People need to know that they can trust their elected representatives to have their best interests at heart, and to have a plan.
A plan that’s not using the tired old strategies from the past, but some new ideas, some innovative solutions that build confidence in our local industries and create jobs for the future.
John Key’s vision, expressed in his speech to parliament yesterday, was dull. It had no substance. There’s no other way to put it. He’s out of touch with real New Zealanders who are struggling to cope with skyrocketing power, petrol and grocery bills.
And he doesn’t have any new ideas. The ideas he’s had are questionable as to whether they can be delivered and whether he’s committed to delivering them. There was no economic growth plan set out in his speech yesterday.
It’s a wasted opportunity.
I’m Labour’s communciations and IT spokesperson. Obviously I believe in and want to advocate for this industry. Not many people know what it actually is.
Consider this (Info from NZICT):
You might be surprised to learn that the ICT industry in this country contributes $20- billion a year to our economy. It’s worth $5 b in exports a year. Second only to the dairy sector. It employs around 40,000 people.
And it invests on average around 9% of revenue in research and development.
The top 100 NZ ICT companies accounted for 10% of goods and services exports in 2009.
It has scalability to lead economic growth.
ICT attracts $2 billion of govt procurement, 7% of all procurement spending.
ICT is on the precipice of vast opportunities with the urban and rural broadband initiaitives.
These are the industries of the future. An ICT manager attracts an average wage of $90,000. But finding skilled workers is the industry’s biggest challenge.
Read the speech I gave yesterday. You may not agree with all of it, but doesn’t it make you ask some questions about the energy, commitment and dare I say “vision” that is lacking right now.
Here’s the video link
Ok I fixed the links and the speech. Sorry.
I am pretty sure that DC referred to NZ Inc in his November speech, or PG. One of them anyway. I didn like it then and I am glad you dont
Typical Neoliberal politics John Key the lying little b****tard has come out of the closet.Sell it,Deregulate it and let Cpitalism loose with no boundaries.WAKE UP WORKINGCLASS NEW ZEALAND
Tracy – Goff has been using it forever – He gave a speech as Minister of Trade stating:
“In New Zealand’s broadening relationship with Europe a “NZ Inc” approach is critical if we are going to maximise the potential benefits”
To Moderators – I love the fact that the lefties are getting all up in arms – but in the last couple of days I have seen ‘left friendly’ posters call righties “Morons”, referred to one as “Aldof Hitler”, and now calling the pm “a lying little b**tard”
So much for your stated moderation position – Im sure right wing posters would have been put in full time moderation or banned for that.
chris: but he’s using that in the context of a relationship with the EC, isn’t he? I guess the idea is “let’s be business-like in our dealings with the EC”.
He’s not suggesting that in all its aspects NZ should be viewed as a corporation.
So much for your stated moderation position – Im sure right wing posters would have been put in full time moderation or banned for that.
But it fits perfectly the time honoured left wing motto of Do what we say, not what we do
Regardless of the arguments about the rights and wrongs of left or right idealologies in these discussion forums, it should be noted that Clare hits the right note in highlighting the long term strategic importance of ICT to NZ.
NZ cannot survive over the long term by flogging commodities such as dead animal bits and wood overseas forever. For a start it makes NZ a price taker, does not create skilled jobs in an increasingly urgbanised country and also has some pretty serious environmental consequences.
When one of the biggest brains in New Zealand (Sir Paul Callaghan) is talking of the need for greater recognition of science and tech more people should be sitting up and listening.
Lets start adding value rather than selling our futures to an uncaring world
@Pat I like it that you are moving this argument away from right and left. There are differences in our approach to the economy granted. Labour is against asset sales etc… But surely we should all want what’s best for our country. To make it thrive and to look to the industries of the future and plan for them and invest in them! Skilled jobs is what we need.
Seems to me that Labour were told to call the speech boring and dull as a pre-arranged reaction. Interesting thing is that Goff’s speech has not even received the slightest bit of publicity. I thought Keys speech was actually very good. He came out with policy that Labour ever so predicitably are going to be anti, but the rest of the country quite likes what he is saying.
