Red Alert

Author Archive

Maiden Speech Timetable

Posted by Chris Hipkins on February 8th, 2012

Here is the timetable for Maiden Speeches as I understand it at the moment (the allocation of exact time slots is a matter for each party and they may switch people around a bit):

Wednesday, 8 February 2012:

  • 4.30 pm Tracey Martin, NZ First
  • 4.45 pm Andrew Williams, NZ First
  • 5.00 pm Richard Prosser, NZ First
  • 5.15 pm Brendan Horan, NZ First
  • 5.30 pm Denis O’Rourke, NZ First
  • 5.45 pm Asenati Lole-Taylor, NZ First

Thursday, 9 February 2012:

  • 3.45 pm Mike Sabin, National

Tuesday, 14 February 2012:

  • 5.00 pm David Clark, Labour
  • 5.15 pm Andrew Little, Labour
  • 5.30 pm Megan Woods, Labour
  • 5.45 pm Rino Tirikatene, Labour

Wednesday, 15 February 2012:

  • 4.15 pm Mojo Mathers, Green
  • 4.30 pm Steffan Browning, Green
  • 4.45 pm Julie Anne Genter, Green
  • 5.00 pm Jan Logie, Green
  • 5.15 pm Denise Roche, Green
  • 5.30 pm Eugenie Sage, Green
  • 5.45 pm Holly Walker, Green

Thursday, 16 February 2012:

  • National Party members (order TBA)

As the new MPs complete their speeches, I’ll add a link to the video clip. If you’re a bit impatient, you can find them on www.inthehouse.co.nz


Members’ Bill ballot

Posted by Chris Hipkins on February 7th, 2012

1. Auchinvole, Chris – Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill
2. Browning, Steffan – Commerce (Code of Practice for Supermarket Grocery Suppliers) Amendment Bill
3. Calder, Cam – Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill
4. Chauvel, Charles – New Zealand Flag Bill
5. Clark, David – Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day) Amendment Bill
6. Clendon, David – New Zealand Bill of Rights Amendment Bill
7. Cosgrove, Clayton – State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill
8. Curran, Clare – Kiwi Jobs Bill
9. Dalziel, Lianne – Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill
10. Delahunty, Catherine – Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill
11. Fenton, Darien – Minimum Wage Amendment Bill
12. Flavell, Te Ururoa – Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill
13. Genter, Julie – Land Transport (Give Way to Buses) Bill
14. Graham, Kennedy – Public Finance (Sustainable Development Indicators) Amendment Bill
15. Hague, Kevin – Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Essential Financial Services) Amendment Bill
16. Hipkins, Chris – Environmental Reporting Bill
17. Hughes, Gareth – Energy Efficiency Conservation (Warm Healthy Rentals) Amendment Bill
18. Huo, Raymond – Immigration (Migrant Levy) Amendment Bill
19. Lees-Galloway, Iain – Land Transport (Safer Alcohol Limits for Driving) Amendment Bill
20. Logie, Jan – Equal Pay Amendment Bill
21. Lotu-Iiga, Peseta Sam – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Break Fees Disclosure) Amendment Bill
22. Mackey, Moana – Continental Shelf (Oil Exploration Safety) Amendment Bill
23. Mallard, Trevor – Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Shopping Centre Opening Hours) Amendment Bill
24. Mathers, Mojo – Consumer’s Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill
25. McClay, Todd – Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill
26. McKelvie, Ian – Wild Animal Control (Increased Fines and Sentences of Imprisonment) Amendment Bill
27. Moroney, Sue – Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months Paid Leave) Amendment Bill
28. Norman, Russel – Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill
29. O’Connor, Simon – Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill
30. O’Rourke, Denis – Local Government (Salary Reform) Amendment Bill
31. Prasad, Rajen – Children’s Commissioner (Reporting on Legislation) Amendment Bill
32. Robertson, Grant – Local Government (Public Libraries) Amendment Bill
33. Robertson, HV Ross – Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill
34. Roche, Denise – Local Electoral (Finance) Amendment Bill
35. Sage, Eugenie – Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill
36. Simpson, Scott – Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill
37. Turei, Metiria – Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill
38. Wagner, Nicky – Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill
39. Walker, Holly – Lobbying Disclosure Bill
40. Woodhouse, Michael – Financial Assistance For Live Organ Donors Bill


Nats promise wholesale ACC privatisation

Posted by Chris Hipkins on October 13th, 2011

Yesterday Nick Smith announced ACC levies were going to be cut. That’s good news. They never should have been hiked up massively in the first place, and Smith’s own press statement highlights just how cynically the National government have manipulated the situation.

