I’m in Hamilton for Phil’s speech. A full house of about 200 people are currently listening to a passionate speech from Phil about the importance of spreading the benefits of the recovery to all New Zealanders. He has made a couple specific policy commitments to introduce the bill to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour and to cap the salaries of public sector Chief Executives at the level of the PMs salary (around $400,000). Chief Executive salaries have grown at twice the rate of inflation since 1997, while rank and file workers have only just kept pace with inflation.
Lots more in the speech, well worth a read.
At what cost will these policies exist? what job losses and what coonstraints on future employment are Labour prepared to accept?
In respect of capping CEO salaries of CEOs is Labour prepared to accept “ordinary CEOs” instead of the best because salaries are capped the best may head off to the private sector or worse overseas.
I think that both of these policies are opportunist and promoted because Labour are safely in opposition where there is little chance of ever seeing the clear hard light of day.
I wonder who was in government from 1999 to 2008 to push public sector ce’s salaries up at twice the rate of inflation?
I would be genuinely curious to know how that was justified, though I get the feeling that it’s not quite as simple as ‘it’s Labour wot did it’ – some sort of independent remuneration authority or something?
That is a great speech! It outlines Labour’s position, and it is a good position, it calls the government to account without personal attacks. Just dazzling!
Doesn’t mention once about government spending or dealing with government debt. Big blind spot there Olwyn. Ho-hum speech doesn’t deliver any commitments, just gimmicks. I’m disappointed. I expected more from Phil.
G
FF 2 
11 !!!!!!
And who reneged on lifting basic benefit rates in real terms back to levels prior to the 1991 cuts following the Mother of all Budgets? We still have those levels today, 20 years later. Working for Families is no answer to this – dragging a huge chuck of low income earners into dependence on state assistance, excluding people without children, extending the unconscionable move started by national in 1996 of making income status relevant within the tax system. Labour can talk as much as it wants about giving “middle New Zealand” a “fair go”, but for as long it keeps ignoring the poorest of the poor its rhetoric will remain indistinguishable from that used by Key/English et al to prepare us for the trail of decimation they’re getting ready to emabark on.
It is a great speech.
The Speech doesn’t cover everything, but there is only so much that can go into a single speech. This is a core values speech.
Tell Phil to keep it up!
@Mel Barker: A good speech does not have to say everything, but it does have to say something. This speech, in my eyes, outlined the position from which other issues would be addressed. That is why I think it is a good speech.
Anton “extending the unconscionable move started by national in 1996 of making income status relevant within the tax system” making income status relevant – what a terrible thing to do.
It doesn’t say anything useful about the economy olwyn. Not how we’re going to be more productive. A bit about stopping failure of young people in education (somebody tell Phil about labours policy on national standards please).
What a heartening speech.
My hope is that the media gives it the airtime it so deserves – it should be heard by the many, not the few.
The speech wasn’t about the economy Mel. Oh, and what exactly has Key et al said about being more productive? I havn’t heard anything of any substance…. Please, enlighten us all Mel…..
So who DOES set CEO salaries, anyone?
Labour seems happy enough to take the populist road in areas like this where it suits them, but then uses it as a term of abuse when other parties promote policies appealling to similar sentiments in areas such as law and order, child discipline, education, refugees etc etc.
The reacton in the media will be interesting. Good to see Goff took out all references to ordinary. I have read the speech and to me it was full of cliches. It was a feel good speech but very short on substance.
It will appeal to the economically illiterate (Labour supporters) but there is no analysis of the consequences of this new policy that is essentially interferring with the free Labour Market.
Is it not the aim of the higher salaries commission to do away with political interference in the salaries of the CEOs etc?
Good work, Phil – keep it up.
There’s a way to go yet, but this is in the right direction.
It is populist is that it is an appeal to the vast percentage of the populace – ie working class and middle class people.
However, populist is usually a term reserved to describe what are pumitive policies that appeal to the ungenerous side in us – eg ‘why should a refugee get a job at Countdown and not my fifth-generation neighbour’ etc.
Phil’s speech does the opposite – it acknowledges our humanity. The idea that everyone is entilted to a fair go, a living wage and a decent chance for our kids.
Nice rhetoric – but where is the substance? For example…
1. Stop the ones ripping off the system (Phil provided several examples) – great idea – now, how? What is the plan? What does lab say it will do to those who are ‘bludging or tax evading’?
2. Priviledged few? Whats the cut off bracket between having heaps (being rich) and not being ‘rich’? Are we having the same scrap over what constitutes the so called well off family again, with no detail – again?
3. The tail of underachievement – yes – its there – but whats the Lab alternative to Nat Stds? What is Lab going to do to counter Tolley? Something needs to be done – but what – pretty words are not enough.
4. Children suffering abuse – so whats the plan? It would seem this is the shame of all kiwis and not Lab or Nat can put practical things in place to fix it – despite the fact that we all know early intervention is critical – but the 3 yr cycle of politics means that neither party can see past their faces to the long term benefits.