I find it ironic that Labour accuse National of introducing the tired old strategies from the past. To me it is Labour that are stuck in a Clark – Cullen era timewarp and refusing to acknowledge that in two short years the country has moved on. The policies for partial asset sales differ massively from the 1980s and in reality there is no similarity between the two policies no matter how you try and paint it.
When National win by a massive landslide come 26 November 2011 will you finally accept that you are wrong, and democracy has spoken and that the country does support the National Party Policy agenda? Will Labour at that time re-design their policy foundations?
Pat – I also believe it to be good to move beyond “left” vs “right”. They are unsubstantial terms which just serve to create artificial divisions. I would also hope people would try to shift their intellectual horizons beyond the empty rhetoric and shallow polemics of party partisans.
The problem with the attitude here and the “NZ inc” approach, whether it be Phil Goff or John Key expressing it, is the primacy of the economic factor. Both parties are guilty of this ‘economism’. Of course the economy is undoubtedly important, but it is the supremacy of the economic sphere in their social view that people take umbrage with. As I noted in Clare’s ‘priorities’ post her priorities didn’t include any non-materialist factor (for instance one might think liberty a foremost priority). That’s difficult territory for both those that self-identify as “left” or “right” because it involves individual attitudes and not ideas about how the state can further interfere in the economy (in fact the opposite would be better that is less state interference in the economy and more separation between the economy and state).
“The problem with the attitude here and the “NZ inc” approach, whether it be Phil Goff or John Key expressing it, is the primacy of the economic factor. Both parties are guilty of this ‘economism’.” Hear hear!
Economics, more specifically the money part economics is king. It is also the default position of most NZers. However economics is broader than mere money (see Marilyn Waring’s work in this regard) and a society is more than the bottom line. Prudence is necessary but we are too lopsided in our started positions, coming from the magical mythical world of that inexact science – economics of money.
Afterall the stock market and the exchange rates now get a ten minute section on the “NEWS”, squeezed in between deaths here and overseas, and then the sport. If you want to measure the focus of a nation, tune into the news and view our focus, fixation bias.
QtR another problem related to ‘economism’ of our political debate is ‘fiscalism’ i.e. the focus on the Government’s books as being the central focus of Government and of national politics.
Politics has got to be primarily about changing our society for the better for everyone. Not primarily about economic or fiscalised managerialism.
Also I fail to understand why having less state interference in the economy is better than having more corporate interference in the economy.
At least the state is supposed to be looking out for its citizens as its no 1 priority, whereas big corporates are supposed to be looking out for their major global shareholders as their no 1 priority.
The other thing I will suggest is that the state should consider itself a major economic player at every turn because it is such a big spender in the economy. And any entity which is a big spender should damn well use its position to advantage its stakeholders. Which hopefully, should be us the citizens. Hopefully.
thats just as likely as you admitting that you are wrong when Key decides on a permanent sojourn to Hawaii at the end of the year. He already has his exit all planned out, remember.
<blockquote.Also I fail to understand why having less state interference in the economy is better than having more corporate interference in the economy.
That’s a non sequitur Colonial. We’ve had this argument before and I don’t care to repeat it.
Well, the neo conservative movement is alive and well here in NZ, I wonder why the people of NZ do not realise HOW they have had their wealth taken away from them by stealth and well put together sentences.
Come on Labour please for our sake lay it all out in front of the public and let us all make informed voting decisions.
The reason the national party got into power is simple. Labour didn’t really try to beat them. Please our country cannot afford to lose any more. Try harder this time.
Rimu
Oh yeah thanks for the reminder QtR.
It would help me envisage what you have in mind if you could give me a concrete example (preferably of some scale) of where the paradigm you propose has worked well, in your opinion.
For a number of reasons; state monopolisation is force, a loss of choice, an increase in inefficiency, etc… The state is also protected by sovereign immunity…
While corporates can only interefere if government’s let them and citizens have options to pursue damages through the courts…
Not to mention that NZ had a stunning example of how the state cannot even being to control the economy – provided aptly by Muldoon…
Hi guys
Thought you might like to take a look at Fran O’Sullivan’s column in the NZ Herald casting doubt on ‘the Chinese backed bid for 50.01% of PGG Wrightson’.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10704960
It is somewhat eye-brow raising to read of this right wing journalist’s concerns about the possible sale of another of our critically important national assets to foreign interests.
