Archive
While the Left fiddles, the Right beats their war-drum
.
.
While the Left has been fiddling about with much gnashing of teeth and tears of concern over the right of two Canadian neo-fascists to speak at an Auckland City council venue – National’s focus has been laser-like at regaining power in 2020.
Like rust, the Right doesn’t sleep. Their failure to install a fourth-term National government came about only because of a fatal mis-step by (most likely) someone in the National Party/Government in a clumsy, ham-fisted ploy to undermine Winston Peters and cripple NZ First in last year’s general election.
Whoever released Peters’ superannuation over-payments to the media did so with political malice-aforethought. It was an agenda to neuter Peters and his party, and it was executed with callous precision.
It failed because Peters was canny enough to counter with a parry that revealed the ploy for the ruthless strategy that it was.
The black-ops plan succeeded in only alienating Peters and reminding him that National was not to be trusted. With thirtythree years political experience, Peters had no intention to be anyone’s “useful idiot”.
With no potential coalition partner on the horizon (unless one is manufactured by a National MP splintering from his party), National’s only remaining options are;
- Coalition with the Greens. Chances: worse than winning Powerball Lotto.
- Winning 50%-plus of the Party Vote. Chances: somewhat better than Option One.
National opened it’s 2020 election campaign with three salvos of highly publicised policy released with much fanfare at it’s recent conference.
.
Charter Schools
For most middle and upper-middle class voters Charter Schools are a non-issue. Their children either attend State schools, Integrated Schools, or Private Schools. The common thread between all three is that they are established; staffed with qualified professionals; and the curriculum is bog-standard (with minor variations-on-a-theme.)
Charter Schools would appear to further ghettoise education for lower socio-economic families – a fact already well-known as “white flight” from low-decile State schools.
National’s hard-line stance to increase Charter School numbers should it be re-elected to power is curious because it would not appear to be much of a drawcard for propertied middleclass voters who tend to vote along self-interest lines.
Which indicates that the policy has other intentions; a toxic “witches’ brew” of ideological (further) commercialisation of education and a subtle, well-camouflaged attack on teacher’s unions.
So: not specifically designed to be a vote-winning policy. More of an weaponised attack-policy on State education and unions.
.
Classroom sizes
Perhaps the most eyebrow-raising policy to be released was classroom size reduction. Made by current National Party leader, Simon Bridges on the day of the Conference opening on 29 July, he committed National to this radical (for Tories) social policy in clear english;
“All our kids should get the individual attention they deserve. That’s why I want more teachers in our primary schools, to ensure smaller class sizes for our children.
Schools currently get one teacher for every 29 nine and ten year olds. It’s lower than that for younger children.
Those ratios should be reduced.”
Mr Bridges’ newfound concern for classroom sizes harks back to several speeches made by former PM, John Key, in 2007 and 2008, where he lamented growing social problems in New Zealand.
In 2007;
“As New Zealanders, we have grown up to believe in and cherish an egalitarian society. We like to think that our children’s futures will be determined by their abilities, their motivation and their hard work. They will not be dictated by the size of their parent’s bank balance or the suburb they were born in.”
And again in 2007;
“During his State of the Nation speech on Tuesday, Mr Key indicated National would seek to introduce a food in schools programme at our poorest schools in partnership with the business community.
[…]
“I approached Wesley Primary School yesterday, a decile 1 school near McGehan Close, a street that has had more than its fair share of problems in recent times. I am told Wesley Primary, like so many schools in New Zealand, has too many kids turning up hungry.
[…]
“We all instinctively know that hungry kids aren’t happy and healthy kids.”
In 2008;
“This time a year ago, I talked about the underclass that has been allowed to develop in New Zealand. Labour said the problem didn’t exist. They said there was no underclass in New Zealand.”
Once elected into power, National quiety dropped it’s concern for social problems. Social Development Minister, Paula Bennett, did not even want to countenance measuring growing child poverty in this country. It suddenly became the fault of the poor.
Now Simon Bridges has dusted off National’s Manual for Crying Crocodile Tears.
Ironically, in tapping into parental fears of over-burdened schools and their children suffering because of over-worked teachers, Mr Bridges’ policy commitment stands diametrically opposed to National’s doomed policy announced on 16 May 2012 to increase classroom sizes;
.
.
The policy was announced by gaff-prone former education minister, Hekia Parata, who clumsily (if honestly) admitted that the move was purely for fiscal reasons;
”The reality is that we are in a tight economic environment. In order to make new investment in quality teaching and leading, we have to make some trade-offs… ”
Teachers – and more importantly, voting middle-class parents were having none of it. National’s cost-cutting of welfare, health, and state housing was one thing. But interfering with their Little Johnny and Janey’s education? Like hell.
Especially when it was revealed that then-Prime Minister, John Key’s own children attended private schools with… smaller class sizes!
.
.
The over-powering stench of hypocrisy further infuriated the voting public. The policy lasted twentyone days before it was hastily dumped;
.
.
Simon Bridges was unequivocal: a National government would spend more on education;
“National will invest more to make sure our kids get the best quality start to their education, but we will also demand nothing but the highest standards.”
However, National has not explained how they will pay for the cost of additional teachers. Especially as National continues to advocate for a billion dollar mega-prison to be built; promised to dump the Coalition’s fuel taxes, and has not ruled out offering election tax-cut bribes.
As National has been fond of demanding: where will the money come from for extra teachers? Is this National’s own multi-billion dollar fiscal hole?
It was left to Labour’s own education minister, Chris Hipkins to point out;
“It’s very expensive to make even a modest change to class sizes and I think that’s something we want to talk to the teaching profession about.”
However, barely a day after his Conference speech, Mr Bridges was already backtracking;
Simon Bridges admits his promise of smaller class sizes may not mean fewer students per classroom.
The National leader announced a new policy to reduce the teacher-student ratio, as a centrepiece of his conference address over the weekend.
However, many primary schools run “modern learning environments” with several classes in the same room.
Bridges told Kerre McIvor National’s policy is about the number of staff per student, not the number of students per room.
” So in those modern learning environments, that may mean more teachers, but that doesn’t necessarily mean smaller classrooms.”
At least Hekia Parata’s plan to increase classroom sizes lasted three weeks. Mr Bridges’ ersatz “commitment” did not last 24 hours.
The Coalition should be making mincemeat out of Mr Bridges’ policy u-turn.
.
Crime
An oldie, but a goodie. Tories understand how to tug the fear-strings of a sizeable chunk of the voting middle-class. National and other conservative parties around the world are (in)famous for manipulating middle-class fears on crime for electoral purposes.
One of their 2011 election hoardings explicitly exploited those fears;
.
.
A recent video campaign on National’s Facebook platform has gone a step further into whipping up fear and paranoia;
.
.
This is a shameful, naked ploy to play on peoples’ fears.
It was backed up by former mercenary, and current National Party “Justice” Spokesperson, Mark Mitchell, who tried to offer “alternative facts” relating to crime figures;
The Government needs to stop looking for excuses to go soft on crime and come up with a plan to reduce crime, National’s Justice Spokesperson Mark Mitchell says.
“No doubt the report today from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor saying that being tough on crime is to blame for rising prison costs and inmate numbers is music to Andrew Little and Grant Robertson’s ears.
“They’ve been looking for excuses to loosen up bail and sentencing laws so that the Government doesn’t have to go ahead with building the new Waikeria prison and can boast about reducing prison numbers.
“But the cost of prisons cannot be an excuse not to put people in prison, if that’s where they need to be. The priority must be to ensure that victims are kept safe from violent criminals.
“We know that the overall crime rate has been decreasing, but a lot of that is due to a reduction in lower-level offending.
“Violent crime has actually gone up four per cent since 2011 and this is largely the type of crime that people get sent to prison for. This is also the type of crime that has the most serious and long-lasting impact on victims’ lives.
Which is confusing as not too long ago, National was trumpeting several propaganda infographics on their Twitter account;
.
.
.
Mr Mitchell is at pains to point out that “we know that the overall crime rate has been decreasing, but a lot of that is due to a reduction in lower-level offending” – yet the infographics above make no such distinction. On the contrary, the second “broken bottles” infographic makes clear the figures relate to “Total Recorded Crimes”.
Perhaps they should get their propaganda straight.
In a startling admission, Mr Mitchell confirmed that ““violent crime has actually gone up four per cent since 2011″. It appears that the “Three Strikes Law” – enacted the previous year in 2010 – has failed to reduce criminal offending.
The questions that Coalition government ministers should be putting to their National Party colleagues are;
- Is it not irresponsible to be exploiting fear about crime for electoral purposes? How will knee-jerk rhetoric assist an intelligent debate on imprisonment and rehabilitation?
- If crime, imprisonment, and rehabilitation require cross-party concensus, will National continue to pursue electioneering on “tough on crime”?
- If National pursues a get-tough-on-crime election platform in 2020, and if they are elected to government – how will they pay for hundreds more prisoners jailed? Will National borrow a billion dollars to pay for a new mega-prison? Will health, education, DoC, and social housing budgets be cut? Will National increase GST, as they did in 2010 (despite promising not to)?
- What is the limit that National will tolerate for an increasing prison population?
National has made clear that it intends to play the “tough-on-crime” card at the next election. The propaganda campaign has already begun.
The Coalition Parties need to formulate a clear strategy to combat fear-mongering by a National party desperate to regain power.
The question that should be put to National is; where will the billions of dollars for new prisons come from?
The prison population has all but doubled in eighteen years, and tripled since 1987, as successive governments have ramped up “tough on crime” rhetoric and pandered to fearful low-information voters;
.
.
Tough-on-crime may be National’s default strategy. If addressed correctly, it can also be their weakness.
.
.
.
References
NZ Herald: Steven Joyce says he would have advised against leaking Winston Peters’ super details
The Daily Blog: Real reason why National are considering cutting ACT off
NZ Herald: National Party conference kicks off with nod for Simon Bridges from former Australian PM John Howard
Massey University: Education Policy Response Group (p30)
Fairfax media: Parents’ choice driving ‘eye-opening’ segregation in New Zealand schools
NZ Herald: National will cut primary school class sizes if it gets into Govt, Simon Bridges tells conference
NZ Herald: John Key’s ‘A fair go for all’ speech
Scoop media: National launches its Food in Schools programme
NZ Herald: John Key – State of the Nation speech
NZ Herald: Measuring poverty line not a priority – Bennett
NZ Herald: Key admits underclass still growing
NZ Herald: Food parcel families made poor choices, says Key
Fairfax media: Bigger class sizes announced
NZ Herald: Key called hypocrite over class sizes
Fairfax media: Backlash forces Government class size U-turn
Fairfax media: Smaller class sizes under Nats, says Simon Bridges in major speech
NewstalkZB: Simon Bridges explains smaller class size policy
Radio NZ: No promises from Hipkins on reducing class sizes
NZ Herald: Simon Bridges says scale-back of Waikeria prison flies in the face of latest prison projections
NZ Herald: Sir John Key downplays Simon Bridges’ polling ahead of National Party conference
TVNZ: Simon Bridges says he’ll dump regional fuel tax if elected
Fairfax media: Does the Government have any money for this Budget? Yes
NZ Herald: Murder and mutilation comments emerge on National’s new ‘tough on crime’ social media campaign
National Party: Prison costs cannot be excuse to go soft on crime
Twitter: National Party – The crime rate is falling under National.
Parliament Legislation: Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010
Fairfax media: Key ‘no GST rise’ video emerges
Fairfax media: National leader Simon Bridges talks up ‘tough on crime’ stance
Fairfax media: 20 Years of ‘tough on crime’ stance sees prison population surge
Additional
Radio NZ: Charter school report silent on educational achievement
Other Blogposts
The Daily Blog: What everyone seemed to miss in their criticism of the National Party Conference
The Daily Blog: What the 2018 National Party Conference tells us
Previous related blogposts
Weekend Revelations #3 – Greg O’Connor and criminal statistics
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 7 August 2018.
.
.
= fs =
The Mendacities of Ms Amy Adams – “hidden borrowing”?!
.
.
National is at it again; indulging in rank hypocrisy by criticising the Labour-NZ First- Green Coalition Government of policies that they themselves carried out.
This time, the National Party’s finance spokesperson, Amy Adams, has accused the Coalition Government of “hiding away debt” in SOEs. Speaking to Mediawork’s Newshub, she protested;
“…If you actually look at where Grant Robertson has hidden another six billion dollars of borrowing in Crown entities, total borrowing has actually gone up almost $17 billion. And if you look at it in that way, it’s going to take up our debt-to-GDP ratio to above the 20% target in 2022. So I think he’s being very tricky in fudging the numbers and hiding $6 billion more debt in that Crown entity space.”
Ms Adams has apparently “forgotten” that the previous National government did precisely what she is now alleging that the Coalition is doing.
By 2009, the Global Financial Crisis began to heavily impact on the National Government’s tax revenue. Except for GST, company, individual, duties, and other revenue were down;
.
.
Despite the fall in taxation and other revenue, National proceeded with it’s first tranche of tax cuts in April 2009. According to then-Finance Minister, Bill English, the 2009 tax cut represented a $1 billion loss of revenue to the National government;
“About 1.5 million workers will receive a personal tax cut, injecting an extra $1 billion into the economy in the coming year.”
This presented a serious problem for National, as it was borrowing $450 million per week, by December 2009, according to BNZ Capital economist, Craig Ebert.
This left National in dire straits. Government revenue was collapsing; borrowing was ballooning – and worse was to come. National had tax cuts planned for the following year. They would be estimated to cost government at least $2 billion in lost revenue.
National’s Cabinet came up with a novel ‘solution’: State-owned enterprises would be treated as ‘cash cows’. Each SOE would be instructed to borrow to their maximum limit and “… release all surplus capital to the shareholder as special dividends“.
In May 2009, then-SOE Minister, Simon Power, issued this letter to all relevant state owned enterprises. Note the red-highlighted portions;
.
.
.
.
(Please note that the above version differs slights from the text provided in the NZ Herald version. Some of the redactions above re-appear in the NZ Herald version.)
By November 2011, a Treasuring scoping-study revealed that Solid Energy was experiencing severe financial problems. National’s Ministers were officially advised of Solid Energy’s precarious financial state, but this would not become public knowledge until two years later, in February 2013.
By August 2015, Solid Energy was placed into voluntary administration. By March this year, the liquidation process was near to completion.
Interestingly, the Herald story announcing the final stages stages of liquidation stated only;
Solid Energy first started its downward spiral in 2013 when global coal costs plummeted, exposing its commercial error in carrying substantial debt on its balance sheet.
There was no mentioned of the tens of millions of dollars expropriated by the National government after it’s letter-of-demand from Simon Power in 2009.
Neither was there a mention of the debt levels forced upon Solid Energy;
Solid Energy’s gearing ratio [borrowings] was 13.8 per cent in 2009, but that rose to 34.4 per cent in 2010 and 41.7 per cent last year [2012].
In fact, Solid Energy was bankrupted not only because of it’s high debt levels (four times higher than in 2008/09), but because National demanded 65% of cash reserves to be paid to the government as “special dividends”, as the CCMAU document below shows;
.
.
Solid Energy had meagre cash reserves remaining when the international price of coal fell, reducing it’s income.
Neither did it help when National abruptly reneged on it’s subsidy to Solid Energy to generate bio-fuels. National implemented it’s subsidy in 2008 – and scrapped it in 2012.
That decision left Solid Energy with a bio-fuels subsidiary (Biodiesel New Zealand) that was suddenly uneconomical to produce.
Adding insult to injury, and perhaps one of former Dear Leader John Key’s worst case of misdirected blame-gaming, he lamented the collapse of Solid Energy;
“The causes of the financial crisis at Solid Energy are the usual suspects in failing businesses – too much debt, unsuccessful investments and no reserves to weather a slump in coal prices.
Prime Minister John Key’s comments yesterday indicated these problems and pointed the finger at an imprudent amount of debt and investments that have not returned any cash yet.
Key said the debt had climbed to $389 million when “typically coal companies do not have a lot of debt on their balance sheets”.
Through incompetence; election year tax bribes that sent sovereign debt soaring and government deficits ballooning; SOE management that failed to assert independence from Ministerial interference; a willingness to strip SOEs of their cash; and demanding that they ramp up their “gearing” (borrowing/indebtedness) – like a fiscal vampire, National sucked Solid Energy dry.
So that combined with the removal of biofuels subsidies and a collapse in international coal prices, the final ‘leg’ of the three-legged stool – unsustainable debt and depleted cash reserves – was enough to send Solid Energy spiralling down into bankruptcy.
It is against this backdrop of “hidden borrowing” by National, that undermined and destroyed one SOE, that Ms Adams is now accusing the Coalition government of the same thing.
National has a distinctly predictable habit of blaming it’s political opponents for behaviour that it itself is guilty off.
Accordingly, Ms Adams wins this dubious “merit award”…
.
.
Postscript: Amy Adams was elected into Parliament on 8 November 2008. She therefore shares collective responsibility for the demise of Solid Energy, along with her colleagues, Bill English, John Key, Tony Ryall, and Simon Power.
.
.
.
References
Mediaworks/Newshub: Govt not honest about debt in new Budget – Amy Adams
IRD: Revenue collected 2008 to 2017
Scoop media: Rankin -Tax Cuts 2009-2011
Scoop media: Government delivers April 1 tax cuts, SME changes
Otago Daily Times: Government now borrowing $450 million a week – claim
NBR: Key again defends tax cuts
Scoop media: Govt’s 2010 tax cuts costing $2 billion and counting
NZ Herald: Simon Power letter to SOEs, May 2009
Treasury NZ: Treasury Report T2011/2373: Solid Energy New Zealand Scoping Study Report
Fairfax media: Solid Energy in debt crisis talks
Fairfax media: Solid Energy announces voluntary administration ahead of sale
NZ Herald: Solid Energy enters final stages of liquidation process
Fairfax media: Ministers pressured Solid Energy, Parliament told
Treasury: Solid Energy Information Release March 2013 (Document 1875419)
Fairfax media: Biodiesel loses subsidy, prices to rise
NZ Herald: Solid Energy half year profit down as coal export price falls
Fairfax media: State miner to return to coalface
Additional
Other Blogs
The Standard: The real reason Solid Energy is failing
The Standard: Has John Key jumped the shark?
Previous related blogposts
Solid Energy – A solid drama of facts, fibs, and fall-guys
Solid Energy and LandCorp – debt and doom, courtesy of a “fiscally responsible” National Govt
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 21 May 2018.
.
.
= fs =
National spins new “fake news” narrative: there is no health crisis
.
.
National is under attack. It’s reputation as a “prudent fiscal manager” is threatened by a growing realisation that it has achieved government surpluses at the expense of under-funded DHBs, decaying infrastructure, poorly resourced mental healthcare, budget cuts to DoC, frozen funding for Radio New Zealand, cuts to early childhood education and schools, etc.
After nine years of frozen budgets (a cut, once inflation, population growth, and other pressures are factored in), New Zealanders have been made to understand the painful realities of austerity-National-style;
.
.
It is against a backdrop of startling revelations that hospital buildings are rotting from within and threatened with sewage leaking through walls, that National’s credibility has been challenged.
The new narrative is that National’s so-called “successful fiscal stewardship” has been achieved by deferring vitally-needed spending on critical infrastructure and basic social services.
In essence, after nine years in government, National is being held to account.
But National is beginning to push-back on the new narrative.
This became apparent on 29 April, on TVNZ Q+A’s Twitter account when several ‘tweets’ by obvious-National tribalists (and one disaffected ex-Labour member) all featured a similar theme. The recurring use of the terms “false story” appeared several times along with the short-hand cliche, “fake news”;
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
All of which could be dismissed as the self-induced, delusional denials of individuals who identify a little too closely with the National Party – except it does not end with a handful of misguided National Party members.
On the same day Q+A was broadcast, and whilst National’s faithful Keyboard-warriors were engaging in “fake news” denials all over social media, NewstalkZB posted this on their Twitter account;
.
.
NewstalkZB’s website carried this story that the above ‘tweet’ referred to;
.
.
On TV3/Newshub, Woodhouse was reported as saying;
[Michael Woodhouse] said the Government has racked up a “woeful litany” of broken promises in just six months, including “the manufactured Middlemore crisis, raising massive expectations for nurse pay increases he won’t now meet, the debacle of the air ambulance tender, inertia and an unnecessary inquiry in mental health”.
Woodhouses’ statements were taken from a National Party Press Release, dated 29 April, where he alleged;
“The Prime Minister recently stated the issues at Middlemore Hospital are emblematic. I agree – emblematic of a Government that has manufactured a crisis that doesn’t exist in order to mask its broken promises.
The Minister’s record now includes the manufactured Middlemore crisis, raising massive expectations for nurse pay increases he won’t now meet, the debacle of the air ambulance tender, inertia and an unnecessary inquiry in Mental Health and now a billion dollar broken promise. This is a woeful litany after just six months in office.”
