get double.
Judith Collins: you know the rule. always reward with Double.
Cameron Slater: I learned the rule from you! Double it is.
Judith Collins: If you can’t be loved, then best to be feared.
When Judith Collins was forced to step down on 30 August, over allegations that she was “gunning” for Serious Fraud Office Director, Adam Feeley, her close friend, confidant, and political associate, Cameron Slater, did not react well;
“As Judith and I are friends, I am gutted for her. Judith Collins has now been taken down by death by a thousand cuts.”
Slater then made a comment which, in the light of current events, can only be described as a veiled threat; he referred to John Key as a “temporary Prime Minister”.
When asked what he would do about Collins’ forced resignation, he stated,
“I always give back double. Judith always gives back double.”
Slater’s deliberate, carefully planned, and cunningly executed scheme to “give back double” is being directed at “temporary Prime Minister”, John Key.
Slater is gunning for John Key.
Slater has not (yet) “gone nuclear” on National – but the unstable blogger is at DefCon 2 and the threat to Key’s administration is imminent. Irony of ironies, the greatest threat to this government has not been Nicky Hager; nor Kim Dotcom; nor the MSM; nor Labour or the Greens.
It is one of their own.
Further from my 2012 blogpost;
Using Third Parties such as Slater, to spread muck has it’s inherent dangers.
Eventually, the entanglements and the copious volumes of information at the hands of someone like Slater creates it’s own risks for his “handler(s)”. Slater will have considerable dirt on those who have leaked information to him. He will have to be “kept sweet”, to deny him cause to go rogue and threaten to disclose information embarrassing to those who have fed him material in the past.
“Frankly Speaking“, 29 March 2012 (See: Born to rule )
I should have bought a Lotto ticket at the time.
.
References
Fairfax media: John Key says sorry to Whale Oil
NZ Herald: Cameron Slater – ‘I never said Labour Party were trying to kill me’
RadioLive: AUDIO – John Key denies contact with Cameron Slater
TV3: PM blames text gaffe on ‘noise’
Radio NZ: ‘Not fair on me’ – PM on text messages
Youtube: 26.11.14 – Question 4 – Dr Megan Woods to the Prime Minister
Cloudfront: Slater email
TVNZ: Dirty Politics saga – Andrew Little claims John Key ‘misled New Zealand’
Radio NZ: PM’s contact with blogger questioned
Fairfax Media: PM signed papers relating to BMWs
NZ Herald: S&P contradicts Key downgrade claim
NZ Herald: Key changes tack over meeting with broadcaster
Parliament: Question & Answer – Credit Rating Downgrade Effect on the Economy
Interest.co.nz: Key stands behind comment S&P more likely to downgrade Labour Govt
Youtube: John Key on S&P Labour criticism
Fairfax Media: John Key’s ‘believability’ low
Fairfax Media: John Key – Safe hands, forked tongue?
Blog: Slightly Left of Centre (cached)
Radio NZ: Checkpoint – Can the Prime Minister brush off latest controversy?
NZ Herald: Hager’s tell-all chapters
Fairfax Media: Judith Collins statement
Interest.co.nz: Judith Collins resigns after revelation of Slater email saying she was “gunning for Feeley”
Additional
NZ Herald: John Armstrong – National’s response not good enough
Previous related blogposts
“I dunno. I wasn’t told. I wasn’t there.”
The Mendacities of Mr Key #2: Secret Sources
The Mendacities of Mr Key #4: “Trolls & bottom-feeders”
When Karma caught up with Cameron Slater
Are Cameron Slater and Judith Collins bare-faced liars?
When the teflon is stripped away
Other Blogwriters
Imperator Fish: The Labour Party plot to kill Cameron Slater – the shocking evidence
Local Bodies: John Key’s Immoral Governance
Occasionally Erudite: Collins cleared; Slater lied
Occasionally Erudite: John Key implodes over the Gwyn report
No Right Turn: John Key’s TXTs and the Public Records Act
Polity: FFS
Porcupine Farm: Office of the Prime minister
Porcupine Farm: Key of the Day, 26/11/14
Public Address: Incomplete, inaccurate and misleading
Pundit: John Key: The buck doesn’t stop with me
The Daily Blog: Cam’s ‘Slightly Left of Centre’ sock puppet threatens Key in public
The Dim Post: The very odd Slightly Left of Centre
The Jackal: When will the PM take responsibility?
