Archive
“The Nation” reveals gobsmacking incompetence by Ministers English and Lotu-Iiga
.
.
If there is a crystal-clear example why a functioning democracy must have vibrant, critical current affairs programmes on free-to-air televesion, then TV3’s ‘The Nation‘ on the morning of 2 May was top-of-the-pile. Without doubt, this land-mark episode was a powerful insight into the general competence (or lack, thereof) of two of the government’s senior ministers; Finance Minister Bill English and Corrections Minister, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga.
.
(L-R) Corrections Minister, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga — TV3’s ‘The Nation’ host & interviewer, Lisa Owen — Finance Minister Bill English
.
The highly talented host-interviewer, Lisa Owen, interviewed both, drilling deep down, and extracting information; admissions; and more critically – waving aside pathetic attempts to fudge legitimate answers. The resulting exchanges did not make for a ‘happy day’ for either government minister, revealing one totally out of his depth, and the other unwilling to admit that his stewardship of the country’s economy has been an abject failure.
1. Finance Minister Bill English
In the opening months of World War 2, there was a period from September 1939 to May 1940, known as “the Phoney War“. Both the Allied Nations (led by Great Britain) and the expanding Third Reich were technically at war, but major military operations did not commence until Nazi Germany invaded Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg on 10 May 1940.
In New Zealand, we might have referred to those first eight months as a “Clayton’s War” – the war you’re having when you’re not really having a war. (For those old enough to remember, “Clayton’s” refers to a non-alcoholic beverage marketed in New Zealand in the 1970s and 1980s. It was heavily promoted with the catch-phrase, “the drink you have when you’re not having a drink”. The marketing campaign was an advertisers dream-come-true, catching the public’s attention. The product, unfortunately for the manufacturers, was less successful. )
The same could be said of New Zealand’s so-called “rock star economy” and “recovery”.
By nearly all accounts, our recent growth has been predicated on three factors;
- The Auckland housing boom/bubble
- The Christchurch Earthquakes re-build
- Exports – particularly dairy – to China
The first is reliant purely on borrowing from off-shore to fund speculative activity. When that bubble finally bursts, we will be left with a multi-billion debt; thousands of bankruptcies; and an economy in tatters as capital flight takes place.
The second is a short-term growth-spurt which owes it’s origins to two natural disasters – literally disaster capitalism.
The third is built upon China’s unsustainable growth, and has recently fallen away, returning Australia as our number one trading partner, as the value of dairy commodities plummet.
The first two are unsustainable. The last is reliant on a major trading partner’s economic well-being. As with New Zealand’s lamb and butter exports to the UK prior to it joining the EEC in January 1973, we have placed our export “eggs” in one, very big, very fragile, basket.
Against this backdrop of The Phoney Economic Recovery, the following financial facts should give us cause for concern;
- The on-going cost of the 2009 and 2010 tax-cuts, estimated to be around $3.8 billion per year, and up to $4.26 billion last year
- Plummeting dairy prices resulting in lower payout to farmers and taking $7 billion out of the economy
- Reduced tax-take by the government is around $4.5 billion
In view of unsustainable tax-cuts in 2009 and 2010; the economy taking a $7 billion “hit”; and lower than anticipated tax revenue by this government, it was hardly unexpected that Bill English’s promises of a surplus this year have collapsed.
Lisa Owen challenged the hapless Finance Minister in a sixteen minute long interview. In this excerpt, English is evasive when asked questions about the governments surplus;
.
.
Throughout the interview, English was upbeat and insisted that a surplus was just around the corner;
“Well, okay, it would be nice if the number got there this year; it’ll just take a bit longer. What’s important here is the trajectory. So Government is closing its deficits; it’s getting to surplus. We’ll soon be in a position to start paying off debt. Our expenditure’s under control; the revenue’s a bit harder. You’ve just seen in the last day or two, dairy prices are going down again; that has an impact. So we’re sufficiently confident in the direction that we’re not going to cut services or cut entitlements to try and chase a larger surplus number.”