There was never a crisis in ACC. It was hit by the global financial downturn and revaluation of existing claims liabilities, leading to deficits. But the problem was not a structural one, and ACC would have returned to surplus even without the levy hike. ACC was already back to a $2.5 billion surplus in 2009/10 before Smith’s levy hike had taken effect.

But don’t get too excited about the levies falling just yet. If National are re-elected, all Kiwis will end up paying more to get less from ACC. Smith has effectively announced the wholesale privatisation of ACC if National gets half a chance. That means money that should go into providing cover for injury victims will go into the profit lines of Aussie insurance companies.

Smith has confirmed that if a National-led government is re-elected, their ACC privatisation agenda will be expanded from only covering workplace injuries to also include injuries sustained in car accidents, around the home, or even on the sports field.

National’s privatisation plans will effectively bring an end to what has been our world-leading system of universal, no-fault, 24/7 cover for accidental injury. Under National, if someone sustains an injury, they can look forward to spending weeks or even months arguing with different insurance providers about who should cover it.

It’s still not clear what problem National are trying to fix here. Independent studies have clearly shown that ACC is among the cheapest providers of accidental injury cover in the world. New Zealand employers already pay on average half of what Australian employers pay, yet National wants to replicate the Australian model.

The choice for New Zealanders is now crystal clear. If they want to keep our system of universal, no-fault, 24/7 cover for accidental injury, then they will need to vote for a change of government.


Let’s back jobs for young Kiwis

Posted by Chris Hipkins on September 2nd, 2011

Yesterday Labour launched our Youth Skills policy. Jacinda did an excellent post on the details just after it went public. If you live in Wellington and missed it in the DomPost this morning, look again. You’ll see all the salient details comprehensively covered in the news brief below and to the left of the quarter page article and photo espousing John Key’s babysitting and travel companion potential.

There is a certain symmetry to Labour launching a policy to get young Kiwis into work on the same day the National government signed off on a deal to buy a bunch of new electric trains for Auckland from overseas, rather than build them locally here in New Zealand. I think it’s great that Auckland are getting much needed investment in their public transport infrastructure, but why aren’t we cashing in the potential to create somewhere around 1,000 new jobs and add up to $250 million to our GDP?

The link between these two announcements actually runs a lot deeper than highlighting the contrast between Labour, who want to create local jobs, and National, who want to export them overseas. When I speak to a lot of the tradespeople in my electorate, I’m reminded just how many of them did their apprenticeships at the railway workshops, the post office, the car assembly plants, or the freezing works. With the exception of the railway workshops, that now employs a fraction of the staff it once did, all of those big employers are gone.

Those tradespeople are now sole traders or work largely in firms that employ fewer than 10 people. Taking on an apprentice is something they’re more than happy to do. They learned their trade on the job and they’re more than happy to give future generations the same chance. But it’s a huge commitment financially and a lot to ask of such small businesses. That’s why I know they’ll welcome Labour’s plan to convert the dole into apprenticeships subsidies.

A lot of people have remarked to me in the past how crazy it is we pay a young person to sit at home on the dole but we won’t provide some financial support to those willing to take them on and train them up. Well Labour is going to do something about that. Our Youth Skills policy is one that I’m very proud to campaign on. Our plan to get thousands of young Kiwis into work, education and training is in marked contrast to National’s plan to give a couple of hundred young beneficiaries a pre-pay purchase card.

So while baby-sitter John devotes his time to worrying about how young people spend their pocket money, Labour is focused on providing them with a meaningful vocation and hope for the future. Oh, what was that about nanny state again…?


Renewable energy – we can do better

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 31st, 2011

Yesterday the National government released their much anticipated Energy Strategy. The first draft that was released for consultation was pretty poor, and the final version is even worse.

While they claim they are still committed to the goal of having 90 percent of our electricity generated from renewable sources, most of their actual plan heads in the other direction.

We have an abundance of renewable energy sources in New Zealand. We could be world leaders in renewable energy. Instead the National government want to focus on extracting more fossil fuels like gas and oil.

It’s a short-sighted approach that does nothing to insulate us from the inevitable price increases that are on the way, not to mention the damage it will do to our environment.