Woodhouse has a singular gift for misrepresenting facts and ‘bending the truth’ when it suits him.
On 12 February 2018 on Radio NZ, National’s Housing spokesperson – Michael Woodhouse – responded to New Zealand’s housing crisis – by denying it!
He stated categorically;
“They acknowledge that social housing includes housing provided by NGOs [non governmental organisations] but then ignore that when they conclude that the number of state housing properties have gone down. Clearly that hasn’t happened, they’ve gone up.”
His assertion “that the number of state housing properties have … gone up” was a bare-faced lie.
After nine years in office, National had disposed of some six thousand state houses. As this blogger reported in February this year;
In the 2008/09 Annual Report, Housing NZ stated that it “manages a portfolio of more than 69,000 houses” (p4).
Nine years later, Housing NZ’s 2016/17 Annual Report revealed “we own or manage approximately 63,000 homes”. (p7)
Either Mr Woodhouse’s or my arithmetic is way out, because that is a 6,000 drop in State housing.
National’s track record after nine years in government is so bad that that cannot rely on the truth to validate themselves. Instead, they must resort to lies.
National’s MPs and their tribalist supporters have nothing to be proud of.
.
.
.
References
Fairfax media: Is National really better than Labour with the Government books? Well, not really
Radio NZ: Doctors blame under-funding for DHB blowouts
Mediaworks: Sickening state of Auckland hospital buildings revealed
Radio NZ: DoC funding cut by $40m – independent expert
Mediaworks: What’s behind New Zealand’s mental health funding crisis?
NZ Herald: Govt has cut millions off early childhood education – Study
Manawatu Standard: Struggling schools cut teacher aide hours to keep up with minimum wage increase
NZ Herald: John Drinnan – Radio NZ survives the big freeze
Fairfax media: Funding in Auckland health sector not keeping up with population growth, politicians told
Radio NZ: Sewage leaking into Middlemore building’s walls
Fairfax media: Over 5000 at risk of going blind waiting for treatment, Ministry of Health says
Twitter: TVNZ Q+A
Twitter: NewstalkZB – Michael Woodhouse – 29 April 2018
NewstalkZB: Government manufacturing a health-sector crisis – Michael Woodhouse
Mediaworks: GP visits might not get cheaper soon after all
Scoop media: Clark confirms broken promise on GP fees
Radio NZ: Housing report paints ‘sobering picture’ of crisis
Housing NZ: Annual Report 2016/17
Related Other Blogs
The Standard: Micky Savage – National’s fiscal ineptitude over Auckland transport
The Daily Blog: Martyn Bradbury -New Zealand’s new Alt-Right Twitter Trolls – Dirty Politics 2018
Previous related blogposts
National’s housing spokesperson Michael Woodhouse – delusional or outright fibber?
The many mendacities of Mr Bridges – a few volts short of an EV
The Mendacities of Mr English – No, I wasn’t told – Yes, I was told
National’s housing spokesperson Michael Woodhouse – delusional or outright fibber?
Newsflash: apparently our public hospital system is in crisis?!
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 May 2015.
.
.
= fs =
National pissed off: Labour is nicking John Key’s dodginess!
.
.
A meeting between Broadcasting Minister, Clare Curran and Radio NZ’s Carol Hirschfeld at a Wellington cafe has put the scent of blood into National’s collective nostrils. Ms Curran had insisted that the meeting was informal;
.
.
Ms Curran has rejected claims that her meeting with Ms Hirschfeld was a secret meeting;
“At no time have I ever said the meeting was coincidental.
While I believe the meeting was not official and informal, as soon as I became aware that it should have been considered an official meeting in answer to a written question, I corrected the Parliamentary record. This was a mistake.
The meeting was not a secret, and I regret that the meeting took place.”
National’s caretaker Little Leader, Simon Bridges, is braying for blood;
“We need to get to the bottom of what’s happened here but it seems very serious if Carol Hirschfeld has resigned and we need to understand what this means in relation to Clare Curran.”
The critical problem apparently lies with the fact that Ms Hirschfeld kept the meeting secret from Radio NZ’s hierarchy, initially claiming that her cafe meet-up was a “chance encounter”. In response to a question from a National Party MP, Radio NZ’s chief executive, Paul Thompson, informed a select committee;
“Carol had been to the gym, she was getting a coffee, they bumped into each other, in a cafe and had a conversation so it was hardly a secret meeting. I don’t have any concern.”
For a supposedly “secret” meeting, a cafe rendezvous seemed to lack most of the necessary ingredients for a covert political operation.
Perhaps Simon Bridges is aggrieved that Labour has lifted one of it’s own strategies and attempted to use it themselves. When it came to “informal meetings”, National’s former Dear Leader, John Key, was quite the expert.
In 2011, Key met with Mediaworks’ former CEO, Brent Impey at a “social event”;
.
.
Note that at first, Key denied meeting any representatives with Mediaworks. Two days later, he was forced to concede “running into” Impey at a “social event”. The issue of a government bail-out of Mediaworks was “briefly raised”.
The following year, Key had another supposedly chance encounter with a corporate head hustling for a lucrative government deal;
.
.
A year later, it was revealed that Key was at it again, with another of his “informal meetings” – this time with old school friend, Ian Fletcher;
.
.
As we recall, Fletcher was later appointed as the head of the GCSB.
But according to Key, the vacancy at the Government Communications Security Bureau was “not discussed”. Of course it wasn’t. Fletcher’s appointment three months later was a pure coincidence – right?
When it comes to dodgy deals done behind closed doors – or at “informal” events – nobody does it better that National.
And nobody weaseled out of being caught conducting secret informal “chance meetings” better than our own Teflon Don, whom Simon Bridges considered his hero;
.
.
As fellow blogger, Martyn Bradbury said succinctly on this issue;
“The media focus on the insignificant and judge the Left at a threshold far higher than they ever held National to account.”
Labour will have to make more of an effort to avoid these prat-falls. Because unfortunately, Key used up the country’s entire supply of teflon for himself during his leadership tenure with all his personal, Party, and ministerial scandals.
Of which there were many.
***Updates***
28 March – 8.16am
Ms Lee said she was surprised by the resignation of Ms Hirschfeld, who she described as a “well respected journalist”, and was given notice of the move by RNZ chair Richard Griffin shortly before the announcement.
Was that appropriate?
Why did he discuss this with an Opposition MP?
Did he have Board permission to disclose this?
What other contacts does Griffin have with National?
The Curran-Hirschfeld event is beginning to create ever-widening ripples.
.
.
.
References
Mediaworks: Hirschfeld resignation – Clare Curran to stay on as Minister
Maori Television: RNZ’s Carol Hirschfeld resigns
Newstalk ZB: Hirschfeld to resign immediately after Curran meeting saga
TVNZ: Prime Minister defends loan to MediaWorks
NZ Herald: SkyCity deal was PM’s own offer
Fairfax Media: Key met spy candidate for breakfast
Beehive: New GCSB Director appointed
NZ Herald: ‘Jokiness and blokiness’ – How Bridges is emulating John Key
Radio NZ: Curran has ‘a lot of questions to answer’ over meeting – National MP
Additional
Radio NZ: Carol Hirschfeld resigns over meeting minister – ‘There are serious questions here’
Radio NZ: Curran on Hirschfeld’s resignation: ‘It was not a secret meeting’
Other Blogs
The Daily Blog: Blind Alpacas vs war crime double standards – Hey look, what Curran did wasn’t great, but what’s worse is what the Former Attorney General did
The Standard: An Orwellian Minister for Open Government
Previous related blogposts
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Toru)
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 March 2018.
.
.
= fs =
The many mendacities of Mr Bridges – a few volts short of an EV
.
.
The Left are disappointed; the Toxic Twins – Judith Collins and Steven Joyce – failed to seize leadership of the National Party. The coldly psychopathic eyes of Collins, and the menacingly malignant grin of Joyce, will not be scaring New Zealand voters witless in 2020.
Instead, the boyish grin of Simon Bridges will be leading the National Party – until he won’t, after their inevitable defeat at the next election.
.
.
Speaking with Radio NZ’s Checkpoint host, John Campbell, Bridges first interview as leader of the Nats began with an inanely cliched reference to “asperational” young New Zealanders;
@ 14.28:
“We’ve got a very strong economy at the moment… To build on that, and ensure that is is a place where young New Zealanders can get ahead and do well, don’t feel they need to get on a plane to go overseas, probably to Australia, that’s really important to me…”
Bridges was parroting a speech filled with almost identical rhetoric by his former boss and mentor, Dear Leader Key;
“When the going gets this tough, is it any wonder that Kiwis look longingly at our Aussie cousins? Our Aussie cousins, who get paid a third more than us for doing the same job […] Too many Kiwis are looking at those stats and choosing to join their cousins across the ditch. We have to give them better reasons to stay.”
Key made those comment in January 2008 – a little over a decade ago.
Since then, migration has risen sharply under National’s watch, pushing up demands on housing, education, healthcare, roading, and other services/infrastructure.
In essence, Bridges referenced a problem that no longer exists.
But perhaps the worst moment came a few minutes later, when he referred to National’s “legacies”. Amongst Bridge’s list of “crowning achievements” over the last nine years, Bridges listed;
@ 16.18
“But what is true, John, is that if you look at my record as a Minister whether is in Transport where I led, I think, incredibly progressive moves in public transport, in cycleways, in electric vehicles, in a range of areas, people can see a very modern face of National…”
Bridges’ “progressive moves” on electric vehicles are in his mind only.
In 2016, he actively decided not to electrify the state fleet, opting instead for traditional vehicles;
Cabinet has pulled the handbrake on its Electric Vehicles plan, pulling proposals to help agencies cover the extra cost, documents show.
But Transport Minister Simon Bridges says he canned the two proposals, in order to be “more ambitious” later.
.
.
Bridges’ explanation was mealy-mouthed, to put it mildly;
“Given this, it is likely that government agencies will favour cheaper conventional vehicles over an EV equivalent […] But I decided, in the end, that the bulk buying proposal that is now being investigated – and I hope implemented – is much more significant than the kickstarter and the demonstration programme.” “
No wonder the Green Party’s transport spokeswoman, Julie Anne Genter, was critical of Bridges’ luke-warm response to EVs;
“So far Simon Bridges has seemed keen to appear in every possible photo-op, and be seen to do something without actually committing any resources or policy that would be effective.
It can hardly be considered ambitious. But it does seem to suggest he knows that the announcement is totally ineffective and won’t lead to an increase in the number of electric vehicles.
He’s chosen a target he thinks will happen without any Government intervention or support.”
A year later, only eight of 2,000 vehicles bought for various government bodies were EVs.
Eight.
That was the “legacy” that Simon Bridges ‘crowed’ about to John Campbell.
Not exactly a glowing start to his temporary tenure as National’s leader. In fact, Bridges’ “legacy” could be better summed up as one of the architects of repressive legislation designed to prevent protest against deep sea mining off New Zealand’s coast;
…Simon Bridges, announced a new law with heavy sanctions against protesters who “want to stop other people going about their lawful business and doing what they have a permit to do and they are legally entitled to do“
.
.
Is it any surprise the Greens wanted nothing to do with National during coalition talks last year?
Simon Bridges, Leader of the National Party: more of the same.
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Checkpoint with John Campbell, Tuesday 27th February 2018 (alt.link: Youtube)
NZ Herald: John Key – State of the Nation speech
Fairfax media: Cabinet handbrake proves ‘government lack of leadership’ on electric vehicles – Greens
Radio NZ: Govt advised to rev up electric car roll-out
Radio NZ: Govt plans hefty fines for offshore mining protests
Previous related blogposts
Judith Collins owes an explanation to voters
Parata, Bennett, and Collins – what have they been up to?
It’s official: Political Dissent Discouraged in NZ!
A message from Greenpeace about Simon Bridges
Letter to the Editor: Simon Bridges is a very naughty little boy!
Mining, Drilling, Arresting, Imprisoning – Simon Bridges
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 March 2018.
.
.
= fs =
The Mendacities of Mr English – No, I wasn’t told – Yes, I was told
.
.
On 2 November last year – and still smarting from a colossal rebuff from NZ First – Bill English was unabashedly vindictive at losing out on coalition talks to form a fourth National-led administration;
“You should expect more tension and more pressure in the Parliament, and particularly through the select committee process. Because we are the dominant select committee party.
And that is going to make a difference to how everything runs – it’s not our job to make this place run for an incoming Government that is a minority.
You will get to understand that it is a minority Government with a majority Opposition, and the Greens as the support party. That is how we are going to run it…we have no obligation to smooth [Labour’s] path. None whatsoever.”
Just how difficult English intended for the new Coalition government has been made abundantly clear over the last three months. At every opportunity in front of a live radio microphone, tv camera, or any available passing set of ears, English has carped at every announcement and action undertaken by the Coalition.
National has gone so far as to create an attack-website in Labour-party colours, inciting resentment at the Labour-NZ First-Green Coalition;
.
.
A noticeable feature of this website is a lack any marker identifying it as a National Party construct. Aside from the authoriser – National’s General Manager, “G Hamilton”, the website shows no obvious affiliation to the Nats.
Not very honest of them, but it’s what we’ve come to expect from the National Party: deception to suit their agenda.
English’s fixation on making National a disruptive force and to deny the Coalition a “smooth path” landed him with egg on his face on 30 January this year, when he mis-led listeners to Radio NZ’s Morning Report.
.
.
Speaking to Radio NZ’s Susie Ferguson, English complained bitterly that he had not been consulted over the Coalition’s government’s Child Poverty Bill;
“ Well we haven’t seen the bill yet. We’ve been offered a official’s briefing today. The day the Bill’s been introduced. So we’ve no ability to influence it. That’s not a good way to influence bi-partisan approach. It’s pretty limited I have to say. So we’ll have a look at it, ah, we want to see it’s more than symbolism…
[…]
Well, they haven’t gone about it in a very sensible way if they want concensus. First we’ve had no [unintelligible word] opportunity to influence the Bill…”
English desperately attempted to deflect the conversation to a purely fiscally-driven narrative;
“ This new government has used up all it’s spare cash according to it’s own limits. And they don’t have much ability actually over the next few years to do anything beyond the first of April this year.
[…]
New Zealand has a fantastic opportunity here. Sustainable surpluses, the ability to lift incomes at the bottom end, the ability to dig in and do the long term investment in dealing with long – with deprivation, and the government is doing it’s best to mess that up.”
However, English’s claim that he and his Party had had no opportunity for consensus-building on this critical issue affecting New Zealand was convincingly demolished that very same afternoon.
Not only had Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern approached National last year, seeking consensus and feedback from National – she had done it in writing;
.
.
[Image courtesy of Radio NZ]
There we have it: in black and white writing. And stamped with the Opposition Leader’s [currently Bill English – but subject to change very shortly] Office; 13 December 2017.
Prime Minister Ardern wrote to English requesting his support for the Coalition’s Child Poverty Bill – and seeking his feedback . She did everything feasible to engage English and his Party short of banging on his office door with her high-heels, demanding that he participate;
“ Damn you, Bill! Come out and engage with us!”
English’s obstructionism has either clouded his memory – or he was willfully not telling the truth. The former indicates that his memory is becoming unreliable. The latter, that he is a liar. Neither is a particularly comforting option.
Thankfully, Labour has learned not to trust National.That lesson was firmly driven home for Labour on 8 November last year when National disrupted the election of Trevor Mallard as Speaker of the House by threatening to put the issue to a vote and insisting they had the numbers to vote down Mallard’s nomination.
They didn’t. It was a sly bluff;
.
Chris Hipkins and Grant Robertson negotiate with duplicitous and self-serving National Opposition MPs
.
After that debacle, Labour’s Whip, Chris Hipkins promised;
“ Lesson learnt, they won’t catch us out on that ever again in the future. ”
“ Perhaps when dealing with the Opposition, I’ll be a little more careful to make sure I get a specific undertaking from them in future. ”
Indeed. Lesson learned.
Thankfully, a simple little thing like a letter has shown up Bill English to be either unreliable – or willing to engage in outright lying to smear the Coalition.
Postscript1
Bill English condemned the Coalition government’s decision to scrap National’s “Better Public Service” targets, set in 2012, and revised in 2017. The initial targets were set to:
- Reducing long-term welfare dependence
- A good start to life for mothers and babies
- Reduce assaults and abuse of children
- Improve mathematics and literacy skills and upskill the New Zealand workforce
- Reducing crime
- Better access to social housing
- Improving interaction with government
The Labour-led coalition has decided to do away with National’s “Better Public Service” targets and instead opted to focus on Child poverty. This did not sit well with Bill English, who complained bitterly;
“ [The targets] meant that when New Zealand’s public servants turned up to work they knew exactly what it was they should be doing to improve lives and to do their jobs better – and they, along with the Government, were held to account because their results were measured.
It’s a step backwards to lazy, dumb Government.
The public service was starting to get good at digging into our hardest long term social problems: child abuse, family violence, serious criminal offending, and long term welfare dependency.
Instead, we are likely to see a shift to higher-level longer-term targets that apply to no one in particular and for which no one in particular can be held accountable and that’s not good enough.
I think there will be a lot of public servants who are putting their feet up around the country because now they don’t have to worry too much about achieving much or being accountable. But I think there will be even more public servants disappointed because they had a sense of purpose. ”
Prime Minister Ardern responded;
“ We will in the longer term absolutely be replacing those Better Public Service targets. Our view always has been that those targets didn’t give us the systemic change that we need for some of those big issues that the country faces. ”
Unfortunately for English, the most devastating critique of his so-called “Better Public Service” targets came not from a left-wing Prime Minister – but from one of his own Cabinet Ministers in July 2016.
When asked on TV3’s The Nation about National’s failure to move 65,000 people off the benefit within the next two years – one of the “Better Public Service” targets – then MSD Minister Anne Tolley replied;
.
.
“ It’s a very aspirational target.”
So Bill English is upset that targets – which are, at best, only “very aspirational” – are being dumped?
It is unclear why he is so wedded to targets when they are only “very aspirational“, according to one of his former Ministers. Minister Tolley was able to easily dismiss National’s “Better Public Service” targets with barely an explanation.
Aspirational is meaningless if not backed up by legislation and measureable standards.
Such as the Coalition’s Child Poverty Bill.
Perhaps Bill English should become “more aspirational“?
Postscript2
English’s pathological opposition to the Coalition’s Child Poverty Bill can be better understood when one understands that National policies have actively contributed to growing homelessness and increasing child poverty.
In 2008, Housing NZ’s state housing stock comprised of 69,000 rental properties.
By 2016, that number had dramatically fallen to 61,600 (plus a further 2,700 leased) – a crucial shortfall of 7,400 properties.
In nine years, National sold off thousands of state homes – a policy that continued until a housing crisis forced families to live in over-crowded houses; run-down “boarding houses” garages, and cars.
National’s desperate attempt to stave off increasingly horrifying stories of hardship and poverty forced them to enter… the motel business;
.
.
If Mr English appears to have difficulty supporting the Coalition’s Child Poverty Bill, perhaps it’s because he knows his government is partly responsible for the current poverty-stricken state of the country today.
He knows National did not have to sell off 7,400 state houses.
He knows National need not have squeezed a staggering $664 million out of Housing NZ by way of annual dividends over a seven year period.
He knows that the tax cuts of 2009 and 2010 benefitted the wealthy predominantly, whilst increasing gst and raising user-pays part-charges for prescription medicines impacted disproportionately on the poorest people of this country.
.
.
Those are amongst National’s legacies after nine years. Policies that benefitted the well-off; placated the comfortable Middle Classes; and made life harder for the poorest of our fellow New Zealanders.
His guilt must be so deep-seated that English is only able to deal with it by continually criticising those who are willing to clean up the mess left after nine years of National.
Christian guilt can be a terrible, debilitating thing.
.
.
.
.
References
NZ Herald: Bill English warns Labour: ‘it’s not our job to make this place run’
National Party: Lets Undo This
Beehive: Taking action to reduce child poverty
Radio NZ: English on government’s child poverty legislation
Radio NZ: PM ‘saddened’ at claims Nats not consulted on poverty Bill
TVNZ: Anne Tolley still gets nod as Deputy Speaker despite Nats ruthlessly attacking Labour
NZ Herald: Labour and National face off in Parliament opening over Speaker vote
Beehive: New Better Public Services targets
Fairfax media: Bill English slams Government for getting rid of public service targets
Scoop media: On The Nation – Lisa Owen interviews Bill English, Anne Tolley and Hekia Parata
NZ Herald: Anne Tolley – Government’s benefits target ‘very aspirational’
Housing NZ: Annual Report 2008/09
Housing NZ: Annual Report 2015/16
NZ Herald: Govt to buy more motels to house homeless as its role in emergency housing grows
NZ Herald: GST rise will hurt poor the most
Fairfax media: Prescription price rise hits vulnerable
Additional
Gordon Campbell on the battle over select committees
Other Blogs
The Standard: Bill your pants may be on fire
Previous related blogposts
Foot in mouth award – Bill English, for his recent “Flat Earth” comment in Parliament
The Mendacities of Mr English – Fibbing from Finance Minister confirmed
The Mendacities of Mr English – Social Services under National’s tender mercies
The Mendacities of Mr English – The covert agenda of high immigration
National’s blatant lies on Housing NZ dividends – The truth uncovered!