Lisa Owen asked the Minister: “Okay. Well, before on The Nation, you said that the Government would not make any cuts to reach surplus. Is that still your plan?”
English replied; “That’s right. We’re not going to make any specific extra decisions now just because our tax revenue’s a percentage point – 1% down.”
Then, incredibly, English maintained that tax-cuts were still on National’s agenda;
Owen: “I just want to look at some of the big promises, like tax cuts. They were meant to come from that $500 million that you now don’t have. But is it fair to say that they’re not really likely now?”
English: “As we indicated last year, we wouldn’t be able to contemplate that until 2017 for some of the reasons that you’ve outlined. So at the moment, the ability to deliver some kind of moderate tax cut hasn’t changed and we would have the next couple of budgets to work out how that would happen.”
Owen: “Hang on, Minister. It has changed, hasn’t it, Minister, because you’ve just identified the fact you’ve got less money, so it must have changed.”
English: “Well, we’ve shifted the money from next year to the year after; that’s technically what’s actually happened. We’ll deal with that as time goes on, but the point I’m making is our finances are-“
Owen: “Is it likely that your tax cuts then will be delayed as well? Maybe 2018, not 2017?”
English: “No, we’re not suggesting that. We said at the end of last year that they would be possible in 2017. We’ve made allowance for that.”
It beggars belief that we have a Finance Minister willing to entertain the notion of tax cuts at a time when dairy prices are dropping; tax revenue is falling; and public debt has ballooned to $59.9 billion and rising by $27 million per day, every day.
.
.
Never mind tax cuts – when do we, as a nation, start to repay this debt mountain?!
The reality is that if National proceeds with promises of tax cuts in 2017 (which is an election year – bribe anyone?) New Zealand will have to borrow from offshore to make up the shortfall in revenue. Our debt mountain will continue to grow.
English himself admitted that the deficit this year will be in the order of around half a billion dollars;
“…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.”
Somewhere in National’s gross mis-management of the economy, they have gone from a $370 million surplus to a potential $600 million deficit – just shy of $1 billion lost.
How does a government make such a colossal mistake? “It is what it is” is hardly an explanation.
Throughout the interview, English kept repeating the mantra of a future surplus;
“The direction is pretty clear. Our surpluses will come and they will grow, and we’ll be able to pay off debt.”
“The target remains getting to surplus, and in the Budget, you’ll see the details of where the Government is up to with it. But I’m indicating that despite falling a bit short in 14/15, we’re on track for surplus.”
Though English insisted that there would be no cuts to spending, he did use coded language for possible reductions to welfare spending;
Owen: “Is it likely that your tax cuts then will be delayed as well? Maybe 2018, not 2017?”
English: “No, we’re not suggesting that. We said at the end of last year that they would be possible in 2017. We’ve made allowance for that.”
Owen: “Okay. So what about measures to curb poverty, then? Will they have to be delayed? Because the Prime Minister identified them as something of a priority. Is that going to be delayed?”
English: “Well, we’ve been working on these issues for a while, particularly focused on communities and families with persistent deprivation and caught in a cycle of dependence. And so you could expect to see us continue with that sort of programme through this Budget…
… Or sickness and invalids beneficiaries with more support for their health issues and more support for employment, could actually get out of dependency, off welfare and remain in work.
Because as we all know, invalids don’t actually have real disabilities or debilitating injuries or diseases – they are simply on a “cycle of dependence”.
When in trouble, blame someone else. In this case, invalids.
Owen then moved on to the issue of Auckland’s growing housing crisis and nailed English on this government’s spectacular inability to manage and address that city’s housing shortage. English simply blamed the Auckland Council;
“Well, the migration numbers have stayed high, bearing in mind about half of migrants appear to go to Auckland; the other half go to the rest of the country. But there’s pretty clear signals that Auckland City Council need to get on with the job. They are the ultimate decision-maker around the infrastructure and around the consenting for new houses. We’re giving them the toolkit to enable them to do it faster, but there’s clearly a lot more to be done, and we’ll keep looking for more tools to help the Auckland City Council to do the job they need to do.”