The Standard: An Honest Man?
The Standard: Only on Planet Key
The Standard: Key’s repeated reflexive lies (and giving back double)
The Standard: Textses
The Standard: Two lies in 20 seconds
The Standard: Two guilty approaches after Dirty Politics
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 29 November 2014
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – Witches, foreign fighters, and other bogeymen…
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Listener <letters@listener.co.nz>
date: Sun, Nov 30, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor
The Listener.
A few hundred years ago, it was witches and jews. But burning witches and persecuting jews is socially passé, so the powers-that-be require new Bogeymen with which to frighten the citizenry.
That is, if the citizenry can shift their glazed eyes from such ‘conciousness-raising’ (note sarcasm) offerings such as “The Block”, “Big Brother Australia”, “The Voice”, “My Kitchen Rules”, et al, to become frightened of black-garbed “Jihadists”.
Funny old world… the masses indulge in their televised ‘opiates’, “reality TV”, and in doing so by-pass the Real World in which they live in.
Because, when you think about it, here’s the irony: in 1985, after French agents/terrorists bombed the Rainbow Warrior, killing an innocent man. The State did not react by passing a gaggle of laws increasing surveillance, police powers, and other draconian measures. The government of the day simply allowed the Police to get on with the job of apprehending the culprits.
Meanwhile, 29 years later, with not a “Jihadist” or “Foreign Fighter” in sight, this government has enacted more repressive laws and extended State surveillance, than at any time in our short colonial history.
Our esteemed Prime Minister – who currently has hearing, perception, and memory problems of his own – seems hell bent on protecting us from “enemies” a world away, and who, like most Americans, probably aren’t even aware of our existence. (Until, of course, he deploys SAS troops to Iraq. That will no doubt attract the attention of IS like a red flag to a bull. Nice one, Dear Leader.)
This government could install cameras in every home in the country; set up roadblocks and checkpoints at every intersection in our cities; enact a dusk-to-dawn curfew (except Friday and Saturday nights, so bars and alcohol retailers can still ply their trade) – and the slumbering masses would simply switch channels from “Home Improvements” to “Masterchef Outer Mongolia”.
If apathy was a strength, we would be a reigning world superpower. (If the middle classes could be bothered.)
-Frank Macskasy
.
Other blogs
Local Bodies: Five Reasons Why John Key Should Resign
How Melulater Sees It: Why rushing legislation isn’t democratic and doesn’t meet the standard.
Reference to “Six months of chit chat”
.
.
.
= fs =
I have seen one future, and it is bleak
.
.
Way back in March, 2012, I wrote this story regarding a march to support striking workers at Ports of Auckland. It appears there was some prescience about some of my observations at the time…
.
|
|
18 March 2012 – I was looking at several images taken from the March 10 rally and the port picket lines, and for some reason, this one stuck in my mind. The more I look at the image of this young Kiwi girl (I hope I haven’t got that wrong!), it eventually came to me.
In my mind, I was wondering; what will be her future?
Depending very much on what my generation (“Baby Boomers”) and Gen X does now, in the Present, she probably has three likely futures ahead of her…
Future 1
More of the same. Casualisation of jobs; wages driven downward as businesses compete with each other, and overseas providers of goods and services; few job opportunities except in low-paid fast food, care-sector, cleaning, and suchlike. A wealth/income gap that has become so vast that even the Middle Class are now designated as the Shrinking Class. Top earners and asset-holders – the Privileged Class – are paying less and less tax; low income earners having to pay more and more; with fewer social services readily available. More user-pays; more alienation; less engagement with the electoral process.
This young lass cannot escape to Australia as she is either unemployed or under-employed. She is part of a growing Struggling Class that is resented by the Shrinking Class, and viewed with disdain by the Privileged Class, though grudgingly accepted as a useful pool of cheap labour.
The Shrinking Class know in their heart-of-hearts that they are living under a failed economic system that benefits only a few. But they are too frightened to vote for an alternative centre-left Party; they fear the back-lash from an angry under-class only too happy to exact revenge.
Meanwhile, the Baby Boomer generation has hit retirement – but there are few skilled care-workers left in New Zealand. So the government imports migrant workers from Third World countries under a bonded-system (so they cannot, in turn, escape to Australia). Taxation levels are now so low that government subsidies have ceased and full user-pays is now in effect for Rest homes. Baby boomers are selling up their residences and investment properties; the market is flooded with cheaper and cheaper houses – but with incomes so low, few can afford to buy them. Those that are sold reap less and less capital gains.