National continues to panic on housing crisis as election day looms
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rima)
Mr English: Where are National’s secret coalition negotiation papers?
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 4 February 2018.
.
.
= fs =
“Fool me once”…
.
.
Fool me once, shame on you.
.
Fool me twice, shame on me!
.
That was then, this is now (1)
.
So what was National’s problem with the number of committee members on Select Committees? “Shadow leader of the House“, Simon Bridges, accused the new Labour-Green-NZ First coalition government of “ trying to limit scrutiny of its actions by attempting to cut the number of Opposition MPs on select committees because it is short on numbers itself ”.
Bridges claimed;
“ One of the most important ways to do that is through the select committee process. But rather than fronting up to that scrutiny, Labour is now saying it wants to allow fewer elected representatives to carry out that vital function – that’s undemocratic.
While the number of positions on select committees has traditionally matched the number of MPs in Parliament, Labour wants to restrict the number because it doesn’t have enough members of its own.”
It’s true. The new Coalition government was going to reduce Select Committee numbers from 120 to 96.
But Bridges was not being truthful with the public when he blamed Labour for wanting to “restrict the number because it doesn’t have enough members of its own”.
In fact, that decision was made by the Standing Orders Committee in July of this year, when National was in government. National’s David Carter was Speaker of the House and Chairperson of the SOC.
The National government SOC report stated;
“We do not favour specifying the number of seats in the Standing Orders. The Business Committee should retain the ability to determine the size of each committee. We propose instead that the Business Committee adopt a target of 96 seats across the 12 subject select committees. We considered models based on 108 committee seats, which would have little impact given the decrease in the number of committees, and 84 committee seats, which would leave too many members without permanent committee seats—a matter considered below. A total of 96 seats will result in most committees having seven, eight, or nine members.”
Bridges belatedly admitted that the reduction in Select Committee numbers was a decision made by National when it had been in government. But he complained that National had made the decision because they were trying to be ‘nice’ to Labour and other opposition parties;
“ We were a Government [in July] … trying to accommodate the Opposition who wanted that. But now the Opposition doesn’t want it. Because back then, it is such a disadvantage to us.”
“Disadvantage”?
David Carter’s July 2017 report was clear in its intent;
“We believe there would be some merit in decreasing the overall number of select committee seats while retaining the proportionality requirement. Committees are generally larger than is necessary for them to be effective, and some members have too many committee commitments. With a decrease in the number of subject committees from 13 to 12, committees would become even larger if the overall membership remained around 120.
A decrease in committee seats would provide more flexibility for parties to manage committee attendance and absences. This flexibility would also allow members to attend committee meetings according to their interests, expertise, and availability. Government backbench members would not be expected to be on more than two committees each, allowing them to be more focused in their committee work. There could also be greater scope to arrange extended sittings at the same time as committee meetings, as fewer members would be required to attend those meetings.”
No mention made of “trying to accommodate the Opposition”. Carter’s report was more concerned with National backbench MPs being over-worked. “Making nice” with Labour is not mentioned.
National’s modus operandi of dishonesty appears not to have changed as they begin their long twilight Decade of Opposition.
.
Hypocrisy, National-style
.
National’s Simon Bridges also said on 6 November;
“ The role of the Opposition is to hold the Government to account, to scrutinise its actions and to advocate for the views of the people they are elected to represent. One of the most important ways to do that is through the select committee process. ”
Curiously, the role of Select Committees to “hold the Government to account, to scrutinise its actions and to advocate for the views of the people they are elected to represent” did not seem to tax Mr Bridges’ noble views when National forced through the so-called ‘Hobbit Law’ in 2010.
The “Hobbit law” – aka the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010 – was enacted under Urgency from First Reading to Royal Asset in under 48 hours!
.
.
Such unheard of rapidity to pass legislation – even under Urgency – was the political equivalent of a starship travelling at near-light velocity. Needless to say there was no Select Committee over-sight. There was no scrutiny. And MPs did not get an opportunity to “advocate for the views of the people they are elected to represent“.
According to right-wing National apparatchik and blogger, David Farrar, and then Opposition Labour MP, Grant Robertson, the National government used Urgency to pass seventeen laws during it’s first two yours in office. There was no public consultation permitted. No public submissions sought.
National’s (mis-)use of Urgency during it’s nine years in office shows Bridges to be hypocritical when he preaches;
“ The Government must let parliamentary structures fully reflect the decisions of voters and allow its ideas to be tested – that’s in the interests of all New Zealanders.”
But when Simon Bridges was Minister for Labour in 2014, his view on passing health and safety legislation was in stark contrast. As I reported three years ago;
Helen Kelly accused Minister of Labour, Simon Bridges of slowing progress of the passing of the Health and Safety Bill, and actively interfering and restricting the terms of a Worksafe NZ review of safety practices in the forestry industry. She said,
“ We know the minister has restricted right down what they’re allowed to look at. They’re not looking at fatigue. They’re not looking at weather. They’re not looking at hours of work. Simon Bridges has said, ‘no, wait for the review’. ”
Bridges response on Radio NZ’s Morning Report, on 28 April [2014], did nothing to allay fears that he was taking the side of forestry operators and doing everything within his power to stymie reform of the industry, and resist implementation of a stricter safety regime.
When Morning Report’s Susie Ferguson pressed Bridges on when the Health and Safety Reform Bill would be passed into law, his response was derisory and dismissive,
“ We can’t simply, ah, because Helen Kelly sez so, do something in two days.
... But I don’t think it’s a position where we can simply snap our fingers and change systemic, ah, ah, deep problems overnight. Indeed it would be entirely wrong for us to do that. ”
Hypocrisy on so many levels… where does one even start with the National Party?!
.
Treachery, National-style
.
In holding to ransom the election of Trevor Mallard as Speaker of the House, National bluffed it’s way to increase the number of their MPs that can be appointed to Select Committees. This was despite a clear understanding between the new Coalition government and National that Trevor Mallard would be elected unopposed as Speaker, and National’s Anne Tolley as Deputy Speaker.
By demanding a vote be taken, National reneged on their agreement.
The threat from the Opposition Benches was a dire warning to the new Coalition government that National was prepared to play dirty.
.
Chris Hipkins and Grant Robertson negotiate with duplicitous and disloyal National Opposition MPs
.
The Coalition has been taught a clear lesson. As Leader of the House, Chris Hipkins said after the fiasco;
“ Lesson learnt, they won’t catch us out on that ever again in the future. ”
“ Perhaps when dealing with the Opposition, I’ll be a little more careful to make sure I get a specific undertaking from them in future. ”
Indeed, Chris. Be very careful. The lesson of National’s willingness to engage in dirty tricks; double dealing; and other obstructionist tactics should not be lost on any Labour, Green, or NZ First MPs.
National MPs lack honour.
.
National’s desperation to remain relevant
.
For National, the stakes are high and they will do everything within their power – perhaps pushing as close to the edge of legality as humanly possible – to achieve the destruction of this Coalition government, and spark an early election.
Make no mistake. National realises two crucial things are in play;
#1: Polling Decay in Opposition
The longer the Nats remain in Opposition, the faster their public support will erode. Post 2008, Labour’s polling continued to plummet, whereas National’s ascendancy continued to build on it electoral success;
.
.
The longer National stays in Opposition, the further it’s public support will fall. It is hard to imagine that it’s election night result of 44.4% will be maintained to the next election in 2020.
In short, the Nats risk growing irrelevancy the longer they stay out of government.
#2: Dismantling the Neo-liberal Paradigm
Chris Trotter wrote on 26 October;
“ We face an economic system without the slightest idea how to solve the problems created by its discredited policies and practices. Nevertheless, the Neoliberal Establishment remains very strong, and just as soon as it settles upon an effective strategy of resistance, the fightback will begin.
[…]
The Labour-NZ First-Green Government will be presented by these hard-line rightists as an illegitimate and dangerously anti-capitalist regime. Its anti-business and anti-farming policies, they will argue, are not only incompatible with genuine Kiwi democracy, but also constitute a direct attack on the sanctity of private property. As such, it will not be enough to merely oppose this far-left government; it will be necessary to fight it head-on. ”
Brexit. Donald Trump. Justin Trudeau. Jeremy Corbyn. Emmanuel Macron. Whether on the Left or Right, or Mad Populist; whether in office or not; there is a mood for change sweeping the globe. The promises of neo-liberalism; the “free” market; and globalism have failed to materialise for the many – whilst amassing vast wealth for the few.
“Trickle down” has become a sick joke that offers opportunities for cartoonists…
.
.
.
.
.
.
… but not much else for the unemployed; the low-paid; and the precariat. It’s hard to be a cheer-leader for globalisation when your job has been “exported” to Shanghai; outsourced to Manila; or replaced by a robot.
It is against that back-drop of growing public resentment against the neo-liberal orthodoxy that National understands it is living on ‘borrowed time’. The longer they remain in Opposition, the more time the Coalition government has to un-pick the strands of neo-liberalism and reinstate the role of the State in commerce, workplace relations, housing, education, health, and elsewhere.
The more that neo-liberalism is unravelled, the harder it will be for National in the long-term to re-build. Especially if a resurgent State succeeds in housing the homeless; fully funding public healthcare and cutting back waiting lists; and all the other cuts to social services that National sneaked through gradually, without being noticed except by a few.
Expect desperation to be the motivator for everything National does in the next three years.
They know the clock is ticking.
.
That was then, this is now (2)
.
On 24 October, Bill English was interviewed on Radio NZ’s Morning Report by Susie Ferguson. He was asked about his earlier comments about the current coalition being a “minority government”;
English began by voicing that the incoming coalition government had not won the “popular vote”. First he complained that his Party should have been the government simply because of it’s size;
“ The voters at large probably expected that if you got 44 and a half percent of the vote, you were some part of the government or the big part of it.”
Then he suggested that the formation of the coalition was somehow “unusual”;
“…How to hold to account a government that’s been put together in an unusual way.”
English did not fully explain why the coalition formation was “unusual”.
Then he hinted that the Coalition government might not be legitimate;
“ Just remember this is a prime minister who’s the first one in a hundred years who lost the popular vote and lost it by quite a bit.”
… It didn’t win the vote.”
English’s comments might make sense under a First Past the Post system – but under MMP his arithmetic doesn’t add up. Added together, Labour, NZ First, and the Greens won more votes than National and ACT. More people voted for change than the status quo.
Which prompted Ms Ferguson to remind English that the new Coalition government is made up of three parties, so how was that different to the National-led government that he (English) led?
English’s response again reflected First Past the Post thinking, by referring to National as the larger party and thereby somehow entitled to rule;
“…when an election is lost, a larger party captured the direction New Zealand wanted to go in.”
Ms Ferguson had to remind Mr English that 44% is not a majority. The arithmetic simply did not support the National leader’s expectations of a “right to govern” based on size. Perhaps because he understood the nature of Radio NZ listeners, he was forced to admit;
“ I accept that, absolutely… It’s a legitimate result…”
Well, I’ve been saying all year that the… all the other parties put together can beat you on the day. And that’s what happened on Thursday. So that’s MMP. That’s how it works.”
But despite claiming to understand how MMP works, he couldn’t result a further dig at the Coalition;
“ Put it this way, if the Labour Party got 44% of the vote, I think anyone would argue they’d be in a stronger position to start a government than they are today.”
But Ms Ferguson was having none of English trying to have a bob-each-way and put to him a simple question; did the National Party have a moral mandate to be the leading party of government?
To which English could only reply:
“ We accept, like everybody else should, that’s its a legitimate result of MMP. No contest about that. That’s how the rules work, we all knew that.”
Nine days later, and English was back on the warpath, threatening to de-stabilise the Coalition government under the pretext of Opposition;
“ We are the dominant select committee party and we’re not the government, and that is going to make a difference to how everything runs.
It’s not our job to make this place run for an incoming government that’s a minority.
Remember this, we are the opposition with a minority government, it’s a term the media don’t use but you’ll get to understand that it is a minority government with a majority opposition and the Greens as the support party, and that’s how we’re going to run it.”
The constant reference to “minority government” and National being the “dominant party” carries on the narrative being run by English’s party strategists; that this new coalition is a “minority” (it’s not); that National was denied it’s rightful position as government (it wasn’t); and that the election results were somehow “stolen” (not true).
With 65% of NZ First supporters showing a strong preference to coalesce with Labour, Winston Peters’ decision was sound and democratic. Any other decision – such as allying with the Nats and ACT – would have had destructive consequences for NZ First.
Which, of course, would have suited National perfectly. The Nats have already destroyed two political parties (United Future and Maori Party) and neutered a third (ACT). Another notch on their belt would not have concerned them greatly.
Indeed, look on National as the Planet Jupiter – drawing in debris such as asteroids and comets with it’s massive gravitational field; effectively “scouring” the solar system of small objects.
National draws in smaller parties with it’s massive political-gravitational pull, and consumes them.
No wonder the Green Party exercised caution and ensured their trajectory carried them safely away from National’s crushing embrace. A “Teal Coalition” would have torn apart the Greens as effectively as Jupiter smashed Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 in 1994.
But if English and his cronies in Her Majesty’s ‘Loyal’ Opposition believe that “it’s not our job to make this place run for an incoming government that’s a minority” – then they had best tread carefully.
The voting public are not all gullible fools and they do take notice.
As does the media.
On 9 November and 10 November, Fairfax media ran two consecutive editorials on the incoming coalition government and National’s role as Parliament’s newest Opposition.
On 9 November, an editorial writer cautioned National;
“ Oppositions whose sole aim is to sabotage the government, however, risk alienating the voters. In the United States, the Republican Party repeatedly tried to shut down the government altogether by denying it the money it needs to function.
The long-term risk is that this strategy will be tried by the other side when the roles are switched. The result could be the kind of paralysis of government too often seen in the United States. Oppositions don’t gain in the long term by making the country ungovernable.
In New Zealand, there is also a strong tradition of giving a new government a “fair go”. Voters traditionally allow some leeway, and even grant it a kind of temporary political honeymoon…”
And on 10 November, similar warnings were issued;
“ The opposition has already signalled that it intends to make life more difficult than usual for the Government, but it must be very careful not to alienate the public as it does so. ”
The greatest irony may soon become apparent: it is not the new Labour-Green-NZ First coalition that will be scrutinised during this Parliamentary term.
It may be the National Opposition that is held to account.
.
Postscript
As National’s webpages tend to disappear from their website, along with their statements, they have been saved for future reference.
.
.
.
References
Parliament: Simon Bridges
NZ Herald: National’s list of laws passed under urgency
National Party: Government trying to limit scrutiny
Parliament: Review of Standing Orders – Report of the Standing Orders Committee – Rt Hon David Carter, Chairperson – July 2017 (p19)
NZ Herald: National clashes with Labour – ‘erosion of democratic rights’
Legislation: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010 – Legislative history
Radio NZ: Unions seek prosecution over deaths
Radio NZ: Minister of Labour responds to criticism (audio)
Parliament: Health and Safety Reform Bill
TVNZ: Anne Tolley still gets nod as Deputy Speaker despite Nats ruthlessly attacking Labour
NZ Herald: Labour and National face off in Parliament opening over Speaker vote
Wikipedia: Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2011
Electoral Commission: 2017 General Election – Official Result
Time: The Richest People in the World
Radio NZ: Bill English faces first caucus since defeat (alt.link)(audio)
Electoral Commission: New Zealand 2017 General Election – Official Results
NBR: Majority of NZ First supporters want party to ally with Labour – Colmar Brunton
Fairfax media: Talk of a teal deal is speculation, nothing more, says James Shaw
America Space: Remembering Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9’s Impact on Jupiter, 23 Years Ago This Week
Fairfax media: Editorial – National wins a battle but winning the war is different
Fairfax media: Editorial – the prime minister’s positive way forward
Other Blogs
Bowalley Road: Strategies Of Right-Wing Resistance – It CAN Happen Here.
Bowalley Road: Settling The Stardust – The Grim Logic Behind National’s Opposition Tactics
The Daily Blog: How dare National claim an ‘erosion of democracy’
Previous related blogposts
Muppets, Hobbits, and Scab ‘Unions’
John Key’s track record on raising wages – 1. The “Hobbit Law”
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 12 November 2017.
.
.
= fs =
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (whitu)
.
.
The final day of campaign is upon us. Tomorrow is the “official” Election Day and nine years of National government is about to either end – or win a rare fourth term.
Polling does not look good for an outright win for the Labour-Green bloc.
National’s dirty politics of lies has apparently entered the subconsciousness of mainstream New Zealand. Despite being rubbished by every economist, commentator, media, and Uncle Tom Cobbly, Bill English continued to repeat Joyce’s lie about Labour’s “$11.7 billion fiscal hole”;
.
.
Or National’s lie about tax “increases” under a Labour-led government;
.
.
English seems to be “relaxed” about borrowing from our former Prime Minister’s handbook to bend the truth – or just outright lie when it suits his selfish needs.
National’s willful lying on this issue is classic Crosby-Textor manipulation; throw mud and some of it will stick in the minds of poorly informed voters. Or voters who know it’s a lie – but want to feel validated voting for a party that promotes the lifestyle of the Cosy, Comfy Middle-class.
An artificially bloated home valuation can be a powerful inducement for some voters to go with the status quo that maintains the illusion of wealth. Especially when those same Cosy, Comfy Middle-class have no contact in their lives with child poverty, homelessness, over-stretched mental health services, people suffering on lengthening hospital waiting lists…
This has been borne out with comments I’ve heard during my door-knocking and market-stalls campaigning for the Green Party. A few from the Cosy, Comfy Middle-class seemed eager to voice derogatory opinions about Metiria Turei, but when questioned what experiences they’ve had trying to survive on welfare, the response has been either to deflect to “get a job” or a complete lack of understanding.
Orwell knew precisely what he was telling us when he insisted that “Ignorance is Strength”.;
.
.
Being willfully ignorant means not doubting; not questioning; and enjoying support from fellow Cosy, Comfy Middle-class to maintain the illusion.
That is the problem with the property-owning Cosy, Comfy Middle-class. Until a “market correction” strips away their over-inflated valuations, they are happy to live the mirage of “wealth”.
Which leads to why we will likely see a fourth National term after Saturday.
First, some recent history. Radio NZ’s 2014 Poll of Polls; predicted the following outcome for the 20 September 2014 election;
National: 46.4%
Labour: 25.7%
Greens: 12.5%
[Combined Labour/Green: 38.2%]
NZ First: 7.6%
The 2014 General Election final results were as follows;
National: 47.04%
Labour: 25.13%
Greens: 10.70%
[Combined Labour/Green: 35.83%]
NZ First: 8.66%
The Radio NZ poll-of-polls was fairly close, with only the Greens suffering a major drop in actual votes.
Post 2014 election, National’s votes translated to 60 seats and was able to gain Supply & Confidence from “rats and mice” minor parties; ACT, Maori Party, and Peter Dunne.
The most recent Radio NZ Poll of Polls has the following results;
National: 45.1% (up from 41.9%)
Labour: 37.2% (down from 41.6%)
Greens: 7.2% (up from 5.5%)
[Combined Labour/Green: 44.4%]
NZ First: 6.6% (no real change from 6.8%)
This time the National and red/green bloc are almost identical.
The smaller parties will be unable to be the deciding factor. That role will go to NZ First, with the following permutations;
National (45.1%) + NZ First (6.6%) = National-NZF (51.7%)
Labour (37.2%) + Greens (7.2%) + NZ First (6.6%) = Labour-Greens-NZF (51%)
In May this year, Peters confirmed his belief that “constitutional convention” required his party to approach the largest party, post-election, for coalition talks;
Corin Dann: Let’s go back to 2005, in Rotorua, where you gave a pretty famous speech about your– You were being harried by media – probably like myself, because I was there – about who you were going to go with in 2005. And you stood up and said, ‘According to constitutional convention, the party which gains the most seats is the party which must first try and form a government. We will support this constitutional convention in the first instance.’ Can you give New Zealanders an assurance that that’s your position today and come September 24th?
Winston Peters: All it means is what I said. ‘In the first instance’, that’s what you’d expect to happen, not just in this country but in every country. However, it’s only the first instance. It’s not a binding rule that says ‘In this first instance, this is clearly going to fail, therefore we should look elsewhere. That’s all it means.
That would be National.
In July this year, Peters’ issued one of his many “bottom lines”; a binding referendum on abolishing the Maori seats;
“My strategy is to tell everybody out there that you won’t be talking to NZ First unless you want a referendum on both those issues at the mid-term mark of this election.”
Both Labour and the Greens have resolutely ruled out any such referendum. Only one other major party has ever had a policy of doing away with those seats.