When still in trouble, keep blaming someone else. In this case, the Auckland Council.
Thus far, National’s grand strategy to cope with Auckland’s housing crisis is to shift ownership of 2,800 properties from Housing NZ to the Tamaki Redevelopment Company – as if shifting properties around on a giant ‘Monopoly’ board will somehow solve the problem?
Owen pointed out to English that in transferring 2,800 houses to the Tamaki Redevelopment Company, that he was breaking a previous committment;
Owen: “Now, hang on a minute. There you offloaded 2800 houses, and I thought you had a cap on getting rid of state houses of about 2000. So is that cap gone now?”
English: “Well, no. What we’ve said is Housing New Zealand will own at least 60,000 houses, and that certainly hasn’t changed. Government remains the owner—”
Owen: “No, you said a cap, Minister. So has the cap gone now with this 2800 houses? The cap’s blown?”
English: “No. Government will remain the owner of the Tamaki houses. We’ve simply put them in a different government company, which has been set up specifically to regenerate that community, because it’s a very particular skillset.”
English had all but surrendered to Owen’s persistent questioning by outright admitting his government’s failure to address Auckland’s mounting housing crisis;
“That’s right. We’re not meeting demand. I certainly agree with that. Whether it gets worse before it gets better, forecasters can argue over that. We’ve got plenty to do to meet the demand that’s been there for a while. And as I said, the Government’s supporting Auckland City, trying to get them a better toolkit and making our own contribution through redeveloping our own land in Auckland.”
For English, this interview was possibly the worst in his political career. He had to explain why his commitment to returning to surplus this year was now in tatters, and why his government’s housing plan for Auckland consisted of moving state housing from owner to owner, without adding significantly to the overall stock.
The only reason why National’s reputation for being a “sound prudent fiscal manager” survives intact is because New Zealanders are not paying attention.
But worse was to come when Corrections Minister, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga took the chair and was also interviewed by Lisa Owen. What followed was a debacle of Hekia Parata proportions.
2. Corrections Minister, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga
With on-going privatisation of State services dressed up as so-called “Public-Private Partnerships” (PPPs), Lisa Owen put several questions to the Corrections Minister on the role of UK company, Serco, which has been contracted to run the new prison at Wiri.
His responses were jaw-droppingly incompetant. The man was totally out of his depth, as these excerpts show;
Owen: “So are they getting paid and how much?”
Lotu-Iiga: “Well, the contract is between Serco and PlaceMakers, and I’m not privy to those sums, but—”
Owen: “So you don’t know how much the business is going to make—”
Lotu-Iiga: “I don’t have the figures on me, but we could ask Serco what the contract’s for.”
Owen: “Out of the inmates building framing and having these contracts. So who makes the profit out of the contract?”
Lotu-Iiga: “ Well, we don’t know whether there’s profits being made, but what PlaceMakers—”
Owen: “Why don’t you know that, Minister? Because this is under your watch.”
Lotu-Iiga: “Well, I spoke to the managing director of PlaceMakers yesterday, and they said that they will pay a standard contract for fees to Serco. I don’t know what that amount is…”
Owen: “Right, so in terms of rehabilitation, but you don’t know who’s making a profit or if one’s being made?
Lotu-Iiga: ” Hang on. They’ve got a commercial transaction between Serco and PlaceMakers. I don’t know what that figure is, but we can work it out.”
Owen: “Even with that $30 million? Even with that $30 million profit that they’re making per annum?”
Lotu-Iiga: “I don’t think they’re making a $30 million profit.”
Owen: “You don’t think it’ll make $30 million, and what you’re saying is it’s still saving money even though this company is making a profit out of it? It’s still saving us money even though they’re taking that profit.”