Future 2
More of the same, but she has been fortunate enough to be able to find resources and support from whanau over-seas – and she is of to Australia.
In Australia, she finds a relatively good job with decent pay. Her work conditions are protected by a strong Union; she has access to decent social services; and the government assists her and her new partner to build a house. They are both working; earning higher and higher incomes; and contributing to Australia’s economy and tax-base.
In a year or two, she helps other members of her family escape from New Zealand.
They leave behind a no-longer-smiling Prime Minister who is promising to “revitalise the economy” to “entice overseas Kiwis to come back” – then cuts another 1,000 workers from the State Sector and sells the last remaining profitable State Owned Enterprise.
Future 3
New Zealanders’ appetite for New Right, minimalist government, that has produced very few gains or benefits – has come to an end. The Smile & Wave Prime Minister is thrown out at the next election where he retires to his Hawaiian beach house, and is forgotten.
Meanwhile, a new centre-Left government takes stock and adopts a Scandinavian model of governance, taxation, and social services. The new government starts off with a crash programme of building 10,000 new state houses. Free school meals for breakfast and lunch starts in the first year. Free doctor’s visits and boosting immunisation rates up to 99% follows. New Zealand returns to a system of free education. (Howls of protest from a few remaining New Right supporters are either ignored or ridiculed. Some are offered a free plane flight to a Libertarian-run state of their own choosing – if they can find one.)
Amongst this “radical” social democratic reform, the young girl above is supported by well-resourced local community groups and by strengthened state social services to journey through the education system. A new “Social Contract” requires that all young people will be in education; a job; or serving in a new New Zealand Civic Corp, which involves fair pay for working on major infra-structure projects and ongoing tertiary/polytech education.
A Capital Gains Tax and Financial Transactions Tax, is a first step toward capturing heretofore un-taxed wealth and assets. As returns from these taxes kick in, the government makes the first $11,000 of income tax free. As incomes increase, government looks at Gareth Morgan’s “negative tax” system.
The young girl has grown, graduated, and is now working in the community in the children’s health sector. Her education is on-going, as the State encourages workers to undertake further tertiary education. This increases her productivity and value to society, and she is paying more in tax as her income rises. She is a saving some of her pay in an expanded Kiwisaver Account; spending more; and local businesses are benefitting from her expenditure. She meets a young man who is finishing his Builder’s Certificate through the NZ Civic Corp.
Together, they have a family. One stays at home to care for the family, the other remains in paid work. The negative taxation system advocated by Gareth Morgan has been implemented and the stay-at-home parent still recieves an income from the State. People are not disincentivised to have children; raise a family; who then grow up to be the next generation of tax-paying citizens.
With none of the pressures that young families are currently facing, their home is not stressed because of financial pressures and job uncertainty/insecurity, and the children are raised in a stable, relaxed environment. The children’s future ahead of them is reassured; early childhood education; schooling; tertiary education; and finally tax-paying citizens.
In this reformed society, children are number one on the list and will always have first recourse to resources. The Prime Minister is Minister for Children.
In school, civics is part of the curriculum, and young people are taught recent history of our country; the mistakes we have made; and how they can hold politicians to account.
Meanwhile, she has persuaded some of her whanau to return to New Zealand. They like what they see and can feel themselves ready to become a part of a true, inclusive New Zealand Society.
The best thing about the three futures I’ve described above? The power to choose which one we’ll have is entirely in our hands. No one else can give or take it away from us.
Which is it to be, I wonder?
.
Perhaps nothing better illustrates the three possible futures for the toddler pictured above than the all-too real – and thought-provoking – story of Aroha Ireland, formerly of low-income area, McGehan Close.
In February 2007, Key shamelessly exploited Aroha’s situation to attack the then-Labour-led government;
.
.
As I further reported on 23 November 2012 on Key’s cynical publicity stunt,
It’s somewhat disturbing to note that National list MP Jackie Blue, who had a close personal relationship with Aroha’s family, played along with the photo-op. That was despite reservations expressed by some,
“Labour list MP Dover Samuels was the only one publicly labelling Mr Key’s invitation a stunt yesterday, but others quietly voiced similar concerns.”
The family, though, seemed blissfully unaware that they were little more than pawns in National’s pre-election grand strategy and expressed their comfort with events,
“…Mrs Nathan told Close Up last night that the invitation had given her daughter a good opportunity.