Fran O’Sullivan has commented that with the right sort of management, this company could grow to earn the wealth of the US’s Monsanto!
It is an appalling indictment of our establishment business leaders that they have not been able to capitalise on this investment to the point that it could slip into foreign control. A real victory to Nact style short-term-ism.
Can Labour come up with an alternative proposal to safeguard this asset – Landcorp, Cullen Fund??
Colonial – If by ‘paradigm’ you mean emergent order from voluntary human interaction then it is all around you and shown all throughout history. It is about that versus top down coercively imposed ‘order’. But this not germane to the thread or my previous comment. The issue was your non-sequitur which only requires knowledge of how the real world operates to show as nonsensical.
Okay We all get the economic angle and its importance or lack thereof but it just seems to me that NZ seems to be contracting intellectualy as well as fiscally.
Surely we as a nation could look at creating wealth by creating instead of simply shifting the deckshairs around as the nation sinks below the poverty line.
We seem to under estimate the power of an idea and follow a bizarre accountancy led form of beaurecratic legalese that isnt really driving growth… wouldnt it be a good idea to find out what the tech sector/science sector needs are going forwards in order to thrive?
QtR I’ve fought through the “real world” as I’m sure you have. But that doesn’t mean that different conceptualisations of the what and whys are not possible.
Which dreamland do you inhabit?
Which courts did the citizens of Bhopal have recourse too against the US giant Union Carbide?
You mention Muldoon as an example of the state not being able to control the economy. I will counter you with Japan (for 40 years, not so good in the last 20 years since they allowed a property bubble to grow and listened to the IMF and made several banking/currency mis-steps)) and raise you Singapore, South Korea, Norway, Finland, China and Germany.
By the way, re: damages through the courts, isn’t it better not to be damaged in the first place? E.g. leaky house syndrome, leaky new school syndrome?
What use are the courts there?
Colonial – Regarding Bhopal I’d point you to this. I’d would also ask, rhetorically, who has a monopoly on the legal system?
Re: Japan that is a good example of the failure of Keynesian stimulus.
Colonial – Regarding Bhopal I’d point you to this:
Re: Japan that’s a good example of the failure of Keynesian stimulus.
India has a court system, I was there recently the Supreme Court figures frequently…
The countries you list are far from the one you promote, indeed many of them have or are currently promoting privatisation, aren’t democracies or have massive resource endowments…
Leaky buildings happened within a regulated environment… I’m sure you have no idea but the BIA was wrapped up quickly by Labour afterwards to eliminate the government’s responsibilities and liability, Hardie’s was similarly protected and the remainder of the private sector was left to be punished via, wait for it, the courts… So why aren’t the courts working effectively in the case of LBs..? Because the government covered the backside of those who caused 80% of the problem…
The precautionary principle you promote, if it had been in a 100 years ago, means we’d still all be riding horses, travelling the oceans by sailboat and posting letters… It’s feel good cr*p…
You my friend are the one living in a dreamland, where everyone gets a house and a pony for free…
“Leaky buildings happened within a regulated environment… I’m sure you have no idea but the BIA was wrapped up quickly by Labour afterwards to eliminate the government’s responsibilities and liability, Hardie’s was similarly protected and the remainder of the private sector was left to be punished via, wait for it, the courts… So why aren’t the courts working effectively in the case of LBs..? Because the government covered the backside of those who caused 80% of the problem…”
The problem began and therefore has not ended with the DE regulation of treated timber. Maurice Williamson said in his last interview of leaky homes with the National programme, that no claims have been made for homes built under the 2004 Act. I am afraid his employees at the DBH have misled him, or he has misled us. A decision has just been released from the Weathertight Tribunal declaring a home constructed in 2006 a leaky building.
This sits squarely with what our company has been saying for years. Oneof the problems is the same “experts” have been relied upon to fix the problem as contributed to it. These homes are not going away, and nor is the bill.
Jeremy I suspect the BIA and the National Government de-regulating timber treatment (an subsequent labour Govt not regulating it) are the reason for the 25% offer to owners from the Government (that and a case under appeal between Council and the AG (as rep of former BIA).
Dow plant in Taranaki is a good example of when self regulation goes wrong too.