Lotu-Iiga: “It’s… Well, it’s saving the taxpayer money. It is saving the taxpayer money.”
And then this astounding admission from the Minister that must have had every viewer that Saturday morning choking on his/her milo/tea/coffee, and the Prime Minister speed-dialling his Chief-of-Staff;
Owen: “Who employs those monitors? Who employs the monitor in the prison? “
Lotu-Iiga: “There will be— If I can just finish, there will be an ombudsman. They will be subject to complaints—”
Owen: “So the monitor in the prison, Minister, just to be clear, the monitor in the prison; who employs the monitor?”
Lotu-Iiga: “My understand is that the monitors are based in the prisons, but they report to the Department of Corrections.”Owen: “Who employs the monitor and pays their wages, Minister?“
Lotu-Iiga: “Well, I don’t have those facts on me, but they do report—”
Owen: “Well, I do. The person who employs the monitor— the person who employs the monitor is the company, Serco. They employ the monitor, and pay their wages.”
Lotu-Iiga’s spectacular ignorance of his own portfolio has almost certainly destroyed his political career. He will also have disappointed his political strategist and mentor, controversial far right-winger, Simon Lusk.
Lusk was employed by Lotu-Iiga during the 2008 election campaign for the Maungakiekie Electorate Campaign. In return, as well as being paid by Lotu-Iiga, in his Maiden Speech in Parliament the newly-elected MP openly acknowledged Lusk’s involvement in his election to Parliament. In this Youtube video, Lotu-Iiga mentions Lusk at 3:56. Note who is sitting behind Lotu-Iiga – Aaron Gilmore, another Lusk protégé.
Bad luck, Simon.
It is not often that I feel sympathy for a Minister of a National Government. When I do, it is the pity I feel for a doomed man whose career has come to a grinding, crushing halt.
At the next Cabinet re-shuffle, Lotu-Iiga will be joining Kate Wilkinson, Phil Heatley, and Aaron Gilmore in political oblivion.
Dead Minister Walking.
3. Political Panel
Mike Williams, Bernard Hickey & Jamie Whyte comment on interviews with Bill English and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. Note ex-ACT leader, Jamie Whyte’s cringe-worthy apologistic comments on behalf of English, and why he thinks government debt does not matter.
4. The Programme
All in all, this was one of the most outstanding episodes of “The Nation” with excellent interviews; topical subject matter; and insightful analysis by (most) of the panellists. Lisa Owen joins Kim Hill as two of this country’s most formidable interviewers.
This is the sort of programming Mediaworks should be broadcasting at Prime Time. My “money” would be on people desperate for informative television – who are sick to their stomachs on a sickly diet of “reality tv” – to flock to such a viewer-friendly scheduling.
Good, quality, current affairs should never be tucked away as some sort of “guilty pleasure”.
.
References
Wikipedia: The Phoney War
Wikipedia: Claytons
Rabobank: Country Report New Zealand
Farming Show: Australia becomes top trading partner once again
Radio NZ: Price drop another blow for dairy farmers
NZ Herald: Brian Gaynor – Plans for jump-start reveal differing styles
Scoop media: Govt’s 2010 tax cuts costing $2 billion and counting
Fairfax media: Dairy prices fall at Fonterra GlobalDairyTrade auction
Beehive: Fact sheet – Personal tax cuts
Radio NZ: English concedes surplus target unlikely
Youtube: The Nation – Can National promise a surplus by 2016?
TV3: The Nation – Interview – Finance Minister Bill English
Treasury: Debt
Fairfax media: Public debt climbs by $27m a day
Fairfax media: Government offloads 2800 state houses to Auckland development company
TV3: The Nation – Interview – Corrections Minister Sam Lotu-Iiga
Wikipedia: Serco
Simon Lusk: Clients
Fairfax media: The rapid rise of a well-educated man
Youtube: Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga MP – Maiden Speech
Previous related blogposts
Tax cuts and jobs – how are they working out so far, my fellow New Zealanders?