That would be National.
It is common knowledge that there is considerable animosity between the Green Party and NZ First. Peters is unlikely to sit in a three way coalition involving the Greens (or a four-way, involving the Maori Party). His preference would most likely be as one of two in a dual-party coalition.
That would be National.
Will Winston Peters join in formal coalition with National? If so, he would be repeating a mistake he made twentyone years ago;
.
.
For which he had to eventually apologise;
.
.
To coalesce or not to coalesce, that is the question…
Of course, Peters could simply offer Supply & Confidence to “the largest party”.
That would be National.
But what would be in it for him and NZ First? What gains could he achieve if he’s not “at the table”?
In deciding whether to join in Coalition or simply offer Supply & Confidence to a fourth term National government, Peters would do well to remember that with the Nats at 45.1%, 54.9% of voters want change. That’s a clear majority.
So the question Peters should be asking is , “which party is leading the 54.9% wanting change?”
That would be Labour.
Choose wisely, Mr Peters. Choose wisely.
.
.
.
References
Mediaworks: Patrick Gower – National playing ‘post-truth politics’
Radio NZ: Poll of Polls – 19 September 2014
Electoral Commission: New Zealand 2014 General Election Official Results
Radio NZ: Poll of Polls – 21 September 2017
Scoop media: Q+A – Winston Peters interviewed by Corin Dann
Fairfax media: Winston Peters delivers bottom-line binding referendum on abolishing Maori seats
Radio NZ: Labour rules out Māori seat referendum
NZ City: Greens promise to protect Maori seats
NZ Herald: National to dump Maori seats in 2014
Additional
NZ Herald: Homeless people sleep under National billboard outside the Auckland City Mission
Wikipedia: New Zealand 2014 general election
Mediaworks: Patrick Gower – National guilty of biggest campaign lie
Mediaworks: Patrick Gower – National playing ‘post-truth politics’
Previous related blogposts
Election ’17 Countdown: The Promise of Nirvana to come
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (tahi)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rua)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (toru)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (wha)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rima)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (ono)
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 22 September 2017.
.
.
= fs =
The Mendacities of Mr English – The covert agenda of high immigration
.
.
Context
Bill English was recently caught on-the-spot when challenged why National was permitting high immigration at a time when unemployment was still high, and rising.
Make no mistake, National has opened the floodgates of immigration because it is an easy way to artificially stimulate the economy. This was pointed out in May 2011, by then-Immigration Minister, Jonathan Coleman, who trumpeted the contribution made by immigration to economic growth;
“All of us have a vested interest in immigration and I’m pleased to share with you some specific actions the Government is taking to enhance Immigration’s contribution to the economy, service improvement and changes to business migration.
[…]
…I’m confident that you will acknowledge the partnership approach that Immigration is now taking to provide tangible improvements to help support New Zealand’s economic growth.
[…]
Considering the economic challenges the country faces, lifting immigration’s economic contribution takes on more importance.”
Justifying the need for high immigration to generate economic growth, Coleman cited “New Zealand [going] into deficit in 2009 after several years of surpluses and the economic situation has been compounded by the September and February earthquakes” and unsustainably “borrowing $300 million dollars a week to keep public services ticking over“.
Coleman admitted that “If we were to close off immigration entirely by 2021… GDP would drop by 11.3 per cent“. He revealed that, “new migrants add an estimated $1.9 billion to the New Zealand economy every year“.
Easy money.
The downside to high immigration has been to put strain on critical services such as roading and housing, and reduce demand for locally trained workers to fill vacancies. There is a downward pressure on wages, as cheaper immigrant-labour is brought into the workforce.
As Treasury pointed out in June last year;
“There is a concern that recently there has been a relative decline in the skill level of our labour migration. The increasing flows of younger and lower-skilled migrants may be contributing to a lack of employment opportunities for local workers with whom they compete.”
Faced with increasingly negative indicators from high immigration, English was forced to explain why we were seeing high immigration at a time of rising unemployment;
.
.
English’s response was predictable if not offensive.
.
Playing National’s Blame Game
As per usual strategy, English defaulted to National’s strategy of Default Blame-gaming. When in trouble;
- Blame the previous Labour government
- Blame ‘welfare abuse’/Release a ‘welfare abuse’ story in the media
- Blame Global Financial Crisis or similar overseas event
(If the trouble is Auckland-centered, Default #4: Blame Auckland Council/RMA/both.)
This has been the pattern of National’s policy to shift blame elsewhere for it’s consistently ineffectual policies;
.
.
The Blame Gaming was applied recently to National’s appalling do-nothing record on housing;
.
.
Resorting to Deflection #2, English had the cheek to blame young unemployed for our high immigration level;
“One of the hurdles these days is just passing the drug test … Under workplace safety, you can’t have people on your premises under the influence of drugs and a lot of our younger people can’t pass that test.
People telling me they open for applications, they get people turning up and it’s hard to get someone to be able to pass the test – it’s just one example.
So look if you get around the stories, you’ll hear lots of stories – some good, some not so good – about Kiwis’ willingness and ability to do the jobs that are available.”
His comments on 27 February were echoing previous, similar sentiments in April last year, when he again abused unemployed workers as “hopeless”;
.
.
Quite rightly, English’s comments were condemned by many. English admitted that his comments were based solely on “anecdotal evidence” . This is the worst form of evidence possible as absolutely no confirmation by way of actual, real data is involved. “Anecdotal evidence” panders to prejudice – a difficult thing to shift even when real evidence proves to the contrary.
Real evidence surfaced only a day after English made his slurs against the unemployed, when it was revealed that out of over 90,000 (approx) welfare beneficiaries, only 466 failed pre-employment drug tests over a three year period. That equates to roughly to 155 failed tests out of 30,000 per year.
Government figures show beneficiaries have failed only 466 pre-employment drug tests in the past three years.
[…]
The Ministry of Social Development said the 466 included those who failed and those who refused to take the test.
Some failed more than once.
The ministry did not have the total figure for how many tests were done over the three years, but said there were 32,000 pre-employment drug tests in 2015.
Those 466 over a three year period consisted of (a) those who failed the test, (b) those who refused to take the test, and (c) some failing more than once.
Put another way, 155 failed tests out of 30,000 per year equates to half a percent fail rate.
Which means that 99.5% of beneficiaries are clean, according to MSD’s own collected data.
There was further confirmation of low fail rates from another media story. On the same day as the Ministry of Social Development released it’s data on failed drug tests, The Drug Detection Agency revealed that fail-rates were as low as 5%;
While the rate of positive tests has remained at about 5 percent, the company is doing more tests and therefore failing more people, said its chief executive, Kirk Hardy.
“We’ve seen an increase overall in our drug testing and we now, annually, conduct about 144,000 drug tests,” he said.
Looked at another way, 95% of the workforce was clean.
Which simply confirms Bill English to be the typical manipulating, lying, politician that the public so consistently distrust and despise.
However, English has his own sound reasoning for blaming welfare beneficiaries for this country’s immigration-caused problems. He has to do it to obscure the two reasons why National has opened the tap on immigration as far as they can possibly get away with…
.
Cargo-cult Economics
Remember that in May 2011, then-Immigration Minister, Jonathan Coleman revealed;
“If we were to close off immigration entirely by 2021… GDP would drop by 11.3 per cent“.
A 11.3% fall in GDP would have pushed New Zealand into a deep recession, matching that of the early 1990s.
This was especially the case as only a few years ago the economy was suffering with an over-valued New Zealand dollar. Manufacturing and exports had slumped;
.
.
Combined with the multi-billion dollar Christchurch re-build, mass-immigration was National’s “quick-fix” solution to boosting the economy. It might cause problems further down the track, but those were matters that National could address later. Or better still, leave for an incoming Labour-Green government to clean up the resulting socio-economic mess.
This is quasi-cargo-cult economics, 21st century style.
.
The Not-so-Free-Market
In Coleman’s May 2011 speech, he also referred – indirectly – to the second rationale for opening the floodgates of mass-immigration;
“If we were to close off immigration entirely by 2021… The available labour force would drop 10.9 per cent“
This was critical for National.
A crucial tenet of free market capitalism (aka neo-liberalism) is that the price of labour (wages and other remuneration) should be predicated on supply and demand;
The higher the wage rate, the lower the demand for labour. Hence, the demand for labour curve slopes downwards. As in all markets, a downward sloping demand curve can be explained by reference to the income and substitution effects.
At higher wages, firms look to substitute capital for labour, or cheaper labour for the relatively expensive labour. In addition, if firms carry on using the same quantity of labour, their labour costs will rise and their income (profits) will fall. For both reasons, demand for labour will fall as wages rise.
Note the part; “At higher wages, firms look to substitute capital for labour, or cheaper labour for the relatively expensive labour“.
Mass immigration may or may not supply cheaper labour per se, but more people chasing a finite number of jobs inevitably “stabilises” or even drives down wages, as migrants compete with local workers. As pointed out previously, this is precisely what Treasury warned off in June last year;
“There is a concern that recently there has been a relative decline in the skill level of our labour migration. The increasing flows of younger and lower-skilled migrants may be contributing to a lack of employment opportunities for local workers with whom they compete.”
National is wary of wages rising, thereby creating a new wage-price inflationary spiral, reminiscent of the 1970s and 1980s. English said as much on TVNZ’s Q+A in April 2011;
Guyon Espiner: “Can I talk about the real economy for people? They see the cost of living keep going up. They see wages really not- if not quite keeping pace with that, certainly not outstripping it much. I mean, you said at the weekend to the Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum that one of our advantages over Australia was that our wages were 30% cheaper. I mean, is that an advantage now?”
Bill English: “Well, it’s a way of competing, isn’t it? I mean, if we want to grow this economy, we need the capital – more capital per worker – and we’re competing for people as well.
[…]
Well, it is a good thing if we can attract the capital, and the fact is Australians- Australian companies should be looking at bringing activities to New Zealand because we are so much more competitive than most of the Australian economy.
[…]
Well, at the moment, if I go to Australia and talk to Australians, I want to put to them a positive case for investment in New Zealand, because while we are saving more, we’re not saving more fast enough to get the capital that we need to close the gap with Australia. So Australia already has 40 billion of investment in New Zealand. If we could attract more Australian companies, activities here, that would help us create the jobs and lift incomes.”
National is circumventing their own neo-liberal ideology by importing large numbers of workers, to drive down wages (or at least permit only modest growth).
In times of scarce labour, wages should grow. Demand. Supply.
This is the counter to recessionary-times, such as the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, when wages remain static, or fall, due to heightened job losses and rising unemployment. Supply. Demand.
But National is subverting the free market process by ‘flooding the labour market’ with immigrant labour. The price of labour cannot rise because National has interfered with the process of supply by widening the field of the labour market. The labour market is no longer contained with the sovereign borders of our state.
This reveals “free market economics” to be a fraud. It is permitted to work unfettered only when it benefits the One Percent, their business interests, and their ruling right-wing puppets.
The moment there is a whiff that the “free market” might benefit workers – the goal-posts are shifted. (Just ask Nick Smith about shifting goal-posts.)
The game is fixed. The dice are loaded. We cannot hope to beat the House at their game.
Time to change the game.
Inevitable Conclusion
Welfare beneficiaries. Drugs. Drug testing. It was never about any of those.
The real agenda is for National to create a false impression of economic growth and reign-in wage growth, through immigration. Anything which threatens to expose their covert agenda is to be countered. Especially before it becomes fixed in the public consciousness.
Welfare beneficiaries are very useful as National’s go-to scapegoats. Or herring of a certain hue…
.
.
Postscript: A case of REAL workplace drug abuse
Meanwhile, in what must constitute the worst case of workplace drug abuse, took place on 14 June 1984;
.
.
…Muldoon had made up his mind. In one of the biggest miscalculations in our political history he decided that he would go to the country. At 11.15pm a visibly intoxicated Muldoon made his announcement to waiting journalists.
.
.
.
References
NZ Herald: Beyond the fear factor – New Kiwis can be good for us all
Fairfax media: NZ unemployment jumps to 5.2 per cent, as job market brings more into workforce
Fairfax media: New Zealand’s economic growth driven almost exclusively by rising population
Beehive: Immigration New Zealand’s contribution to growing the economy
NZ Herald: Budget 2016 – Feeling the Pressure
NZ Herald: Treasury warns of risk to jobs from immigration
TV3 News: Bill English blames unemployment on drug tests
Radio NZ: Employers still struggling to hire NZers due to drug use – PM
Radio NZ: Farmers agree Kiwi farm labourers ‘hopeless’
Radio NZ: Tens of thousands drug-tested, hundreds fail
Radio NZ: Drug use not the whole worker shortage story – employer
NZ Herald: Willie Apiata our most trusted again
Radio NZ: Exporters tell inquiry of threat from high dollar
Wikipedia: Cargo cult economics
Economics Online: The demand for labour
TVNZ: Q+A – Guyon Espiner interviews Bill English – transcript
Radio NZ: Unemployment rises, wage growth subdued
Statistics NZ: When times are tough, wage growth slows
Fairfax media: Shock rise in unemployment to 7.3pc
TVNZ: Frontier Of Dreams – 1984 Snap Election
Additional
TV3 News: Government gets thumbs down on housing
Other Blogs
The Standard: English hammered on druggies smear
Previous related blogposts
Election ’17 Countdown: The Promise of Nirvana to come
When National is under attack – Deflect, deflect, deflect!
National under attack – defaults to Deflection #2
National under attack – defaults to Deflection #1
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 5 March 2017.
.
.
= fs =
Election ’17 Countdown: The Promise of Nirvana to come
.
(Or, “The Duplicities of Dr Smith: Dirty rivers, Dubious standards, and Double-talk” )
.
.
“…We should always measure a Government’s environmental rhetoric against its environmental record.” – John Key,
.
__________________________
Water Quality & Shifting Goal Posts
__________________________
On 23 February, Faux-Environment Minister, Dr Nick Smith, announced a seemingly “bold” plan to clean up New Zealand’s waterways by 2040;
.
.
The Government has announced a new target to have 90 per cent of New Zealand’s lakes and rivers reach swimmable water quality standards by 2040.
The target will be based on meeting the water quality standard at least 80 per cent of the time in line with European and United States definition, Environment Minister Nick Smith said.
Currently 72 per cent by length meet that definition and the target is to increase that to 90 per cent by 2040.
Faux-Environment Minister Smith tried to re-assure New Zealanders;
“This ambitious plan to improve the water quality in our lakes and rivers recognises that New Zealanders expect to be able to take a dip in their local river or lake without getting a nasty bug.
This 90 per cent goal by 2040 is challenging and is estimated to cost the Government, farmers and councils $2 billion over the next 23 years. It will make us a world leader in water quality standards for swimming, and that’s important for New Zealand’s growing tourism industry. It will return our rivers and lakes to a standard not seen in 50 years while recognising that our frequent major rainfalls mean a 100 per cent standard is not realistic.”
A day later, on Radio NZ’s ‘Morning Report’, however, his assertions were taken to task with a more critical style of interviewing by Susie Ferguson.
Smith claimed that new levels of e.coli contamination were set to international standards;
“The level, the 540 e.coli, is the level that is set by the World Health Organisation, it the level that is set both by the E.U. and by the U.S.”.
Ferguson challenged Smith’s assertions by pointing out that other international organisations and jurisdictions held lower e.coli level for permissible contamination levels. At one point she asked the Faux Minister for the Environment how rivers currently rated as “swimmable” will now be able to have twice the amount of faecal matter in it and still remain safe to swim in.
Smith’s reply was waffly, suggesting that Ferguson was attempting to mix “Medians” and “95 percentile” figures. He ducked Ferguson’s question.
Green Party water-spokesperson, Catherine Delahunty, pointed out that National had simply re-designated pollution levels by “shifting the goalposts“;
“The Prime Minister thinks he can pull a fast one on New Zealanders by just shifting the goalposts and calling what was ‘wadeable’ now ‘swimmable’.”
The Fairfax article in which Delahunty made the accusation did not disclose what “goalposts” she was referring to.
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, also referred to a shifting of “goalposts”;
“There have been some goalposts moved, or some ways of measuring things moved, and it’s very difficult to tell whether things are being tightened or loosened. That’s a big concern of mine.”
Radio NZ reported Dr Wright as being highly critical that the 90 percent target-catchment included waterways that no-one would swim in, such as rivers in very remote/very cold regions of New Zealand;
“It’s where do people want to swim and at what time of the year … There’s sort of a dilution that’s gone on by putting the whole length of these rivers in, and the whole areas of these lakes.”
There was further evidence of “shifted goalposts” to come…
.
.
.
__________________________
Media Analysis & What was left out
__________________________
When Faux-Environment Minister Smith announced a grandoise “plan to improve the water quality in our lakes and rivers recognises that New Zealanders expect to be able to take a dip in their local river or lake without getting a nasty bug“, he omitted to mention a salient fact.
Radio NZ’s , reported on the morning of 24 February (the day after Faux-Environment Minister Smith made his much heralded announcement;
The government has weakened the threshold for what qualifies as the best quality waterway to swim in as part of its target to make 90 percent of New Zealand’s rivers swimmable by 2040.
Under the old system, for a waterway to be considered the best for swimmability the acceptable level of E coli was less than 260 per 100ml of water.
That equated to a low risk of infection, up to 1 percent, when a person was taking part in activities that were likely to involve full immersion.
Now, the government has changed the whole system so that for a waterway to be considered excellent it cannot exceed a new E coli level of 540 per 100ml [of water] more than five percent of the time, which equates to a less than five percent risk of infection.
To give waterways an “Excellent” rating, National has more than doubled the permissable level of e.coli bacteria in a given river or lake from 260 per 100ml of water to 540 per 100ml of water.
When pointedly asked by a journalist that “the Ministry of Health recommendation is 260 E.coli – how does that relates to the 540 level?“, Smith tried the “baffle-them-with-bullshit-science” response;
“We are saying at 540 E.coli the risk is one in 20 (of getting sick). But that one in 20 is at the 95 per cent confidence level. So there is an extra level of cautiousness. Even if you put 20 people in water and it has a 540 E.coli level it’s not saying on average one person gets sick out of 20. It’s saying one in 20 of 20 groups will have one in 20 get sick.”
Smith’s “ one in 20” explanation was so confusing, he ludicrously managed to contradict himself on Radio NZ;
Under the old system, for a waterway to be considered the best for swimmability, the acceptable level of E coli was less than 260 per 100ml of water.
That equated to a low risk of infection, up to 1 percent (one in 100), when a person took part in activities likely to involve full immersion.
Under the new system, for a waterway to be considered excellent it could not exceed an E coli level of 540 per 100ml more than 5 percent of the time.
That equated to a less than a 5 percent (one in 20) risk of infection.
When it was put to him that the new swimmable standard allowed for one in 20 people to become sick, Mr Smith said, “That is junk science”.
Even Smith can’t keep up with his own bullshit.
Unfortunately, not all media reports (initially) referred to National shifting the e.coli goalposts from 260 per 100ml of water to 540 per 100ml of water; such as Fairfax’s “New Government target to see 90 per cent of rivers and lakes ‘swimmable’ by 2040“; Radio NZ’s “Govt plans to make 90% of NZ waterways swimmable by 2040“; TVNZ’s “Govt wants to make 90% of lakes and rivers clean enough to swim in by 2040“; and NBR’s “Government bows to pressure, adopts ‘swimmable’ target for lakes and rivers“.
The public reading those stories would not have realised that National was effectively doubling the permissable level of e.coli contamination in our waterways.
However, TV3 News (“Govt aims to get 90pct of rivers swimmable by 2040“) and NZ Herald (“Government sets 2040 ‘swimmable’ rivers target“), got it right on the first day (23 February).
To be fair, National’s media release on 23 February – “90% of rivers and lakes swimmable by 2040” – was also missing the crucial detail of e.coli levels being increased.
It was a detail which the Faux-Environment Minister did not want publicised, when he fronted up to the media on the 23rd.
Interestingly, commentors on Stuff.co.nz and NBR seemed very aware on 23 February that Smith was trying to pull a ‘fast one’ over the public’s and media’s eyes;
.
.
.
(Note “Two days ago” correlated to 23 February.)
.
.
.
______________________________
Past Targets & Election Year Gimmickery
______________________________
The 2040 “target” for supposedly cleaning up our rivers and lakes was not National’s first attempt at setting long-term goals.
National ministers have been setting target-goals for themselves as a kind of “feel good” story for the public. Usually these targets are released to the media in an election year. And usually the target dates are set years, if not decades, into the distant future.
Who can forget these targets;
In 2011 (election year!), National announced that New Zealand would be smokefree by 2025;
The Government has set a long-term goal of reducing smoking prevalence and tobacco availability to minimal levels, thereby making New Zealand essentially a smokefree nation by 2025.