5. 3 strikes and you are out – where is the alternative? Everyone wants the govt to be tougher on repeat offenders and serious crime – thats a given but what is not
provided is the alternative and an actual enlightening of the public to the reality of what the 3 strikes actually means, let alone a logical alternative.
6. And what about ‘middle kiwis’ who miss out of WFF etc, and are not the ones that are evading tax etc – how is Lab going to bring them back? They have always missed out – time to rectify this.
I like the rhetoric – I do – but I am tired of not hearing any actual alternatives, and the line of ‘If we keep on bagging Nat, it will all be fine, and the voters will come’ is getting lame.
What have we learnt from the last few posts on what Jordan and Kaine have said? Apparently, not much. Vision is fine – but vision with strategy (or even a few teasers) is what will make the difference. Come on Lab – you can do better than fluffy words.
Vapid. I had mistakenly thought he was going to talk about personal responsibility and welfare reform as indicated in today’s DomPost. Silly me.
Otherwise Paul has said it all.
Well now Lindsay that’s really strange. The speech I read was all about personal responsibility and welfare reform. Could it be that unless someone uses the word “personal responsibility” or “welfare reform” you are unable to recognise that that is what the speech was all about?
In this modern era the media hold most of the cards. A speach like this is aimed at the media in the hope they will pick up and run with key parts of the speach and that those key parts will strike accord wth the average Joe Bloggs. All of us who post are more interested in Politics than the average Jo, we need to remember that most people dont care about the hows and whys and what could have been done in the past. They want feel good words that instill trust and show empathy to them.
This was a good speach, but if the Media will run with parts of it, time will tell.
Keep working at it Phil, the average Jo needs Labour.
Delia says: “It is populist is (sic) that it is an appeal to the vast percentage of the populace … However, populist is usually a term reserved to describe what are pumitive (sic) policies that appeal to the ungenerous side in us … Phil’s speech does the opposite – it acknowledges our humanity.”
Thanks for clarifying that Delia.
A lot of naive people in the general public thought it was a case of one rule for some and one rule for everyone else.
How very silly of us…
So let me get it straight – if it has popular support and is a ‘nice’ policy then it’s populist but ok, but if it has popular support and is a ‘nasty’ policy then it’s populist but bad. With good people like yourself being the arbiter of ‘nice’ and ‘nasty’, of course.
Anne, Your ability to read between the lines exceeds mine.
Sorry, I am an alien and don’t know NZ very well… your article says
“Chief Executive salaries have grown at twice the rate of inflation since 1997″
Which political party allowed this to happen? Can someone please tell me?
Jees Waterboy, sounds like a paragraph from a certain book by Nicky Hager…….;)
Phil’s speech seems to point to even more government expenditure.
Can an Mp please tell me how much more of my (Mr Ordinary, Ordinary St, Ordinary Town, NZ), would a Labour/Green/NZ First government tax me to fund this given we have a commitment for more funding for ACC, Super Fund, Health and Education and welfare from a potential Labour/Green/NZ First Govt….
or how much more a Labour/Green/NZ First Govt will be borrowing (on my behalf) per week.
Can the impact of these promised policies on our credit rating and inflation be made clear to the electorate as I have a mortgage, a small business and a family to raise
cheers
Mr Ordinary (hard working kiwi)
It must have been a good speech as it got such a rancid response from Key
He is into that denigratary response at present.
Hmmmmm
“He is into that denigratary response at present.”
Wonder from which recent Premier he modelled that on?
Just had a look at this thread – back to substance both sides or you will get deleted. Trevor
@BoomtownPrat I would support a Labour/NZ First/Greens Govt far more then a National/Act/Maori Party one even though i despice the Greens.
I’m very happy for you Matt.
@NoExit Arrgh, time for a revaluation of beleifs, I cant stand Nicky Hargar.
“If you do an honest weeks work, you deserve a living wage”
BUT no one within Labour knows what is this magic number is?
I am sorry for a party with a foundation of the working class there is no connection with the middle class yet alone the working.
I feel sorry for Phil he was left a weak base to work with from the legacy that we all have been left from the past. But that past had so much potential that we could have built on.
No doubt this will be edited so MPs before you cull it, have a read of this little example of what tax cuts mean in the real world that was sent to me in an email. Our country is already losing its “10th man” because they are never part of the “many” ….
“America’s Tax System Explained
By Wing Chun Geologist on November 3, 2008
I didn’t come up with this but I think it’s about the best explanation of the American Tax system that’s out there. I wish I could take credit for this…but I can’t
America’s Tax System
What is it when someone who doesn’t pay taxes to begin with, gets a tax cut? It’s called redistribution of wealth. Let me give you an example that explains this tax business:
Our tax system explained in terms of beer.
A brilliant explanation of our tax system using actual percentages, the impact of a tax cut, and the public reaction that everyone should be able to understand.
A brilliant explanation of our tax system using actual percentages, the impact of a tax cut, and the public reaction that everyone should be able to understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, ‘he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. ‘Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so -
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,‘declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’
‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute, ’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not, or will not, understand, no explanation is possible. “