Did National knowingly commit economic sabotage post-2008?
Budget 2014 – Why we will soon owe $70 billion under this government
The Mendacities of Mr Key #3: tax cuts
When the Rich Whinge about paying tax
Two Tax Strikes against Dunne?
“It’s one of those things we’d love to do if we had the cash”
National’s Ohariu candidate admits contact by Simon Lusk
Power Struggle in the National Party?!
Other blogs
Unframed: John Key has no credibility on debt and no Plan B
Acknowledgement
Tim Watkin, Producer of “The Nation“, for interview transcripts; link to Youtube excerpt featuring Bill English; and valuable insights.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 3 May 2015.
.
.
= fs =
Teflon Man No More
.
.
On 26 August, as Nicky Hager’s expose on New Zealand’s right wing politics hit public consciousness and confirmed our worst fears, I wrote,
“Dirty Politics” has achieved more than simply revealing unwholesome machinations between National party apparatchiks, ministers, and halfway-insane right-wing bloggers. The book has explained the nature of Key’s seemingly “Teflon” nature. The secret is revealed; the mystery is stripped away; and now, when Key is confronted by a media pack, the brown smelly stuff is sticking to him.
Two days later, I repeated my belief that Key’s seemingly air-of-invulnerability had been swept away;
The Teflon Man is no more. He has been terminally weakened by his own ‘kryptonite’ – truth.
My perception of Key’s new status as just another garden-variety politician has been born out by this extraordinary exchange between TV3’s Lisa Owen, and our soon-to-be replaced Prime Minister;
.
.
Until 7.05, the rather routine discussion between Owen and Key centers around National’s options to govern, post election. Coalition options and minority government are discussed, and Key confidently handles each scenario thrown at him by the host.
At 7.05, however, matters take a turn for the worst for Key when Lisa Owen raised the subject of child poverty and asked Key,
“One of the big issues this election has been child poverty. And you have said, just last year, you said ‘we are proud of the government’s record tackling child poverty. Do you stand by that?”
Key replied,
“I absolutely I do.”
At Owen’s further questioning, Key responded by saying that he was proud of his government’s track record in dealing with child poverty.
Owen then lobbed this “grenade” at him, namely a quote from John Key himself, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 September.
“Our opponents say more children are living in poverty than when we came into office. And that’s probably right.”
“Lisa, don’t be silly!”
Since Nicky Hager’s revelations and the sacking of Judith Collins, Key’s preternatural teflon-shield has been stripped away. He is now just another politician, and if by some miracle he successfully leads the next government post 20 September, he will find his interactions with journalists becoming harder and harder.
It may not be what he says that lowers his esteem in the public eye. It will be the way he says it.
Lisa Owen was simply the first.
.
References
TV3: John Key – Minority government possible
Sydney Morning Herald: The Key factor
Youtube-BBC: John Key on Hardtalk (Part 2)
Previous related blogposts
The Rise and Fall of John Key – who will be the next Leader of the National Party?
“Dirty Politics” – the fall-out continues
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 14 September 2014
.
.
= fs =
Review: TV3’s The Nation – “Let them eat ice cream!”
.
.
In the last three years I have been truly outraged and sickened only twice when watching a current affairs/documentary programme. The first was Bryan Bruce’s “Inside Child Poverty“, broadcast back on 22 November 2011.
Bryan presented the viewer with a country of increasing child poverty, disease, low-quality housing; and growing inequality that few of us (except hardcore ACT and National supporters) would have believed possible in a wealthy country like New Zealand. Especially a country which once prided itself on egalitarianism, fairness, and looking after those less fortunate than the privileged Middle Classes.
The second time was just recent – watching TV3’s current affairs programme, The Nation, on 24 May. The one word that came to mind as I watched the episode was: revulsion. Not revulsion at the fact that our once proud egalitarian nation is now one of the most unequal on the face of this planet – but revulsion at the injection of humour in interviews; panel discussion, and levity between the hosts, Lisa Owen and Patrick Gower.