In 2014 (election year!) and announced by Minister for Stomping on Crushed Cars, Anne Tolley, National set this ambitious target for themselves;
Reducing crime
Our aim
-
By June 2017, reduce the crime rate by 15%, reduce the violent crime rate by 20%, and reduce the youth crime rate by 25%.
-
By June 2017, reduce the re-offending rate by 25%.
Another target-goal, set in 2014 (election year!), and announced by Social Welfare minister, Paula Bennett;
…has set a new target of getting benefit numbers from 295,000 to 220,000 by 2017 – a 25 per cent drop. She is also looking for a 40 per cent drop in youth on benefits – getting 21,000 more young people off the benefit.
And this one, released in June last year (strangely, not an election year);
New Zealand to be Predator Free by 2050
Prime Minister John Key has today announced the Government has adopted the goal of New Zealand becoming Predator Free by 2050.
[…]
“That’s why we have adopted this goal. Our ambition is that by 2050 every single part of New Zealand will be completely free of rats, stoats and possums.”
The budget for this herculean feat to eliminate “rats, stoats and possums” from “every single part of New Zealand” was set at an ‘extra’ $28 million (above $60 – $80 million already budgetted for pest control) – an amount which was derided for it’s utter inadequacy.
So how are we doing with these laudible, “feel good” target?
Not too well.
In 2015, a Fairfax story revealed that National’s ambitious goal to eliminate smoking from New Zealand was lagging far behind;
However as the deadline looms for Smokefree 2025 – a commitment by the Government to help reduce smoking to minimal levels in New Zealand in 10 years – anti-smoking organisations are calling for it to take bolder steps to preserve New Zealand’s position as a world-leader in the fight against tobacco.
[…]
Even the Ministry of Health admits it’s off track…
[…]
In New Zealand, tobacco manufacturers’ returns supplied to the Ministry show consumption has declined 6 per cent per year since 2010, or 23 per cent since 2010.
[…]
“At this rate, New Zealand will not meet the target of Smokefree 2025,” [Emeritus Professor at the University of Auckland Robert] Beaglehole said. “But it is achievable, and we know what to do to get back on track.”
Perhaps the worst target-goal that has failed was National’s (dubious) committment to cut large numbers from welfare benefits, as conceded by Anne Tolley in July 2016;
Anne Tolley has effectively conceded that National is unlikely to meet its objective of moving 65,000 people off the benefit within the next two years.
In excusing her government’s failure to meet one of their own self-imposed target-goals, Tolley gave this illuminating explanation;
“It’s a very aspirational target.”
Within those five simple words, Tolley has revealed the the eventual outcome and excuse whenever one of National’s target-goals fails: they are only “aspirational”.
This is critical, because like the “Predator Free New Zealand by 2050” or “90 per cent of rivers and lakes ‘swimmable’ by 2040”, the target dates for these goals to be accomplished are so far into the future that (a) no one will recall these committments being made (b) most National ministers who made them will be long-retired, residing in rest-homes and having drool wiped from their slack-jawed faces by under-paid caregivers or (c) dead.
In short, no one will ever be held to account for these failures of policy.
The great mistake made by National is that, at the beginning when they dreamed up these feel-good gimmicks, they set target-goal dates too close to the present. For example, when John Key and Bill English published a document entitled “Better Public Services” in February 2014, issuing a whole raft of target-goals, they set the date for accomplishment at 2017 (for most, though not all).
That left National minister in office only three years later having to explain their failure to achieve their target-goals.
In Tolley’s case, she could only offer the lame excuse that they were “aspirational” goals only.
As Susie Ferguson pointed out to Nick Smith on Radio NZ’s ‘Morning Report‘;
“The long time frame of this though means that you are going to be long gone whether we see that this has happened or not.”
The ultimate Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card for a politician.
In the meantime – stay out of the rivers and lakes. Nick Smith has been seen bull-shitting in them.
.
.
.
.
.
References
Scoop media: John Key – Speech to the Bluegreens Forum
Fairfax media: New Government target to see 90 per cent of rivers and lakes ‘swimmable’ by 2040
Radio NZ: Nick Smith defends new swimming standard for rivers and lakes
Radio NZ: ‘Very confusing’: Watchdog critical of water quality changes
New Zealand Yearbook: 1984
Radio NZ: Water quality measure ‘less stringent’
Fairfax media: The new ‘swimmable’ fresh water target: Nick Smith defends his plan
Radio NZ: Water quality criticism based on ‘junk science’ – Nick Smith
NBR: Government bows to pressure, adopts ‘swimmable’ target for lakes and rivers
New Zealand Yearbook: 2008
Ministry of Health: Smokefree 2025
Beehive: Better Public Services
NZ Herald: National pledge to cut benefit numbers by 25 per cent
Beehive: New Zealand to be Predator Free by 2050
Fairfax media: Smokefree 2025, predator-free 2050 criticised for a lack of follow through
Beehive: New Zealand to be Predator Free by 2050
NZ Herald: Anne Tolley – Government’s benefits target ‘very aspirational’
Scoop media: On The Nation – Lisa Owen interviews Bill English, Anne Tolley and Hekia Parata
Statistics NZ: Agricultural Production Statistics: June 2015
Additional
Fairfax: Cattle belonging to Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias’ repeat offenders
Scoop media: Swimmable rivers – Greenpeace says look below the surface
Scoop media: Big Backdown by Smith on Swimmable Rivers
Other Blogs
Green blog: Nick Smith thinks New Zealanders are stupid
Greenpeace: Don’t get freaked by the eco
My Thinks: Come swim with me
No Right Turn: A literal bullshit standard
The Civilian: What’s all the fuss about these rivers? I drank some water once and it wasn’t any bloody good
The Civilian: Government vows that by 2040, 90% of New Zealand’s rivers will be ‘vaguely liquid in nature’
The Daily Blog: National’s ‘swimmable’ rivers policy is another ‘alternative facts’ moment and why we can’t allow it
The Daily Blog: David Parker – Flammable rivers – Smith’s swimmable river con ignites outrage
The Standard: Just allow more shit – a metaphor for this government
Previous related blogposts
TDB Investigation into what is happening in our water
Election ’17 Countdown: The Strategy of Ohariu
Election ’17 Countdown: Joyce – let the lolly scramble begin!
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 February 2017.
.
.
= fs =
National exploits fudged Statistics NZ unemployment figures
.
.
On 3 July, this blogger reported how Statistics NZ had radically changed 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.”
Statistics NZ explained the ramifications of the “revised” definition of unemployment ;
-
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
A person job-searching using the internet was “not actively seeking work“. Predictably, at the stroke of a pen, unemployment “fell” over-night from 5.7% to 5.2%.
It was “manna from heaven” for the incumbent government which has been besieged on several fronts for worsening social and economic indicators.
Despite being little more than a dressed-up “accounting trick”, politicians could claim with a straight-face that “unemployment was falling”.
Which did not take long.
Statistics NZ announced it’s changes on 29 June 2016.
Four days later, our esteemed Dear Leader, John Key, gloated on TVNZ’s Q+A to Corin Dann;
“The unemployment rate in New Zealand is now falling pretty dramatically.”
Of course unemployment was falling “pretty dramatically”. Government statisticians were ‘cooking’ the numbers.
By August, both Key and Bill English were joyfully quoting the “new unemployment stats”.
On 8 August, Key was quoted on Interest.co.nz;
“On the other side, we need these people in an environment where unemployment is 5.2% and where growth is still very, very strong. You’ve just got to be careful when you play around with these things that you don’t hamstring certain industries that need these workers.”
So not only was Key quoting the”new, revised” unemployment stats – but his government was now actively predicating their immigration policy on the bogus data.
Three days later, in Parliament, English also gleefully congratulated himself on the “fall” in unemployment;
“The Reserve Bank is forecasting an increase of about 1 percent more growth in the economy over the next 3 years, compared with what it thought 3 months ago. It is forecasting that unemployment is going to continue falling from 5.2 percent this year to 4.5 percent by 2019 and that job numbers will increase by more than 2 percent on average over the next 2 years. A significant component of that, of course, will be the construction boom, where thousands of houses will be built over the next 2 or 3 years. These forecasts are in line with Treasury’s forecast for the labour market and show an economy that is delivering more jobs, lower unemployment, and real increases in incomes when in many developed countries that is not happening.”
Whilst it is expected for politicians to mis-use questionable data for their own self-aggrandisement (and re-election chances), worse was to come.
On 10 August, Radio NZ‘s
“The unemployment rate stood at 5.2 percent for the three months ended in March.”
Bonnett did not
It is unfortunate that some journalists seem unaware of the new ‘regime’ which portrays unemployment lower than it actually is. The fact that Statistics NZ has ‘fudged’ their data which now skews unemployment should be common knowledge throughout the mainstream media.
Especially when government ministers are now “patting themselves on the back” for a “fall” in unemployment that never happened.
The new unemployment figures are not factual. They are a fiction.
Journalists need to know the difference.
.
.
.
Addendum1 – a letter to the public
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Listener <letters@listener.co.nz>
date: Sun, Aug 14, 2016
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor
The Listener.
On 29 June, Statistics NZ announced that it would be “revising” the definition of unemployment. It stated that “looking at job advertisements on the internet is … not actively seeking work”.
The consequence, as Statistics NZ pointed out, would be a “decrease in the number of people unemployed and the unemployment rate”. Accordingly, SNZ revised down the March Quarter unemployment rate from 5.7% to 5.2%.
It did not take long for politicians to realise and exploit the benefits of this revision. On August 8, our esteemed Prime Minister cited the “fall” in unemployment;
“On the other side, we need these people in an environment where unemployment is 5.2% and where growth is still very, very strong…”
Three days later, Bill English also referenced the new figure;
“The Reserve Bank… is forecasting that unemployment is going to continue falling from 5.2 percent this year to 4.5 percent by 2019…”
Even Radio NZ’s Gill Bonnett quoted the “revised” figure in a story on 10 August;
“The unemployment rate stood at 5.2 percent for the three months ended in March.”
The irony is that whilst Statistics NZ plays with phantom numbers to suit itself, the unemployed do not find their circumstances improved one iota.
Changing the numbers does not change people’s real lives.
.
-Frank Macskasy[address & phone number supplied]
.
Addendum2 – Statistics NZ’s other Dodgy Definitions
According to Statistics NZ, you are deemed to be employed if you;
- worked for one hour or more for pay or profit in the context of an employee/employer relationship or self-employment
- worked without pay for one hour or more in work which contributed directly to the operation of a farm, business, or professional practice owned or operated by a relative
How many people are deemed to be “employed” by Statistics NZ, even though they may be working one hour per week, with or without pay?
Statistics NZ’s employment/unemployment figures are utterly unreliable.
At best, they show the minimum number of unemployed in this country and most likely do not reflect reality.
Addendum3
As this blogger reported back on 12 February 2014;
A Roy Morgan poll has un-employment in New Zealand steady at 8.5%, with a further 11.3% under-employed. Collectively, 19.8% of the workforce (519,000, up 69,000) were either unemployed or under-employed. For the December Quarter 2013, according to Roy Morgan:
.
.
By contrast, the last Household Labour Force Survey (September 2013 quarter) reported 6.2% unemployed, and the 2013 Census survey gave a figure of 7.1%.
Roy Morgan’s polling to determine New Zealand’s unemployment rate yielded a figure 2.3 percentage-points higher than Statistics NZ’s Household Labour Force Survey.
Roy Morgan’s polling for the previous December Quarter for 2012 yielded a similar story. Polling revealed a staggering 9.4% unemployed, with a further 11.6% under-employed. By contrast, Statistics NZ’s figures for the December 2012 Quarter was 6.9% – 2.5 percentage points lower than Roy Morgan’s.
Curiously, Statistics NZ reports – but does not appear to analyse or question – their own conflicting data;
- The number of people employed decreased by 23,000 (down 1.0 percent).
- The labour force participation rate fell 1.2 percentage points, to 67.2 percent.
- The number of people in the labour force decreased by 33,000.
So despite the unemployment rate for the December 2012 Quarter apparently falling “0.4 percentage points, to 6.9 percent” – the actual number of people in work did not increase – it also fell.
There appears to be a solid disconnect between Statistics NZ’s own figures.
Considering the dodgy definitions being used by Statistics NZ, Roy Morgan may prove to be closer to reality than we realise.
Clearly our real unemployment rate is being masked by unrealistic definitions.
.
.
.
References
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey – Revisions to labour market estimates
TVNZ: Q+A – Interview with John Key
Interest.co.nz: Key deflects calls for migration review; says migration needed with 5.2% unemployment
Scoop media: Parliament – Questions & Answers – 11 August 2016
Radio NZ: NZ visa numbers reach ‘staggering’ record high
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey
Statistics NZ: 2013 Census QuickStats about national highlights
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey – December 2012 quarter
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey – September 2013 quarter
Previous related blogposts
Roy Morgan Poll: Unemployment and Under-employment up in New Zealand!
Lies, Damned lies and Statistical Lies
Lies, Damned lies and Statistical Lies – ** UPDATE **
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 15 August 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Lies, Damned lies and Statistical Lies
.
.
In the last few years, my writing has involved a wide range of topics affecting the social/economic/political aspects of our nation. The one common factor in my writing has been the ability to research facts and figures and put them into some usable context, either for evidential, or high-lighting purposes.
Offering an opinion that the government is hollowing-out Child,Youth, and Family is one thing. Carrying out research; finding information through the ‘net; asking specific questions using the Official Information Act are the means by which hard facts can be mined; refined; and presented to the reader in a form that presents a credible case to the audience. Stories such as “State house sell-off in Tauranga unravelling?” and “Ongoing jobless tally” are put together using information, quotes, financial and statistical data.
Two stories late last year illustrated how National – with silence or active co-operation by compliant state-sector bosses – has been able to manipulate statistics to present a favourable public perception of it’s management of the country.
.
.
Though occassionally, the truth slips out, as Greg O’Connor revealed on TVNZ’s Q+A on 25 October, last year;
.
.
Fudging statistics, numbers, facts, and dollar-figures is not isolated when it comes to this government. Only a few days ago, English was sprung giving false financial information relating to Sue Moroney’s paid-parental leave bill;
.
.
The Radio NZ report went on to state;
Ms Moroney challenged him about the figures in Parliament.
“Does he stand by his statement to Radio New Zealand on 17 June 2016 that extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks would add when it’s fully in place about $280 million a year.”
Mr English admitted he was incorrect and should have used the figures written in the veto certificate he himself had tabled.
“The government currently spends about $280m a year on paid parental leave, Labour’s proposal once fully implemented would cost around $120m per year on top of that – or $100m per year net of tax. Net of tax the proposal would cost $280m over the next four years.”
Ms Moroney then asked how Mr English got it so wrong.
He replied that he did so because he confused the $280m over four years, with $280m a year.
This is our Finance Minister confusing $280 million per year with over a four-year period. No wonder we’re over $60 billion in debt.
National has been crowing for the last few years that “crime has been falling“;
.
.
Even the Police Commissioner got in on the ‘act’;
.
.
“A huge amount of hard work from our Police has gone into achieving these fantastic results,” said Tolley in 2013. “Fantastic” is right – as in fantasy-fantastic.
Because it did not take long before people started realising that the Police stats were dodgy, and most likely bogus.
This was confirmed by outgoing Police Association President, Greg O’Conner, on TVNZ’s Q+A, on 25 October, in a very candid interview with Michael Parkin.
On statistics, Parkin referred to National and Police trumpeting a 30% drop in crime. O’Conner responded wryly;
@3.10
“Well, it’s uh, lies, damned lies, and statistics. If you look at the crime stats, um, which is those recorded stats, you’ll say the government and police administration are right. If you look at the stats around calls for service, they’re the phone calls that police receive in communications centes, etc, and just an example, family violence, domestic disputes; up by 10% a year pretty much, and across the board, 20% increase. So it’s the calls for service, to the extent that the communications centres couldn’t manage last summer. There’s a fear, and we’re obviously we’re trying to make sure it doesn’t happen this year. So the two are going in completely different directions.”
Parkin pointedly asked if the statistics are being manipulated. O’Conner’s response was startling in it’s honesty;
@3.55
“Of course they are. Every government department – I mean, what happens is that, the stats themselves are fair, but I mean I see it as a debate [like] about health, y’know, medical – the waitings lists have going down, but people get kicked of waiting lists and so it’s, you achieve – Put it this way, with crime stats, what we’ve set out to do is the way to cut crime stats is to hit your bulk crime. So if you have any success there, of course, that’s going to be big numbers down. And what you ignore is your small numbers. You ignore, in fact, interestingly enough you ignore drugs. You ignore a lot of your serious stuff that you only find if you go looking. And in the past that’s got us into real trouble. Got us into trouble with the child abuse files, in particular, and you remember, that they were put aside. Because they weren’t politically known. They were business as usual. All of a sudden we were concentrating on the crime and crash reduction, um, and we ignored that stuff. And so you’ve got to be careful. And this is where the politicisation of policing is really dangerous. It’s not done by the Minister saying ‘you gotta do this and you gotta do that’, it’s done by funding.”
O’Conner’s scorn is confirmed by an event last year where one police district was caught out, red-handed, falsifying crime statistics. Seven hundred burglary offences “disappeared”;
.
.
Herald journalist, Eugene Bingham, reported;
“ It transpired others knew about the allegations around the same time, including the local MP and then-Minister of Justice, Judith Collins.”
.
.
A police report “raised questions over pressures to meet crime reduction targets”, but Police were quick to assure that the fudged stats were “isolated“;
.
.
“Isolated”? As far back as 2012, Police were issuing warnings for petty-crime, instead of prosecuting;
.
.
Then-Police Commissioner Peter Marshall said;
“ These are 19,000 people who would otherwise go to court, who would clutter up the system in terms of court time, let alone police officers preparing prosecution files and spending time in court.”
So the policy of issuing warnings “freed up police time” and “un-clogged the Court system”?
It also created a drop in crime statistics.
How convenient.
The above Herald story, “Warnings to petty crims ‘freeing up police time’ ” appeared in the Herald in January 2012. So by April 2013, Police Minister Anne Tolley was able to say with (almost) a straight face;
“ These statistics show that our Police are getting it right, and I want to congratulate the Commissioner and all Police staff for their efforts in preventing crime and making communities safer.”
It’s easy to reduce crime. Just “massage” the stats away.
“Massaging” statistics does not work for long, as current Police Commissioner Bush recently discovered;
.
.
(Listen also to Radio NZ Checkpoint interview (2′ 39″))
Both Police Minister Judith Collins and Commissioner Bush resorted to old-fashioned “spin” (aka “bullshitry”) to explain away this embarrassing development;
Police Commissioner Mike Bush told MPs at today’s Law and Order Select Committee the jump in crime had to be kept in perspective.
“Burglary rates are some of the lowest rates in over a decade, in recent times there has been an increase – now that concerns me,” the commissioner said.
Police Minister Judith Collins tried to put a positive spin on the jump in crime when speaking to reporters later.
“Well there may have been a slight bump in crime and I think the commissioner said that was most likely so, but I think what we’re seeing is if police go after drug offenders, that’s always going to be counting as offences,” she said.
On this basis, if Police did not arrest anyone; nor prosecuted anyone, there would be zero crime in New Zealand. According to statistics, anyway.
So much for one one National’s vaunted, lynch-pin policies;
.
.
National’s ministers have never liked statistics. They have a tendency to show up the failings of this inept government. Who can forget then-Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett in August 2012 giving an explanation (of sorts) why her government was not willing to undertake measuring the poverty line;
.
.
“ There is no official measure of poverty in New Zealand. The actual work to address poverty is perhaps what is most important. Children move in and out of poverty on a daily basis.”
Though how Bennett proposed to “address poverty” when she was fearful of even measuring it has never been fully explained.
But as we know, since Bennett’s decision, poverty has increased and stories of people living in garages, cars, and families crammed into over-crowded houses have come to light. Despite not being measured, poverty refuses to go away.
What an inconvenient, annoying nuisance.
On 29 June 2016, Statistics 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?
In fact, a government website – careersnz – states categorically;
.
.
Work and Income’s (WINZ) website states similarly;
.
.
On-line job advertising company, Seek, reported a sharp rise in job adverts on their websites.
For the government statistician to unilaterally declare that “looking at job advertisements on the internet is correctly classified as not actively seeking work” beggars belief. One might as well say that if a person admitted to hospital shows no outward signs of serious illness, then that person is obviously not sick.
When most jobs are advertised online – as stated by government agencies!!! – where else would one look for a job? By studying tea-leaves perhaps?
The result of Statistics NZ’s “improvements” by removing online job-hunting as job-seeking is obvious; the rate of unemployment dropped.
How surprising.
Stats NZ actually seemed pleased with the consequence;
Fewer people will be classified as actively seeking work, therefore the counts of people unemployed will be more accurate.
How can “the counts of people unemployed” be “more accurate” if large numbers of unemployed are culled from the count?!?! In what Universe is this an accurate count to include some unemployed, but not others, for the most specious reason?