She continued to disagree with some of Mr Key’s views on McGehan Close, but she believed he was trying to push for positive changes.”
The 2007 episode ended badly for Aroha and her mother, as the NZ Herald reported on 10 February 2010,
The mother of the 12-year-old girl John Key took to Waitangi three years ago says she has been let down by the Prime Minister, and her daughter now wants nothing to do with him.
Joan Nathan said she and her family were worse off since National won the election.
She’d lost her job with National list MP Jackie Blue, arranged by Key, and a training allowance she received had been cut.
“They gave me the job to sweeten the deal, and then as soon as they got elected I got the sack,” she said.
“I’m pretty anti-Mr Key at the moment”..
[…]
“He’s just made everything worse for us and made it easier for ones that are higher up. I’m struggling every week.”
On 7 September this year, Fairfax Media published this up-dated story on Aroha Ireland, formerly of McGehan Close, and now residing comfortably in Australia;
.
.
In his story above, Fairfax reporter Simon Day wrote,
Three years later Aroha, now 20, feels she was used by Key – and the Prime Minister won’t be getting her vote.
“The last time I spoke to him was when he took me to Waitangi Day. After that I have never heard from him again. I absolutely believe that I was used as a publicity stunt,” she says. “I wouldn’t vote for National.”
[…]
Now, she says, the opportunities she has in Australia just aren’t available here.
“I have a full time job that pays good, $38 an hour,” she says. “I have a house, rent is cheap, about $265 a week for 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, double garage, me and my husband are close to buying our own house. Life couldn’t be any better. There was nothing left in New Zealand.
“All this from someone who came from a ‘dead end’ street, right?”
She recently returned home to visit her mother. She couldn’t believe how expensive the price of living in New Zealand was compared to Australia.
“Petrol has shot up – $2 for petrol, really? I also brought about seven or eight items from one of the supermarkets and it came to a total of $78. No wonder people can’t fill their fridges. I’m glad I got out of New Zealand when I did.”
Over the past four years she has seen her mother’s financial situation worsen. “My mum works full time and she is still struggling really bad,” she says. “It is like she is worse off.”
“I have everything that I would never ever have in New Zealand. I would probably still be on the benefit if I lived in NZ right now.”
It seems that for Ms Ireland, of the three possible futures I outlined in 2012 – voters have chosen this path to follow;
Future 2
More of the same, but she has been fortunate enough to be able to find resources and support from whanau over-seas – and she is of to Australia.
In Australia, she finds a relatively good job with decent pay. Her work conditions are protected by a strong Union; she has access to decent social services; and the government assists her and her new partner to build a house. They are both working; earning higher and higher incomes; and contributing to Australia’s economy and tax-base.
In a year or two, she helps other members of her family escape from New Zealand.
They leave behind a no-longer-smiling Prime Minister who is promising to “revitalise the economy” to “entice overseas Kiwis to come back” – then cuts another 1,000 workers from the State Sector and sells the last remaining profitable State Owned Enterprise.
The economy in Australia may be slowing – but it still offers job prospects, housing opportunities, and social services that we here in New Zealand seem to be losing on a daily basis.
Especially when our housing crisis is worsening; child poverty continues to be a blight on our society; wages and wealth disparity continues to widen; social services are being pared back; and government is planning to introduce so-called “labour market reforms” that will further drive down wages, conditions, safety, etc.
This is what voters chose on 20 September.
However, be that as it may, there is one thing that every student of Quantum Theory understands – the future is never set in concrete.
The future can be changed.
Because it must.
.
References
Fairfax media: Aroha of McGehan Close flees NZ
NZ Herald: A Day Out with Friends In High Places
NZ Herald: Family still on struggle street after Key leaves
Scoop Media: Employment Relations Amendment Bill
Additional
NZ Herald: ‘No point’ in new state houses – Bill English
Acknowledgements
Election Commission: Orange Guy
Previous related blogposts
John Key: When propaganda photo-ops go wrong
National Housing propaganda – McGehan Close Revisited
Other Blogs
The Daily Blog: Chocolate milk shortage and creepy Santa? Let’s talk about real news
The Daily Blog: Ideological Blitzkrieg – Privatization of state housing, more charter schools & more union crushing employment law
The Standard: Poverty and the need to belong
The Standard: No point in state houses
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 27 October 2014
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 