.
Hosts for TV3’s “The Nation”, Lisa Owen and Patrick Gower
.
I am not even referring to Patrick Gower “interviewing” Ben Uffindell, editor of the satirical blogsite, The Citizen. Though one certainly has to question why this segment was deemed worthy of insertion? What was the point of suggesting that children living in poverty – many of whom go to school without food (or are given “food” that is of dubious nutritional value); no shoes; no rain coats; or lacking other items which Middle Class families take for granted – would find it funny to be given ice cream or a South American animal?
.
.
I recall a legend of someone else trying to “make light” of the plight of the poor. That person suggested cake, in lieu of ice cream.
The highly talented Mr Uffindell has never been invited to comment on other pressing issues and problems confronting our country. So why start with inequality and associated problems with child poverty? A question I posed to The Nation, via Twitter;
.
.
So why is levity suddenly the order-of-the-day when poverty and inequality is under the media microscope?
Because we are “just laughing at ourselves” some might say?
No. We are not “laughing at ourselves”. We are laughing at the thought of children, living in poverty, being given free ice cream and llamas.
We are not “laughing at ourselves”. We are laughing at children and families living in poverty – at their expense.
That is the difference.
Funnily enough, there was certainly no humour on The Nation (10 may) when ACT’s Jamie Whyte proposed a flat tax policy. Where was the mirth? The satirical hilarity? Where was the wink-wink-nudge-nudge repartee between The Nation’s hosts?
Any humour must have been lost amongst the rustling sound of $100 bills been eagerly counted…
On top of which, was Torben Akel’s piece on “fact checking” looking at whether or not inequality in New Zealand has increased;
.
.
“But first, a bit of good old fashioned fact-checking“, said Patrick Gower, as he introduced Torben Akel’s piece. A pity, then, that no one at The Nation bothered to “fact check” Akel’s reporting.
Bill English stated in the above video,
“Income inequality has not got worse. In fact we’re one of two developed countries where the OECD has recently as yesterday have said it’s stable since 1994. And in fact in the last few years there’s some indications it’s fallen slightly.”
Torben Akel asked for evidence to back up English’s claims;
“What we got was a page lifted from a new OECD report with a graph showing income inequality here in 2010 was less than it was in the mid nineties.”
So the “new” OECD report was based on data, taken in the midst of the Global Financial Crisis and resulting Recession?! Data that was four years old?!
Akel continued with this – and here is the relevant bit;
“As for what had happened in the last few years, we were directed to the Ministry of Social Development’s household incomes report, released last July. And specifically, this graph, which shows why the Beehive [is] so sure our income gap isn’t growing.”
A cover of the Report flashed on our television screens;
.
.
The document above is Bryan Perry’s Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2011. It used data from Treasury to assess child poverty in this country;
“To calculate disposable income Statistics New Zealand uses the Treasury’s tax-benefit microsimulation model (Taxwell1) to estimate tax liabilities for individuals and benefit units. The resulting personal disposable incomes are summed to give disposable household income. Disposable household income is sometimes referred to as net income or after-tax cash income.”
– p25
“The Treasury has also developed a set of weights for use with its HES-based tax-benefit microsimulation model, Taxwell. The Taxwell weights include the number of beneficiaries as one of the key benchmarks, in accordance with Treasury’s primary use for the HES in the Taxwell model. Treasury’s Taxwell weights therefore provide a better estimate, for example, of the number of children in beneficiary families, although to achieve this there has been a trade-off with achieving other benchmarks…”
-p33
“We know that the estimates using Statistics New Zealand’s weights consistently under-estimate the number of beneficiaries compared with the administrative data. Generally, the estimates using the Treasury’s Taxwell weights are closer to the administrative data, but the sampling error from the HES can still lead to either or both weighting regimes under- or over-estimating the population numbers. “
-p128
The relevance of all this?