This makes no sense in terms of accurate statistics. To any sober person, an unemployed jobseeker is one who is;
- Unemployment
- Job-seeking
There is no rationale for arbitrarily removing job seekers who use the internet to seek work. Especially as two government departments encourage on-line searching because “most jobs in NZ are advertised online“.
There can only be one rational explanation: the unemployment statistics are inconvenient. Therefore change the parameters of the statistics.
This change to Statistics NZ is of considerable benefit to the National government. Their policies have consistently failed to reduced unemployment in a meaningful way.
The perception is that “strings have been pulled”; “whispers made into certain ears”; and Ministers’ expectations made clear to certain senior civil servants.
If all this is true, this would have to be one of the most under-hand things that National has done these last eight years. This would have to be one of the worst.
Aside from the fact that it is another in a long list of lies, bendy-truths, omissions, etc, this one is a wilful attempt to hide the consequences of their failing policies.
It was bad enough when Stats NZ defined being “employed” as;
Employed: people in the working-age population who, during the reference week, did one of the following:
* worked for one hour or more for pay or profit in the context of an employee/employer relationship or self-employment
* worked without pay for one hour or more in work which contributed directly to the operation of a farm, business, or professional practice owned or operated by a relative
If working one hour, without pay, is the minimum measure of being “employed”, then what must our true rate of unemployment actually be?
As much as possible, I deal with facts in my writing. But when supposedly independent, non-partisan, ostensibly-accurate data-collection and presentation is no longer a true reflection of reality, then we have reached a point where I am dealing in assumptions, half-facts, and outright distortions.
This government has done what few other Western democracies have achieved; a state of Orwellianism that Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, and other dictatorships required unrelenting brute force to achieve.
When it comes to National, believe nothing; question everything. Misinformation is policy.
Welcome – to National’s “Brighter Future”.
.
.
.
Note: Some parts of this story are an excerpt from a previous blogpost, Weekend Revelations #3 – Greg O’Connor and criminal statistics.
.
.
.
References
TVNZ: Q+A – Police Association president steps down
Radio NZ: English admits maths error in bill veto defence
Beehive.govt.nz: Offences at 24-year low, crime down for third year running
NZ Herald: Crime rate falls to 29-year low
NZ Herald: Police made burglaries vanish
NZ Herald: Two-year search for ‘ghost crimes’ truth
NZ Herald: Police deny being caught out by false review claims
NZ Herald: Warnings to petty crims ‘freeing up police time’
Radio NZ: Police concerned at national crime spike
Radio NZ: Checkpoint – Police concerned at national crime spike (audio)
NZ Herald: Measuring poverty line not a priority – Bennett
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey – Revisions to labour market estimates
Careersnz: Job hunting tips
Work and Income: Where to look
Fairfax media: Wellington jobs advertised on Seek up 11 per cent over past year
Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey – Definitions
Other Blogposts
Polity: English canards
The Daily Blog: To make the unemployment stats drop, Government now claims anyone looking for jobs on the internet isn’t unemployed
The Standard: The great big list of John Key’s big fat lies (UPDATED)
The Standard: “Post-truth” politics (and false equivalences)
Previous related blogposts
John Key’s “pinch of salt” style of telling the truth
National – self-censoring embarrassing statements?
Weekend Revelations #3 – Greg O’Connor and criminal statistics
Media stories of the Week: Police Commissioner Mike Bush on dubious police practices
The Mendacities of Mr English – Fibbing from Finance Minister confirmed
The Mendacities of Mr Key # 16: The sale of Kiwibank eight years in the planning?
That was Then, This is Now #28 – John Key on transparency
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 3 July 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett revealed
.
.
TVNZ’s Q+A on Sunday 24 April featured an interview with Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett. Her responses were further evidence that National was increasingly unable (or unwilling) to cope with the growing threat of climate change.
Posing a series of surprisingly incisive questions and follow-ups, the ever-youthful-looking Jack Tame held Minister Bennett to account in a way that few other interviewers have done;
.
.
Up untill now, Jack Tame’s presence in the US focused mainly on the theatrics of the Hollywood entertainment industry or the equally-theatric Presidential primaries. They were for the most part light, breezy stories – even with the increasingly bizarre and somewhat menacing nature of the rise and rise of Lex Luthor Donald Trump, as the potential Republican candidate.
However, on this occassion, Tame’s Q+A interview was a masterful deconstruction of Minister Bennett’s waffle, revealing how woefully unprepared for Tame’s skillful probing she really was.
As the thirteen minute segment progressed, it rapidly became apparent that, aside from platitudes and rhetoric, Bennett had no real answers or any actual, meaningful commitment to addressing New Zealand’s increasing emissions of greenhouse-gas pollution of our atmosphere. It was as it she were still Social Welfare Minister, patiently explaining how National would be “helping” solo-mums with contraception, all the while sounding like an overly-concerned, benevolent, tough-loving nana.
In fact, not since 2 May 2015 – when Corrections Minister Sam Lotu-Iiga was interviewed and demolished by seasoned interviewer, Lisa Owen, on TV3’s The Nation – has a government minister had their ineptitude so publicly paraded for the entire country to witness (if they so decided to tune in on a Sunday morning, at 9am.
Unfortunately, we should not be surprised that National is luke-warm on the looming crisis of climate change. Despite making very clear promises, National has broken one of it’s prime committments to the Emissions Trading Scheme – to eventually include agriculture.
The time-line to this act of duplicity clearly illustrates National’s early promises and then reneging;
13 May 2007
In a speech by then Opposition-leader, John Key;
“In particular I’m going to speak about the biggest environmental challenge of our time: global climate change.
The National Party will ensure that New Zealand acts decisively to confront this challenge.
The scientific consensus is clear: human-induced climate change is real and it’s threatening the planet. There are some armchair sceptics out there, but I’m not one of them…
… National is committed to growing our economy. Confronting climate change will be a vital part of the policy mix for fuelling that growth…
… In the decades ahead, peoples’ perceptions around climate change will affect the brand image of New Zealand and its exports. New Zealand must take credible steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or risk becoming a trading pariah…
… National will have policies that reflect the fact that living on a diet of carbon will be increasingly bad – bad for the world and bad for our economy. We will have policy that encourages ‘climate friendly’ choices like windmills, hydro power and tree planting, and reduces the desire for ‘climate unfriendly’ behaviours, like burning coal…
… National will bring all Kiwis – industry, energy producers, farmers, mums and dads – closer to a shared and well-understood goal. We need to be united in our pursuit of a ’50 by 50′ target.“
8 April 2010
Prime Minister John Key rejects demands to amend the Emissions Trading Scheme before it takes effect on the energy and transport sectors in July despite calls from business groups, farmers, and ACT.
Key tells reporters at the launch of the Global Research Alliance’s inaugural meeting on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions,
“I’d say it’s unlikely it would be amended.”
6 June 2010
Climate Change Minister Nick Smith announces that whether or not agriculture comes into the emissions trading scheme in 2015 will depend on technological advances and what other countries do.
9 November 2011
Environment Minister Nick Smith announces,
“… It is not in New Zealand’s interests to include agricultural emissions in the ETS yet.“
2 July 2012
Then-Climate Change Minister, Tim Groser, announces four amendments to the Emissions Trading Scheme;
- Keeping the ‘one-for-two’ obligation in place until after this year. This means participants in the scheme will continue to surrender units for half the carbon they emit;
- Maintaining the $25 ‘fixed-price option’ until at least 2015, which caps the price firms will face if carbon prices begin to rise internationally;
- Introducing off-setting for pre-1990 forest land owners, and allocating the full second tranche of compensation where off-setting is not taken; and
- Leaving agricultural emissions out of the ETS until at least 2015.
20 August 2012
National introduces “Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2012”, which will remove agricultural emissions indefinitely, and will,
“remove a specified entry date for surrender obligations on biological emissions from agriculture”.
National’s repudiation of it’s 2007 committment to include agriculture was complete. Despite a clear promise by our esteemed Dear Leader, agriculture was permanently omitted from the ETS.
As I pointed out in October 2012;
During National’s four years in office, they have broken several promises and the weakening of the ETS is simply one more on the list. It also further highlights John Key’s ability to say one thing – whilst knowing full well that he has no intention of fulfilling committments, or will do completely the opposite.
An editorial in the Dominion Post, on 20 April, was no less scathing in it’s condemnation of National’s inertia;
The Government’s climate change policy has been a failure and will have to be rebuilt. There needs to be a fundamental change in the Emissions Trading Scheme, the subject this week of a damning report by the Gareth Morgan Foundation. But other changes are also needed.
[…]
Bennett concedes, however, that the ETS was “not perfect”, and is now being reviewed. In fact the ETS has been a fiasco. What’s more, it continues to cast its dirty shadow.
The Government has banned the purchase of foreign credits, but it could still use the bad credits to meet its climate change targets up to 2020.
It must not do so. Instead, it needs to revamp the whole scheme, starting by ending the subsidies it gives to polluters such as the oil industry. The “one for two” scheme introduced in 2009 allows businesses to pay only half the cost of their greenhouse gas emissions.
It also needs to reverse its decision to keep agriculture, which produces half the country’s emissions, out of the ETS. National argues that making farming pay for its pollution would be unfair because there is no workable way yet of reducing animal emissions and our export industry should not be penalised.
Farmers, however, are not exempt from the country’s global environmental duties, and will also respond to economic signals – even if this is a pledge to bring agriculture into the scheme within, say, five years
Jack Tame’s superb interview on 24 April merely confirms pathetic National’s track record on this issue and it now appears that Minister Bennett will simply follow in the footsteps of her do-nothing-predecessors, Ministers Smith, Groser, et al.
Bennett certainly has no intention of adopting any of the bold, radical – but much-needed – policies as advocated by Professor Jim Skea, co-chairperson of the IPCC Working Group III, and interviewed by Radio NZ’s Kathryn Ryan on 27 April;
.
.
Listen to the two interviews and judge for yourself which person is seriously committed to combating climate change – and which person is a politician who has plenty of empty platitudes to offer, but little else.
In her previous role as Social Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett had much to say about welfare-fraud.
Her empty words on addressing climate change is a fraud on a much grander, and ultimately vastly more destructive, scale.
.
.
.
Postscript1: Memo to TVNZ
Jame Tame’s interview with Minister Bennett reveals a young man with considerable journalistic skills. He should be given every opportunity to make full use of his under-utilised talents.
TVNZ (and TV3) should maximise the talents of their journalistic and production staff by shifting Q+A and The Nation to prime time viewing slots during the early evening.
Why hide excellence early on weekend mornings, where it is not easily appreciated and valued by the general public?
.
.
.
Postscript2: Memo to Paula Bennett
Ms Bennett, your performance on 24 April was a dismal failure. You are either unwilling to seriously confront the challenges of climate change or, apparently, you are in way over your head on this issue.
Either way, you should resign your Climate Change portfolio. This job is too important to be left to your glib inanities.
.
.
.
References
TVNZ: Q+A – Climate Change Paris Agreement signed
NZ Herald: NZ’s greenhouse gas emissions soar
Fairfax media: Beneficiary contraception plan ‘intrusive’
Scoop media: John Key Speech – Climate Change Target
NZ Herald: ETS changes ‘unlikely’ despite pleas
NBR: ETS may exclude agriculture – Climate Change Minister
Interest.co.nz: National would phase in ETS obligations for transport, electricity, industrial sectors; Will review Agriculture in 2014
Beehive.co.nz: Government announces ETS amendments
Parliament: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2012
Dominion Post: Editorial – Big changes are needed in the Government’s climate change plan
Radio NZ: How do we wean ourselves off fossil fuel ? (alt. link) (audio)
Previous related blogposts
Johnny’s Report Card – National Standards Assessment y/e 2012 – environment
John Key – more pledges, more broken promises?
As predicted: National abandons climate-change responsibilities
National ditches environmental policies
ETS – National continues to fart around
National – what else can possibly go wrong?!
National’s moving goalposts on climate change targets
“The Nation” reveals gobsmacking incompetence by Ministers English and Lotu-Iiga
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 April 2016.
.
.
= fs =
State houses – “wrong place, wrong size”?
.
.
Information released under the Official Information Act (OIA) suggests that National’s oft-repeated claim that around “one third” ( or 22,000) of state houses are in the “wrong place and wrong size” is not supported by Housing NZ’s own figures.
Various ministers, including our esteemed Dear Leader, have indicated that up to “a third” of state houses are “in the wrong place or wrong size (or ‘type’)“.
The “wrong size/wrong place” claim is the argument being used by National to advance a major sell-off of Housing NZ properties.
On 1 November, 2014, Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett said on TV3’s ‘The Nation’,
“It’s about being smart in what we’re doing. So you just look at us having the wrong houses, in the wrong place, of the wrong size..”
“Yes. As recently as just last month Housing New Zealand issued a press release that said: ‘around one third of our housing stock is in the wrong place, wrong configuration or is mismatched with future demand’.
[…]
… in fact, a third of them are the wrong size, in the wrong place, and in poor condition.”
On 28 January this year, John Key announced in his “state of the nation” speech;
“Around a third of Housing New Zealand properties are in the wrong place, or are the wrong type to meet existing and future demand.”
Housing NZ currently “manages 67,245 homes” (as at 30 June 2015). When Key, and other National ministers refer to “around a third of Housing NZ properties”, simple arithmetic translates that fraction into 22,190 homes being the “wrong size/wrong place” .
On 17 September I lodged OIA requests to Ministers Nick Smith, Paula Bennet, and Bill English. Only English was prepared to answer – and even that took 42 days (30 working days) to eventuate after a reminder was emailed to the Minister’s office.
In a response eventually received on 29 October, information in the form of a chart -“Stock reconciliation taking into account impaired properties as at 31 January 2013” – was attached;
.
.
In two columns headed “Right Place, wrong home” and “Wrong Place“, the respective figures add up to 13,560. This constitutes a little over half of the “22,000” that is being bandied about by National.
I specifically asked Bill English; “How many [state houses] are the “wrong size“ and in what manner are they the “wrong size“? “Do they have too many rooms; too few rooms?”
English replied;
“In general terms, Housing New Zealand has a shortage of smaller two bedroom homes and
larger family homes and a surplus of three bedroom homes, with the exception of Auckland
where there is a demand for homes of all sizes. The type or configuration of particular
properties may also affect demand making them difficult to let.”
English totally ignored the direct question “How many [state houses] are the “wrong size“. He either does not know, or is unwilling to admit the number. “In General terms” is not a specific quantity.
Furthermore, English says that “Housing New Zealand has a shortage of smaller two bedroom homes and larger family homes and a surplus of three bedroom homes, with the exception of Auckland where there is a demand for homes of all sizes.”
Unsurprisingly, the 2014/15 Housing NZ Annual Report confirms the high demand for housing in Auckland;
“Across the country we also have too many three-
bedroom properties, while demand has grown for smaller
one- or two-bedroom homes or for much bigger homes.
Demand for homes in the Auckland region is high and
more Housing New Zealand homes are needed.” (p22)
Yet, the chart referred above (“Stock reconciliation taking into account impaired properties as at 31 January 2013“) states that there are 8,180 houses in the Auckland region that are supposedly “Right Place, wrong home” and a further 420 that are in the “Wrong Place” – 8,600 in total.
This would appear to contradict the Minister’s assertion that “there is a demand for homes of all sizes” throughout Auckland. Both cannot be right.
This contradiction is further compounded by the fact that, as of 30 June, there were 2,267 people on the waiting list in the Auckland City area;
.
.
Even where houses have been the wrong size, Housing NZ has been undertaking a programme to add extensions, or entire new, smaller dwellings on larger sections;
“Overcrowding is an issue that affects many of our
tenants’ health and wellbeing, especially in Auckland,
where there is high demand for larger homes. Our
bedroom extensions programme is helping to meet
demand from the social housing register in Auckland
by converting three-bedroom homes into four- and
five-bedroom homes. Adding an extra one or two
bedrooms (and another bathroom where necessary)
means more of our tenants are living in appropriately
sized and healthier homes. During 2014/15 we
completed bedroom extensions to 247 homes.Our existing land in Auckland will also house more small
families, couples and single people in need. We are
building new two-bedroom homes on Auckland sections
that are big enough to have another dwelling. During
2014/15 we built an additional 107 two-bedroom units
on existing Housing New Zealand sections, which also
included making improvements to the existing homes
where these were required.“(p23)
If we substract the 8,600 homes in the Auckland region, from Housing NZ’s original estimate of 13,560 (see above chart), this leaves 4,960 houses “wrong place/wrong size”.
Nearly five thousand homes supposedly in the “wrong place/wrong size” category in Auckland – and there are still 2,267 people on Housing NZ’s waiting list in Auckland City. How is that feasible?
I further enquired from English; “Could you please explain what the term “wrong size, in the wrong place” actually refers to? Where are they situated that are considered the “wrong place“?”
English replied;
“In 2011 Housing NZ carried out an assessment of it’s future projected stock
requirements for the purpose of forward planning, based on its future use of intention of its
properties and informed by demand forecasting. This assessment was not intended to reflect
current demand at a point in time…[..]
The analysis identifies some properties as being the wrong home, not specifically the wrong
size.”
It is worthwhile noting English’s comment that “Housing NZ carried out an assessment of it’s future projected stock requirements for the purpose of forward planning, [but] this assessment was not intended to reflect current demand at a point in time”.
The apparent purpose? According to English’s 29 October statement to me;
“This relates to the number of bedrooms that a property has and also includes
properties that are wrongly configured to meet demand for social housing.“
“Social housing” is National’s code for private providers.
The 2011 Housing NZ assessment of it’s “future projected stock” appears to have been designed to meet the needs of “social housing”, aka private providers.
In respect to answering my question “Where are they situated that are considered the “wrong place”?”, English’s response was vague and lacked any informative value (as did many of his answers);
“A property being in the wrong place refers to the location of the property in relation
to demand. On a regional basis, there are areas of general low demand. However, some of
Housing New Zealand’s properties may be in locations with high concentrations of state
housing or existing social issues that may contribute to them being difficult to let or
result in a high turnover of tenants.”
There were no geographical locations; no cities or towns; no suburbs given. The statement in itself is meaningless twaddle with a vague reference to “some of Housing New Zealand’s properties may be in locations with high concentrations of state housing or existing social issues”.
Where these “wrong places” might be is anyone’s guess.
My follow-up question – “How many areas have been designated “wrong places”?” – was ignored entirely.
In an effort to drill down and assess where houses might be in the “wrong place”, I asked English; “where houses are in a particular “wrong place”, how many people are on HNZ waiting lists in those same “wrong places”?
The purpose of this question was straight-forward. Where demand for housing is high in a given region, it seems inconceivable that any properties in that same region would be in the “wrong place”. Auckland being a prime example.
I wanted to know how many other regions had high numbers on their waiting lists – whilst also having houses in the “wrong place”.
According to the above chart, the following regions designated as having houses in the “wrong places” have the following numbers of houses attached to them;
Auckland: 420
South Island: 740
Central North Island: 870
Lower North Island: 1,740
“Community Group Housing”: 100
Total: 3,870
Because of the (deliberate?) vagueness of English’s response, we have no way of knowing where, for example, the South Island’s supposed 740 houses are located in the “wrong place”.
It is difficult to understand why the Minister could not be more precise.
If the “wrong size/wrong place” issue is real, then National must have hard data, with supporting numbers, identifying where state houses are located in the “wrong place”. This information should be on-file; readily accessible; and easily released to interested parties. Then again, my OIA lodgement to Minister English took 30 working days (including one “request” for an extension) to complete.
Perhaps such data does not exist.
According to Housing NZ itself, every district within it’s authority has people on their waiting list;
.
.
There is no district recording zero-need.
I asked English; “What replacement houses are being built to replace those that are the “wrong size”, and how many rooms will they have? More? Less?” and “Where Housing NZ houses are in the “wrong place” – will new State houses be built in exactly the same place?”.
The Minister responded;
“Housing New Zealand’s Asset Management Strategy provides for the redevelopment of its
land holdings in order to align the typology, location and size of its portfolio with demand.
As a result, it is building more two, four and five bedroom properties. Where there is low
demand, Housing New Zealand will look to sell surplus properties and reinvest the proceeds
into providing homes in areas of high demand.“
As outlined above, Housing NZ has a current programme of adding bedrooms to existing three bedroomed houses, and, where the land is big enough, adding two bedroom houses onto an existing built-up section.
English’s reference to selling “surplus properties” is troubling, as we are still none-the-wiser where such properties exist. Especially when all Housing NZ districts have people on waiting lists.
As for English’s assertion that “Housing New Zealand will look to sell surplus properties and reinvest the proceeds into providing homes in areas of high demand” – Paula Bennett was not willing to give that assurance on 1 November last year, speaking on Q+A.
Which leads on to the last question I put to the Minister; “If HNZ houses that are in the “wrong place” are sold/given away to community organisations – what will make those houses suddenly become in the “right place”?”