As reported back in February, Treasury had under-estimated the level of children living in poverty, as Bernard Hickey wrote on the 28th,
“Treasury and Statistics said in a joint statement they had double counted accommodation supplements in estimates of household disposable income between 2009 and 2012, which meant incomes were over-estimated by NZ$1.2 billion and the number of children in families earning less than 50% of the median income was under-estimated by 25,000.”
For those who want to read the actual Media Statement from Treasury, can be found here: Media Statement: Data error prompts process improvements. Refer to the table headed “Miscalculation – Scale – Key statistics affected”.
Bryan Perry’s revised report can be found here: Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2012 Revised Tables and Figures
27 February 2014. In it, he states,
“The revised trend-line figure is 32.9 compared with 32.7 [Gini Co-efficient] before the corrections. The trend line is still flat.”
.
.
(The Gini Co-efficient measures inequality, with the higher the value, the lower the equality in income.)
The”trend line” may still be “flat”, but I submit to the reader that for a family on low income; paying exorbitant rent; in a cold, damp house, with very little food in the pantry and fridge – it matters very little.
What does matter is that since 1984, before the Neo-Liberal “revolution”, the Gini Coefficient was only 28.
It is now 37.7.
We are going in the wrong direction.
So not only are National’s claims not backed up by evidence; not only has data been found to be incorrect; but also Torben Akel and The Nation’s research team missed the obvious; inequality has worsened since 1984.
Falling home ownership rates are another indicator which confirm increasing inequality in this country (and throughout the rest of the world).
The Nation’s comedic episode continued with this exchange between hosts Lisa Owen and Patrick Gower, and panellists, author Max Rashbrooke, and right-wing commentator and National Party cadre, Matthew Hooton;
Lisa Owen: “Let’s change to a lighter note. The Civilian Party. Let’s be clear. That was a bit of fun. It was tongue in cheek, if anyone’s confused about that out there. Do we need this in an election year. Do we need some humour?”
Max Rashbrooke: “Oh I think, absolutely. I mean it’s great to see Ben do his thing with the Civilian [Party].
If there’s a problem though, it’s that some of his policies which he puts out as satire, are actually quite close to reality. I mean he talks about we should tax the poor, more. Well actually, if you add up income tax and gst, people on low incomes are paying pretty much the same proportion of their income in tax as people at the top half. If you added capital gains into that story, the poor are probably paying a bigger chunk of their income than the rich are.”
Patrick Gower: “And, and, I, I agree with you there. Because llamas, in my opinion have been dodging tax for years and years, and until someone moves on that loophole, um…”
[general hilarity ensues]
Then Matthew Hooton had to go spoil it all by getting All Serious again, and witter on about Paradise in Scandinavia with more of his skewed ‘spin’ on those country’s taxation system.
Yup. Poverty and rising inequality. A laugh a minute.
What next on The Nation – point and laugh at people with disabilities?
“Jolly good fun”!
Postscript
TVNZ’s Q+A on 25 May also had Ben Uffindell as a guest. As usual, his wit was on form. The big, big difference between Q+A and The Nation? On the former, he satirised and poked fun at politicians. On the latter, the targets for laughter were children in poverty.
Draw your own conclusions.
.
References
TV3: Inside Child Poverty
TV3: Child poverty doco ‘apolitical’ – filmmaker
TV3: Party calls for free ice-cream and llamas
Twitter: Frank Macskasy/The Nation
TV3: ACT leader steals thunder in minor party debate
TV3: New Zealand’s record on inequality
Ministry of Social Development: Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2011
Hive News: Inequality data error revealed
NZ Treasury: Media Statement: Data error prompts process improvements
Ministry of Social Development: Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2012 Revised Tables and Figures
27 February 2014
Wikipedia: Gini Coefficient
Statistics NZ: 2013 Census – Trend of lower home ownership continues
TV3: Panel – Patrick Gower, Max Rashbrooke and Matthew Hooton
Other blogs
The Standard: Snapshot of a nation: inequality
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 May 2014.
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 