Because if it’s in the “wrong place” when owned by Housing NZ – why would it suddenly be in the “right place” owned by someone else?
The Minister’s response was baffling;
“The Government has no plans to offer Housing New Zealand properties that have been
identified as being in the ‘wrong place’ to community housing providers. In Tauranga and
Invercargill for example, the areas identified for initial potential transfers of social
housing properties from Housing New Zealand to community housing providers, MSD’s purchasing
intentions anticipate stable demand. Following a transfer, any new provider would receive
both the properties and a contract with MSD to continue to provide social housing.”
That statement appears to be at complete variance with this undated Beehive document, headed “Social Housing Reform Programme – Media Qs and As“;
SOCIAL HOUSING REFORM PROGRAMME – Media Qs and As
“Around one third of the $18.7 billion Housing New Zealand portfolio is in
the wrong place or of the wrong type to meet this need.”[…]
“To help community housing providers grow, there will be sales of
Housing New Zealand properties and we will involve these providers
in the redevelopment of Crown land…”[…]
“Details will be determined after national engagement, including
with community housing providers and iwi,over coming months.
Providing we can achieve better services for tenants and fair
and reasonable value for taxpayers, we will look to sell
between 1,000 and 2,000 Housing New Zealand properties over
the next year.”[…]
“15. Will properties being sold be tenanted, and if so what
happens to the tenants?In most cases where houses transfer to a community housing
provider, the properties will have tenants. The new owners
will continue providing social housing with the income-
related rent subsidy.”[…]
“Look at selling between 1,000 and 2,000 Housing New Zealand
properties for continued use as social housing, run by approved
community housing providers. These providers might buy
properties on their own or go into partnership with other
organisations lending them money, contributing equity, or
providing other services.”
The document specifically refers to the sale of state housing, that are “the wrong place or of the wrong type“, to community service providers.
And in Parliament, on 24 March, Bill English himself made reference to the sale of “wrong place” Housing NZ properties to Community providers;
“In the first place, Housing New Zealand has an ongoing sales
policy, and often it is selling houses that we do not need or
that are in the wrong place, or some of them have just become
unsuitable to be lived in and cannot be upgraded at reasonable
cost. In respect of the transactions that are coming up over
the next 6 months or so, there is a process of testing what
the real values of those houses are. For instance, many
community providers believe those houses are not up to date
on maintenance, and therefore are overvalued when they are
valued as if they can be sold for the best price on the day
in the location that they are in. Those are exactly the things
we are having discussions about over the next few months.”[…]
“Neither property developers nor community housing providers
are compelled to buy houses off the Government. If they do
not want to do that—if they do not want to manage the tenants
or own the stock, which may be the wrong size in the wrong
place—then they certainly do not have to do that.”
Which creates doubt over English’s assertion that “the Government has no plans to offer Housing New Zealand properties that have been
identified as being in the ‘wrong place’ to community housing providers”.
So if Housing NZ properties that are in the “wrong place” are sold to community housing providers – as confirmed by Minister English on at least two occassions – what will transform those “wrong place” houses into “right place” houses?
Very little of National’s “wrong size/wrong place” proposition makes sense – unless viewed through the lens of raising revenue by way of partial asset-sales.
That is the only thing that makes any sense of this issue.
The only reason that the “wrong size/wrong place” meme has worked for National thus far is that very few (if anyone) has delved behind the phrase to check it’s validity.
Perhaps it is time this issue was scrutinised more carefully?
The apparent fudging of Bill English’s response to my OIA request, in itself, speaks volumes.
Postscript
On 29 October, I wrote to Bill English expressing my dissatisfaction with his response to my OIA lodgement;
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: “B English (MIN)” <B.English@ministers.govt.nz>
date: Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:01 PM
subject: Re: State houses – wrong place, wrong size
Thank you for your letter dated 29 October.
I refer you to two questions which you have not answered in my OIA request;
4. Where are they situated that are considered the “wrong place”?
5. How many areas have been designated “wrong places”?
Please advise if you do not intend to answer those questions, and I will lodge a formal complaint with the Office of the OImbudsman.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Appendix1
In 2014/15 Housing NZ “returned” $321 million to the government’s Consolidated Fund. This comprised of $118 million in tax; $96 million in interest costs, and $107 million as a dividend. (2014/15 Annual Report, p24)
.
.
.
References
TV3: The Nation – Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett
Parliament: 6. State Housing—Suitability of Housing Stock
Fairfax media: John Key Speech – Next steps in social housing
Housing NZ: 2014/15 Annual Report
Housing NZ: Register by priority and Auckland local board – 30 June 2015
Beehive.govt.nz: Social Housing Reform Programme – Media Qs and As
Parliament Today: Social Housing Reform — Objectives
Other Blogs
The Jackal: More homelessness under National
Previous related blogposts
Government Minister sees history repeat – responsible for death
Housing Minister Paula Bennett continues National’s spin on rundown State Houses
Letter to the Editor – How many more children must die, Mr Key?!
National under attack – defaults to Deflection #1
Another ‘Claytons’ Solution to our Housing Problem? When will NZers ever learn?
National’s blatant lies on Housing NZ dividends – The truth uncovered!
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)
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 November 2015.
.
.
= fs =
Weekend Revelations #3 – Greg O’Connor and criminal statistics
.
.
On TVNZ’s Q+A, on 25 October, Michael Parkin interviewed outgoing Police Association President, Greg O’Conner.
.
.
In a rare moment of candid speaking, O’Conner had some eyebrow-raising revelations to make about National’s portrayal of crime statistics and budgetary decisions.
On statistics, Parkin referred to National and Police trumpeting a 30% drop in crime. O’Conner responded wryly;
@3.10
“Well, it’s uh, lies, damned lies, and statistics. If you look at the crime stats, um, which is those recorded stats, you’ll say the government and police administration are right. If you look at the stats around calls for service, they’re the phone calls that police receive in communications centes, etc, and just an example, family violence, domestic disputes; up by 10% a year pretty much, and across the board, 20% increase. So it’s the calls for service, to the extent that the communications centres couldn’t manage last summer. There’s a fear, and we’re obviously we’re trying to make sure it doesn’t happen this year. So the two are going in completely different directions.”
Parkin pointedly asked if the statistics are being manipulated. O’Conner’s response was startling in it’s honesty;
@3.55
“Of course they are. Every government department – I mean, what happens is that, the stats themselves are fair, but I mean I see it as a debate [like] about health, y’know, medical – the waiting lists have going down, but people get kicked of waiting lists and so it’s, you achieve – Put it this way, with crime stats, what we’ve set out to do is the way to cut crime stats is to hit your bulk crime. So if you have any success there, of course, that’s going to be big numbers down. And what you ignore is your small numbers. You ignore, in fact, interestingly enough you ignore drugs. You ignore a lot of your serious stuff that you only find if you go looking. And in the past that’s got us into real trouble. Got us into trouble with the child abuse files, in particular, and you remember, that they were put aside. Because they weren’t politically known. They were business as usual. All of a sudden we were concentrating on the crime and crash reduction, um, and we ignored that stuff. And so you’ve got to be careful. And this is where the politicisation of policing is really dangerous. It’s not done by the Minister saying ‘you gotta do this and you gotta do that’, it’s done by funding.”
O’Conner’s scorn is confirmed by an event last year where one police district was caught out, red-handed, falsifying crime statistics. Seven hundred burglary offences “disappeared”;
.
.
Herald journalist, Eugene Bingham, reported;
” It transpired others knew about the allegations around the same time, including the local MP and then-Minister of Justice, Judith Collins.”
.
.
A police report “raised questions over pressures to meet crime reduction targets”, but Police were quick to assure that the fudged stats were “isolated“;
.
.
National is in fear of statistics that show their policies are either not making any appreciable difference or, are worsening problems. A prime example is Paula Bennett’s adamant refusal to measure poverty in New Zealand;
.
.
Any claims to “reducing crime” should therefore be viewed with extreme scepticism in the light of Greg O’Connor’s disclosures on fudged crime statistics which confirm National’s active policy of discretely hiding statistics it finds embarrassing. Or not measuring them at all.
Interestingly, O’Conner’s comments on National’s policing budget is also true.
Firstly, “Vote Police” is broken down into several sections, where monies are allocated to different areas. This allows plenty of scope for political manipulation as to where money will be put.
On top of which, using the Reserve Bank inflation calculator, it is fairly simple to determine that the Police budget has not kept pace with inflation.
Research going back to 2008 shows that Vote Police has dropped in dollar-terms (using 2008 Dollars as the base), and in 2015/16, the Police will be allocated $1.422 billion (in 2008 dollars) – compared to the $1.445 billion in 2008.
‘Vote Police’ – Budgets 2008-2015 – Total Annual and Permanent Appropriations
.
.
* Using Reserve Bank NZ Inflation Adjuster from Budget Month/Year Q2 dollars into 2008 Q2 dollars. (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary_policy/inflation_calculator/)
.
.
(Field parameters above: calculating 2015 budgetted $1,609,173 into 2008 dollars.)
Inflation, coupled with a National government, have not been kind to our Police.
National is far from being the “Law and Order” party it makes out to be. Any “success” it claims to have achieved, has been done with smoke, mirrors, and falsified reporting of statistics.
The question is; do burglars know they are supposed to be committing 30% less break-ins to peoples’ homes? Let’s hope they got the memo from the Minister’s office.
.
.
.
References
TVNZ: Q+A – Police Association president steps down
NZ Herald: Police made burglaries vanish
NZ Herald: Two-year search for ‘ghost crimes’ truth
NZ Herald: Police deny being caught out by false review claims
NZ Herald: Measuring poverty line not a priority – Bennett
Treasury: Budget 2008
Treasury: Budget 2014
Treasury: Budget 2015
Previous related blogposts
Purchasing “justice” on the New Zealand open market
Other Blogs
The Daily Blog: National’s ghost crime stats
The Daily Blog: So Judith Collins was aware of Police ghost stats? What if David Cunliffe had done the same?
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 30 October 2015.
.
.
= fs =
More “tricky” business – National’s election strategy now apparent?
. 
.
On 1 March (2014), in a previous blogpost, I made the following predictions regarding the coming election campaign,
5. A dirty election campaign , including a well-known extremist right-wing blogger releasing personal information on political opponants, which will backfire badly on National,
It seems that National’s (tax-payer funded) spin doctors/media minders/political strategists have already begun their dirty-campaign to discredit their political opponants in the Labour Party. Note the common theme emerging in these media stories and public statement by National Party politicians;
. 
.
In Parliament, Craig Foss used the “tricky” phrase four times (in case anyone missed it the first time;
.
.
John Key was well schooled by his media minders to drop the term into his public statements;
. 
.
National minister, Amy Adams, used it in her press statement twice; once in the headline, and once in her text;
.
.
… but her press statement was widely released on other media, such as Scoop;
.
.
… and here;
.
.
“Tricky”, eh?
With his usual casualness, Key began dropping it into his everyday statements, hinting that his Party was not as “tricky” as ‘the Other lot‘;
.
.
And to really push the point home, National’s strategists made certain to employ right wing bloggers – from the feral/psychotic (Whale Oil) to the slavishly loyal (Kiwiblog) – to keep pushing the meme.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Good little foot-soldiers, doing their masters’ bidding.
Just in case anyone is thinking that this blogger is either a tad paranoid or been supping on the Blackberry Nip once too often – I’m not the only one who has been noticing National’s game-playing.
On 7 March, writing for NewstalkZB, Mike Hosking perceptively realised the political spin that was being played out in the media, and that David Cunliffe’s reputation was firmly in the Tory’s cross-hairs;
“This could not have played better for the Government. They wanted to label Cunliffe and they came up with ‘tricky’. Its short, it’s sharp, it’s effective. They came up with tricky after the baby bonus, which not only gave money to people who didn’t need money but actually didn’t give money to as many as they said it would. This was Cunliffe’s first major blow.”
The rationale for National’s strategy is fairly obvious: John Key is wholly vulnerable on issues relating to trust and truth. Dear Leader has a fairly lengthy record of broken promises; dodgy dealings; mis-representation of events; selective use of facts; convenient ‘brain fades’; and some outright lies.
So the Nats simply decided to pre-empt any potential attack on Key’s (somewhat tarnished) reputation, by Labour’s own strategists, and got in the first blow.
Expect the Nats to keep pounding this message – and for new, even dirtier attacks of Cunliffe, Norman, Turei, and anyone else who stands in their way for re-election.
A dirty election campaign; mixed with fear mongering and dis-information, coupled with Key’s obvious (and somewhat bizarre) deflection with his proposed flag referendum are National’s main strategies for re-election. They have very little else to fall back on.
Certainly not their track record, over the last five-and-a-bit years. That’s the last thing they want the public and media to focus on.
That would be embarrassing.
.
*
.
References
Manawatu Standard: Tricky issues facing Cunliffe
Parliament: Foss, Craig: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement
TV3: ‘Tricky’ Cunliffe has priorities wrong – Key
Beehive: Tricky Cunliffe continues to mislead
Scoop media: Tricky Cunliffe continues to mislead
Wn.com: Tricky Cunliffe continues to mislead
NZ City: Secret fundraising meals not ‘tricky’: Key
Newstalk ZB: Mike’s Editorial: ‘Tricky’ Cunliffe needs to break the reputation
NBR: More tricky – Cunliffe’s role in $4m house purchase
Previous related blogposts
National, The Economy, and coming Speed Wobbles .
Other blogs
The Standard: An honest man?
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 12 March 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: National Party election lies start early?
.
.
FROM: “f.macskasy”
SUBJECT: Letter to the ed
DATE: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:12:32 +1300
TO: “Sunday Star Times” <letters@star-times.co.nz>.
Letters to the editor Sunday Star Times . I note that the National Party has started it's election campaign early, with the spread of propaganda claiming credit for low inflation and low interest rates. This is disingenuous in the extreme. Low inflation was a consequence of the Global Financial Crisis; low consumer demand; reduced export receipts; and cheap money. Unless the National Party Party is claiming responsibility for the Global Financial Crisis, low inflation was a natural consequence of a worldwide recession and not by any 'Herculean' efforts by Southland farmer and MP, Bill English. As for claiming credit for low interest rates - what rubbish! Most people will be well aware that these are set by the Reserve Bank via it's OCR announcements. Unless National has changed the Reserve Bank Act and interest rates are now set from the Beehive? When did this happen? And if the Nats are claiming credit for current low interest rates - will they also claim responsibility when interest rates are expected to be hiked to 7.5% to 8% later this year? Or will they blame that on the previous Labour government, as Key often does? The Nats must be desperate for good news if they have resorted to fabricating "facts". -Frank Macskasy (address & phone number supplied)
.
.
= fs =
Benefit fraud? Is Chester Borrows being totally upfront with us?!
As I blogged five months ago, when National is attacked with bad publicity, it’s Party strategists retaliate;
.
See previous blogpost: National under attack – defaults to Deflection #2
.
As I wrote in the above blogpost, when threatened with bad headlines or a scandal of some description, National’s automatic defense is to generally to default to one of three deflections;
- Blame previous the Labour government
- Release story on ‘welfare abuse’
- Blame Global Financial Crisis or similar overseas event
In February of this year, the Auditor-General released a report into Key’s dealings with Skycity. The resulting publicity became positively toxic for the Nats.
Toby Manhire, in a Listener article dated 19 February, listed ten quotes from the AG”s report, which were highly damning of National. It was by no means the “vindication” that Key claimed (knowing full well that 99% of the public would never read the AG’s report).
On cue, Associate Social Development Minister, Chester Borrows, issued media releases on National’s latest “crack down” on “welfare abuse”;
.
.
National is once again being hit by a slew of bad headlines;
Smith gives nod for open-cast coal mine on conservation land
NZ unprepared for a deep water oil spill, Greens say
Consumers hard hit by hefty electricity price rises
National’s fix over GCSB draws a storm of protest
Loans door shutting on first-home buyers
High petrol prices hit struggling families
Job ad stall hints at unemployment rise
SkyCity deal doesn’t add up: Treasury
Housing plan ‘a weak compromise’
And again, on cue, Chester Borrows has done his bit, by defaulting to Option #2,
.
Source: Radio NZ – Thousands stopped from getting benefits not entitled to
Checkpoint: Listen to Chester Borrows on Checkpoint
.
However, Borrows is mis-leading the public in one respect. On 18 July, the Minister released a media statement where he said,
“Enhanced information sharing between Inland Revenue and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has identified and stopped 3139 illegitimate benefits in just six months, says Associate Social Development Minister Chester Borrows…
[…]
… The enhanced information sharing started earlier this year, highlighting beneficiaries whose taxable income did not match what they had declared to MSD. MSD staff reviewed each case, and where the beneficiary was earning enough income that they were no longer eligible to receive a benefit, that benefit was stopped.”
Source: Beehive – Information sharing stops more welfare fraud
This is simply untrue.
WINZ announced this in May last year – over a year ago,
.
Source: WINZ – IRD and MSD improve information sharing
.
But even earlier than last year, MSD/WINZ were leeping track of their “clients”. The following two letters are from an acquaintance, who luckily keeps every piece of correspondence from government departments.
The first is from 2009,
.
.
[Published with permission.]
The letter clearly states,
“We regularly compare our records with other government agencies…”
(Note; the over-lap that so concerned the MSD was a matter of two weeks, and centered more around confusion as to when the WINZ “client” was deemed to start work.)
The second letter is from 2001,
.
.
[Published with permission.]
Even in 2001 – twelve years ago – WINZ and the Immigration Dept were comparing information.
Accordingly, I have emailed Chester Borrows, seeking clarification of his claim that information sharing is a “recent development”. I have also sought details of the alleged 3,139 cases of benefit “fraud” that Borrows has asserted;
.
from: Frank M <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Chester.Borrows@parliament.govt.nz
date: Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:50 PM
subject: OIA Request PleaseKia Ora Mr Borrows,
I am lodging an OIA request with your office.
According to recent media releases from your office, 3,139 cases of alleged benefit fraud has been identified, including 1,948 people who were wrongly getting the unemployment benefit and 559 illegitimately on the sickness benefit. These cases all supposedly invloved working whilst receiving a WINZ Benefit.
My questions are;
1. Over what period of time were these 3,139 cases detected?
2. When did IRD and WINZ begin sharing information?
3. Does WINZ and the Dept of Immigrqation also share information on WINZ beneficiaries who travel overseas whilst in receipt of a benefit?
4. When did that WINZ/Immigration Dept arrangement, in respect to Q3, begin?
5. What other government ministeries, departments, SOEs, and other bodies does WINZ share information with?
6. When did those arrangements, in respect in Q5, begin?
[and in a follow-up email shortly thereafter.]
7. Of the 3139 illegitimate benefits found, what was the time period involved with people receiving a benefit and earning income from another source?
How many were within the following periods;
– 1 week
– 2 weeks
– 3 weeks
– 4 weeks
– 2 months
– 3 months
– 6 months
– Over 6 months – under one year
– Over one year
8. How many prosecutions have been undertaken of all nine cohorts listed above?9. How many have been convicted?10. How many were in actual employment whilst receiving a welfare benefit, as opposed to some other source of income?
I look forward to your response within the legislated time period.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
.
If the rest of Minister Borrows’ claims are as dubious as his assertion that information sharing between government department “started earlier this year” – then all claims and comments from National ministers demand checking and confirmation.
Otherwise, claims of mass benefit fraud appear to be little more than a propaganda exercise designed to deceive the public and deflect criticism from economic and social problems that National appears stymied to address.
At the very least, Borrows is taking credit for a policy – inter-departmental information sharing – that has been in place since 2001, at least. How many times can politicians take credit for policies they had little or no part in implementing?!
Wouldn’t that be fraudulent on the part of the Minister?
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 22 July 2013.
.
.
= fs =
Dear Leader caught telling porkies (again)?! (part rua)
.
.
Continued from: Dear Leader caught telling porkies (again)?!
From comments he made in Parliament, two day ago (20 February 2013),
20 February
John Key said:
“It is pretty straightforward. Skycity, after it decided it would be prepared to enter an expression of interest process to have a larger convention centre, went off to its architects. Its architects designed such a thing, realised they needed more land, worked out who owned the land, and approached Television New Zealand…
[…]
I cannot speak for the Television New Zealand board, but I am finding it reasonably hard to believe that Television New Zealand entered a commercial agreement with Skycity to sell land that it owned, and it did so without its board knowing. If that happened, then maybe its board process needs to be improved, and maybe the mixed-ownership model would work for it…”
Caught out fabricating facts over the Skycity and TVNZ non-land-deal, Dear Leader Key is backing away faster than an Aston Marton at top speed. The NZ Herald reports,
“A spokesman for Mr Key said: “The Prime Minister is happy to accept the assurances from TVNZ this morning that no approach has been made”.
A “spokesman”?
Key tells a fib in the House.
Then get a Party functionary to front when he is caught out?
Not a good look for Mr Key.
At least now the media – both msm and bloggers – will be scrutinising Key’s comments, even closer than before, for the slightest hint of distortion or outright lie.
Such as Key claiming that he had been “vindicated” by the Auditor-General’s report. That was a distortion of the Auditor-General’s findings.
As Toby Manhire, writing for ‘the Listener‘ said, the Auditor-General’s report on Key’s Skycity dealings was anything but a ‘vindication’,
.
1. “We found a range of deficiencies in the advice provided and steps taken leading up to [the] decision.”
2. “Although decisions were made on the merits of the different proposals, we do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even handed.”
3. “By the time it was expected that SkyCity would put a firm proposal to the Government for support, officials should have been working to understand and advise on the procedural obligations and principles that would need to govern the next steps. We found no evidence that officials were doing so at this stage.”
4. “The meetings and discussion between the Government representatives and SkyCity were materially different in quantity and kind from those between the Government and the other parties that responded.”
5. “SkyCity was treated very differently from the other parties that responded and the evaluation process effectively moved into a different phase with one party. In our view, the steps that were taken were not consistent with good practice principles of transparency and fairness.”
6. “Overall, we regard the EOI [expressions of interest] process in stage two as having been poorly planned and executed. Insufficient attention was given to planning and management of the process as a whole, so that risks were not adequately addressed and managed.”
7. “We did not see any evidence of formal discussions or decisions on the evaluation process and criteria, or mapping out of the basic options for what might happen next, or advice to Ministers on how the process would be managed and their involvement in it. We do not regard this as adequate for a project of this potential scale, complexity, and risk.”
8. “We have concluded that the preparation for the EOI process and the EOI document, fell short of good practice in a number of respects.”
9. “In our view, the result was that one potential submitter had a clearer understanding of the actual position on a critical issue – that the Government did not want to fund any capital costs – than any other potential submitters … We accept that it is unlikely that this flaw made a material difference to the outcome. However, we have spent some time discussing it because we regard it as symptomatic of the lack of attention to procedural risks, and therefore to the fairness and credibility of the process.”
10. “We are unable to comment on the value of any contribution the Government might make as part of any eventual agreement with SkyCity, because negotiations have not yet been concluded.”
.
Sprung, again.
He is on notice; keep telling porkies and he’ll be sprung each time. A few more incidents like this, and the wide-spread public perception of Dear Leader will be one of someone not to be trusted.
This is something the public already suspected in November 2011, just prior to the election,
.
.
*
.
* Note
Hansards can be “corrected” by MPs and Ministers. The comments quoted above were taken from Hansards at 5.20pm on 21 February, prior to any “amendments” being made. (see previous blogpost: Dear Leader caught telling porkies (again)?!)
Previous related blogposts
Dear Leader caught telling porkies (again)?!
National under attack – defaults to Deflection #2
Sources
Fairfax media: John Key: Safe hands, forked tongue? (10 Nov 2011)
NZ Listener: The SkyCity convention centre deal: 10 quotes from the Auditor-General report (19 Feb 2013)
NZ Herald: Sky City report ‘deeply disturbing’ (20 Feb 2013)
NZ Herald: SkyCity: Key retreats from TVNZ land deal statements (21 Feb 2013)
.
.
= fs =
John Key: liar, liar, pants on nuclear fire!!!
.
In early 2010…
.
“Yeah, National is not going to be raising GST. National wants to cut taxes, not raise taxes…What I’m saying is if we do a half decent job as a government at growing our economy I’m confident that won’t be happening and that’s not on our agenda.”
.
December 2012,
.
.
Interesting…
After two tax cuts in 2009 and 2010, National is now having to raise taxes in other areas to make up for the billions it has lost in revenue.
English admitted as such in this Fairfax Media story,
This morning Gerry Brownlee announced plans to increase excise tax on petrol by 3 cents a litre, in each of the next three years. This would raise Government income by up to $300m a year.
While English said the increase would have an impact on the Government’s accounts, he denied it was done to ensure the forecasts showed a surplus.
“Without the changes, we would have fallen short of the surplus track.”
Today’s announcement also saw forecasts that by 2015-16 the New Zealand Debt Management Office would borrow $6.5b more than it forecast six months ago.
“That is a concern,’’ English told reporters.
See: Growth forecast cut, debt seen higher
Yeah, I’ll bet “that’s a concern“.
This is in stark contrast to warnings we were given in mid-2008,
.
.
Well, we got our tax cuts. (Mostly for the top 1%, as usual.) And National borrowed hand-over-fist to make up the revenue shortfall.
It was not enough.
Which is why National is partially selling off our state power companies, Solid Energy, and Air New Zealand.
But it’s still not enough.
So the Nats will be slyly raising taxes and government charges (eg, road user charges, medicines, etc). Even children delivering newspapers were targetted.
All to re-coup the lolly-scramble they initiated in 2009 and 2010.
This, however, does not surprise me. Since the Muldoon Era, I have realised that National’s so-called reputation for being “prudent fiscal managers” is a myth. Most likely perpetrated and perpetuated by National’s taxpayer funded spin doctors.
National is no more “fiscally prudent” than a shopaholic who justifies his/her spend-up by explaining that ” I saved heaps – it was all on “Sale” – And I put it on the Card !!”
When Key and his cronies promised us tax cuts in 2008, it was well into the Global Financial Crisis (see: Blog Timeline – specifically Year 2008). The Nats knew full well that tax cuts were unaffordable.
Michael Cullen tried to warn the country.
But 1,053,398 voters in 2008 took the bribe and thought nothing about who or how we would pay for National’s promises.
Well the answer is blindingly obvious; we are paying for it.
And now we’ll be paying for it every time we fill up at the petrol stations.
How happy are National voters now, I wonder?
Silly buggers – shafted by the Party they voted for!
.
*
.
Acknowledgement
Gordon Campbell: On last night’s debate between John Key and Phil Goff
.
.
= fs =
John Key: When propaganda photo-ops go wrong…
.
.
Desperate measures…
.
Desperate to seize power from Labour, and faced with strong, experienced leadership in the form of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, National and it’s fresh, new leader – John Key – launched a series of public-relations media/propaganda initiatives. One of those propaganda exercises, a photo-op with a schoolgirl, would come back to haunt Dear Leader and ridicule one of his major pledges…
.
Opening shots…
.
The campaign to mark out National’s “human face of neo-liberalism” was launched on 30 January 2007, when Key made his speech “The Kiwi Way: A Fair Go For All” at the Burnside Rugby Clubrooms, Christchurch.
See: The Kiwi Way: A Fair Go For All
It had all the nice, warm, fuzzy sound-bites; “good Kiwi upbringing“; “betterment of all New Zealanders“, “proud of our culture and society“; “opportunity and hope“; “giving people a fair go”; “egalitarian society“; “The Kiwi Way” (mentioned ten times); “born into a struggling household“, etc, etc, etc…
Whoever wrote that speech really mined the handbook of the Kiwi Psyche.
But the real opening shots in the political battle for the hearts and minds of New Zealanders began in the opening months of 2007 – two full years leading up to the November 2008 general elections.
Reading many of Key’s speeches and policy announcements, was almost like tapping into a Scandinavian model of a social democratic society. Michael Joseph Savage would have nodded in approval to many of Key’s utterances.
Especially when, on 3 February 2007, Key announced the launching of National’s “Food in Schools programme“. It was pure 1930s Labour stuff,
.
National Party Leader John Key has announced the first initiative in what will be a National Food in Schools programme.
“National is committed to providing practical solutions to the problems which Helen Clark says don’t exist,” says Mr Key.
During his State of the Nation speech on Tuesday, Mr Key indicated National would seek to introduce a food in schools programme at our poorest schools in partnership with the business community.
Mr Key has since received an approach from Auckland-based company Tasti foods.
“I approached Wesley Primary School yesterday, a decile 1 school near McGehan Close, a street that has had more than its fair share of problems in recent times. I am told Wesley Primary, like so many schools in New Zealand, has too many kids turning up hungry.”
.
See: National launches its Food in Schools programme
Of course once National came to power twentyone months later, on 8 November 2008, Key’s quasi-socialistic policy of ” providing practical solutions to the problems which Helen Clark says don’t exist “, quietly slipped beneath the waves and disappeared from public sight.
It had achieved it’s purpose.
In fact, National’s policy stance on any suggestion of Food in Schools programmes, is now somewhat more hostile,
.
Organisations working with the poor and opposition parties say Prime Minister John Key is in ”la la land” if he thinks fruit is enough to get a hungry child through a school day.
Labour yesterday unveiled a $10 million policy to provide free food to 650 of the country’s lowest decile primary and intermediate schools.
Key immediately rejected the idea, saying free fruit was already provided in the ”vast bulk” of low-decile schools and there was often a breakfast programme.
”Not every school wants every child to be provided a lunch,” he told reporters in Russia before leaving for Japan. ”There are many families that can provide those lunches’.”‘
See: Key in poverty ‘la la land’
And in case anyone missed the point that National was not about to follow the Scandinavian model of helping children living in poverty,
Prime Minister John Key says beneficiaries who resort to food banks do so out of their own “poor choices” rather than because they cannot afford food.
Mr Key made the comment when asked in Parliament yesterday about poverty levels.
When Labour’s social development spokeswoman Annette King asked about Salvation Army reports of high demand for food parcels, Mr Key responded by saying it was true that the global recession meant more people were on benefits.
“But it is also true that anyone on a benefit actually has a lifestyle choice. If one budgets properly, one can pay one’s bills.
“And that is true because the bulk of New Zealanders on a benefit do actually pay for food, their rent and other things. Now some make poor choices and they don’t have money left.”
See: Food parcel families made poor choices, says Key
.
Not only has National’s “Food in Schools programme” vanished, and subsequently replaced with naked antipathy, but this blogger’s emails to the Prime Minister’s office on the issue have gone unanswered.
Too embarressing, no doubt.
.
Firing Photo ops missiles…
.
On 6 February 2007, National’s tax-payer funded spin-doctors organised this photo-op for Dear Leader,
.
.
Key was attempting to re-play a much earlier scene on Waitangi Day in 1973, when then-Prime Minister, Norman Kirk walked onto the grounds on Waitangi, with then-ten year old, Moana Priest,
.
Acknowledgement: Life and career of the late Prime Minister Norman Kirk, Herald Book
.
However, it can safely be stated that the difference between Kirk and Key was/is monumental. It was a distance between two men that can only be measured in interstellar terms.
Kirk believed deeply in what he was doing.
Key simply exploited a naive young girl and her family for a photo-op – which we all now by now is something he cannot pass by.
In the Herald, on 6 November 2007, Aroha and her family expressed delight at attending Waitangi Day celebrations with the leader of the Opposition (as he was then),
Yesterday morning, Mr Key picked Aroha up in a Crown limousine and took her to Waitangi with him, discussing, among other things, her favourite band, Panic at the Disco.
She described the trip – one of the few she’s made outside Auckland and which included her first stay in a hotel – as “exciting”.
She said her family were also rapt with the visit, and felt much more comfortable when they realised National list MP Jackie Blue, who accompanied Mr Key to McGehan Close, would be with her for the trip.
Dr Blue was Aroha’s grandmother’s doctor and also attended to her mother, Joan Nathan, so “Mum said I’d be in good hands”.
The pair spent part of the day with Mr Key but slipped away for lunch at the Copthorne Hotel, where Aroha described the chips as great but said she didn’t think the fish was fresh.
“Dad always says if it doesn’t fall apart it’s not fresh.”
Aroha said she knew little about events at Waitangi on Waitangi Day, but was looking forward to finding out.
See: A day out with friends in high places
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.
See: Ibid
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.
See: Ibid
Three months later, on 27 May 2007, Key referred to Aroha Ireland in a speech strangely entitled, “Tough on Crime”. His reference to Aroha was fleeting (as was his brief intervention in her life), barely rating a mention,
” For the past six months, I’ve had the privilege of travelling New Zealand from city to town talking to the people who make our country tick. I’ve been to places like McGehan Close and met people like Aroha Ireland, a young girl with big dreams for her future. I’ve milked cows in Horowhenua. I’ve visited primary schools in Canterbury. I’ve met with iwi in Ruatoria. “
See: John Key’s speech – Tough on Crime
Cows weren’t the only thing he milked…
In the same speech, Key ramped up the aspirational rhetoric,
” The first ‘E’ is the economy. National will emphasise this theme because we are committed to delivering New Zealanders the fruits of a wealthier country. Make no mistake – Labour’s policies are seeing us fall further and further behind the rest of the world. The recent Budget did absolutely nothing to alleviate that slide.
Michael Cullen has given up on growing our economy, instead he’s preparing for retirement: Labour’s retirement.
Well, National is a lot more ambitious than that. We think Kiwis deserve higher wages and lower taxes during their working lives,as well as a good retirement. That’s why we will pursue economic policies and infrastructure development that will keep New Zealand competitive on the world stage. Make no mistake – Bill English’s first Budget will include tax cuts. “
See: Ibid
The rest of Key’s speech was pure knee-jerk, tough-on-crime, BS – so beloved by National’s fearful aging middle classes.
.
Shots that re-bound and ricochet…
.
Three Years later, and Key’s visit to McGehan Close had lost it’s gloss, 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.”
See: Family still on struggle street after Key leaves
The NZ Herald story went on to state,
A spokesman for Key said he had visited her home last year to try to help resolve the housing issue, and had spoken to her on the phone several times since the election. Key didn’t wish to make any further comment.
See: Ibid
Yeah. I’ll bet he didn’t want to comment.
Why should he? Aroha Ireland had served her purpose for the 2008 general election, and like some Bond Villain, Key was now disposing of his ‘puppets’ – they were no longer useful for his grand Master Plan for World New Zealand Domination.
And Key’s crony, National MP Jackie Blue’s, response was even more insightful,
Jackie Blue said Nathan worked 10 hours a week doing administration for Mt Roskill office up until the 2008 election.
She wasn’t re-employed because Blue merged her office with Lotu-Iiga, and didn’t need to rehire staff.
Blue said she had tried to keep in touch, but Nathan’s phone had been disconnected.
See: Ibid
Irony heaped upon grim irony… made redundant from a faux-job created specifically by the Nats as an enticing “lolly” for Joan Nathan (Aroha’s mother)… phone disconnected as a sign of lowered income and encroaching poverty… Ms Nathan’s loss of employment symptomatic of National’s do-nothing approach to the country’s growing unemployment crisis…
Little wonder that Aroha Ireland no longer wanted to talk about Key’s visit three years ago. One cannot feel any measure of pride in being used.
John Key’s photo-op had gone full-circle, and was lining up to tear big chunks from Dear Leader’s arse.
If anything, Aroha’s situation was now a prime example of National’s policies (or lack thereof) – but not as the Nat’s politburo had intended.
.
Shot himself in the foot…
.
By November of last year, Key’s photo-op with Aroha Ireland had jumped from expressions of disgust, by her family at being exploited, to one of high farce for the Nats – and a measure of hope for Aroha.
Ms Ireland was joining the flood of New Zealanders escaping over the Berlin Wall Tasman Sea to a Brighter Future – in Australia,
National leader John Key says the teenager he took to Waitangi Day three years ago is not leaving for Australia because life is better there.
Aroha Ireland, 16, became the face of National’s campaign to close the gap with Australia and help struggling families during the last election campaign.
Now it has been reported that Miss Ireland is headed across the Tasman.
See: PM denies teen leaving for good life
Dear Leader sez “the teenager he took to Waitangi Day three years ago is not leaving for Australia because life is better there ” ?!
Oh yeah, spin it, John Boy, spin it!
Key went on to state (with a straight face, I hope) that he did not think she was going because of the yawning wage gap, between our two countries,
“I’m proud of the Government’s record – in difficult times, we’ve closed that wage gap with Australia. We’ve grown after-tax wages by 10 per cent in the last three years, Australia by six.”
Except… well… Yeah, nah. John Key is now piling the BS on top of his previous outrageous spin. The facts speak otherwise – the wage gap is growing, not reducing, despite what Key and his spinmeisters might want us to believe.
In fact, Key should be fully aware that he was being less than truthful by suggesting that the wages gap was closing. As right wing politician, and ex-Reserve bank governor, Don Brash stated only two weeks earlier,
“In 2008 we estimated the gap was 35% currently it’s nearer 40%.”
See: Aussie wage gap now 40% – Brash
(Unfortunately, Brash’s brief moment of lucidity was short-lived, and he thereafter descended into right wing nuttery to solve the growing wage gap. In essence, more of the same of the last thirty years. What’s that definition of craziness; doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome?)
It was little wonder that Key claimed he had “no idea” why Aroha was escaping to Australia,
“Lots of young people decide to go for an OE – I don’t know how long she’ll last. I’m not in a position to go into too much; hope she comes back.
I’m disappointed she’s going for her, because I think New Zealand has got a great future in front of it and I’d like her to be part of it.“
See: PM denies teen leaving for good life
Of course Dear Leader knows why Aroha left New Zealand. But to admit it would be a colossal admission of National’s failure to address critical economic and social problems in our country.
Key’s comments are lame by any standards. We simply laugh harder and louder at his moronic utterances.
A year later, all doubt was removed why Aroha Ireland – like thousands of other New Zealanders, before and since, her voting with her feet – had moved to Australia…
.
And the photo-op blows up in Key’s face…
.
According to a NZ Herald report this year, Aroha’s move to Australia held no great mystery,
… Aroha Ireland has given up on New Zealand, is engaged to be married and earning good money with no plans to return to her homeland.
The 17-year-old bailed for the lucky country last year, disillusioned with her prospects in Auckland.
Miss Ireland, who is engaged to Stuart Spashett also of Auckland, did not return the Herald’s calls.
She has told family members and friends she is embarrassed by the publicity that followed her since her visit to Waitangi in 2008.
Lisa Spashett, who calls herself Aroha’s second mum, said the Government had failed people like her future daughter-in-law.
She said there was nothing for them in New Zealand to look forward to or return to.
See: Key’s poster girl finds life much better in Australia
Ms Spashett went on to say, with drilling, laser-beam, accuracy,
“As far as they are concerned, no, they [the National Government] hadn’t done anything for them. I can tell you that straight up and that’s why they are in Australia.”
See: Ibid
From 6 February 2007,
.
.
… to 13 November 2012,
.
.
From self-serving exploitation by a cynical multi-millionaire-cum-politician – to an embarressing example of National’s failure.
And the best thing about this? National has shot itself in it’s own foot, with no help from it’s political opponants whatsoever.
They did it to themselves.
Classic.
.
*
.
Sources
National Party Speech – The Kiwi Way: A Fair Go For All (30 Jan 2007)
National Press Release – National launches its Food in Schools programme (4 Feb 2007)
A day out with friends in high places (6 Feb 2007)
Aroha is missing her Key friend (10 Feb 2007)
National Party Speech – Tough on Crime (27 May 2007)
Family still on struggle street after Key leaves (7 Feb 2010)
Aussie wage gap now 40% – Brash (7 Nov 2011)
PM denies teen leaving for good life (21 Nov 2011)
Key’s poster girl finds life much better in Australia (13 Nov 2012)
.
.
= fs =
From Mini -True…
.
.
… crime down – doubleplusgood!
.
.
“ Justice Minister Judith Collins said nationwide statistics showed the Government’s focus on crime was working. New Zealand’s crime rate was at its lowest since 1982 and, as a result, fewer criminal charges were laid against fewer people.
“I am particularly pleased to see fewer children and young people being charged with an offence and appearing in court – down by as much as 25% on the last year,” she said.
The rising conviction rate, up to 74% from 70% in 2008, showed good work was being done across the justice sector.
“These results are simply fantastic,” she said. “
Dear Leader has achieved his Party’s election promise,
.
.
Memo to Mini-True scribes: delete previous inaccurate report,
.
Full Mini-True Report for Deletion
.
“The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had been actually destroyed. For how could you establish even the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside your own memory?” – “Nineteen Eighty Four”, George Orwell
.
.
= fs =
$20 million – John Key’s pricetag on human misery
.
Let’s see how we’re going on the jobs front…
.
“We will be unrelenting in our quest to lift our economic growth rate and raise wage rates.” – John Key, 29 January 2008
.
Sounds good!
.
"The driving goal of my Government is to build a more competitive and internationally-focused economy with less debt, more jobs and higher incomes." - John Key, 21 December 2011
.
Great – focused on jobs-creation policies!
.
.
Wow! Real dedication to addressing the unemployment problem!
.
.
This just sounds too good to be true!!
Uh oh…
.
.
Bugger.
Well, I guess that kinda explains why National is having a ‘go’ at solo-mums, invalids, widows, and the unemployed. (Someone has to take the blame for this. And politicians don’t do Taking Responsibility very well.)
.
.
.
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 
On Radio NZ’s ‘Morning Report”, it was announced that Board Chairperson, Richard Griffin (and former advisor to Jim Bolger) advised National MP, Melissa Lee, that Carol Hirschfeld had resigned – before it was publicly announced.