National trumpets the fact that the amount of electricity we’ve generated in the last few years from renewable sources has increased, never mind the fact that it’s rained quite a bit. What happens when we get another dry year? We need more wind, more solar, more local generation, and more of a focus on energy efficiency.

It’s great that the National government have at least said they agree with the 90% renewable target put in place under the last Labour government, but we need to do a lot better if we’re going to meet it.


Kiwis want to own our future

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 23rd, 2011

Tonight TV3 revealed the results of a poll that asked New Zealanders about substantive issues and the results were revealing. New Zealanders overwhelmingly prefer the introduction of a capital gains tax over the sale of state assets.

53 percent opted for a capital gains tax while only 31 percent of respondents wanted to see state assets sold. Even amongst National’s own supporters, one in three prefer the policies that Labour is promoting.

National’s sales pitch for asset sales hasn’t convinced anyone. Kiwis know that once the assets are sold, they’re gone forever. They also know that the shares will probably end up being owned overseas, and we’ll be waving goodbye to more and more of the profits.

John Key’s assertion that it will be “different this time” rings a little hollow when even his own Finance Minister publicly admits there is no way they can stop the shares ending up in foreign ownership.

This election is a clear choice between owning our own future or selling off whatever is left to the highest bidder and becoming tenants in our own country. Labour’s got a lot of work to do over the next three months, but I’ll be proud to be out there campaigning under the banner of a party that’s willing to make the bold calls and do what’s right for the future of our country.


Politics should be about ideas

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 23rd, 2011

Politics should be a contest of ideas. Increasingly it’s becoming more and more focused on tactics and personalities. More column inches have been devoted to analysing whether Labour’s tax policies have moved our poll ratings than have been devoted to detailing what the policies actually are and whether they’re a good idea or not. Plenty of publicity has been given to John Key’s Rugby World Cup forays, much less attention to the fact that under his watch unemployment has sky-rocketed and the cost of living is rising at the fastest rate in over 21 years.

But that’s the reality. We can complain about it, or we can get out there and redouble our efforts to promote the ideas we believe in. I want to be part of Labour government after this year’s election because I think we’ve got the best ideas for turning our economy around, giving hard-working Kiwis a break, and securing a brighter future for our country.

I hate comparisons between politics and sport, but there is one analogy with sport that I do find useful from time to time. In politics, as in sport, it’s important to “leave it all out on the field”. We compete fiercely with our opponents, we think our ideas are better, and we think we’re better able to manage the challenges we face. But we should never forget that our opponents are also driven by decent intent, however misguided we may think that they are.

Nobody is entitled to power, or to claim ownership of a particular constituency. In a democracy, it’s a right that has to constantly be earned. Likewise, I think it shows total contempt for voters to declare the electoral race all but run before the starting whistle has even been blown. There are still three months to go before polling day, and I, along with my colleagues, intend to campaign for the ideas and values that Labour represents right up to the last hour. This one is too important.


Carmel talks about the cost of living

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 21st, 2011


John Key and that stadium shot

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 19th, 2011

Remember that video clip of John Key standing in the Westpac Stadium in Wellington before the last election lamenting the number of New Zealanders who leave every year to move to Australia? Well, he’d need a bigger stadium for this year’s campaign video.

After 3 years of John Key’s government, the number of people leaving NZ to move to Australia is at its highest level in 10 years. 46,436 people jumped the Tasman for good in the 12 months to July. By contrast, only 14,807 made the jump back the other way.

Remember what John Key said in his 2008 campaign opening speech?

“Do you want more of the same? The same directionless economy? The same political games and distractions? The same loose management of your money? The same excuses, buck-passing, and the same failure to deliver real results?”

Let’s compare the 9 years of Labour government with 3 years under National. Under Labour we had record low unemployment, more people in the workforce than ever before, more people in tertiary education than ever before. Under National unemployment has sky rocketed and tertiary education funding has been slashed.

As for political games and distractions? This from a PM who walked out of Question Time to avoid answering questions from the Leader of the Opposition. The same PM who backed Rodney Hide, then Don Brash, and has now done a dodgy deal with John Banks in Epsom. The same PM who paid PR firms to get him on Letterman. The same PM who won’t be interviewed on Morning Report but will happily take patsy questions on The Edge…

But of course the state of the economy isn’t National’s fault. Their failure to deliver any meaningful financial relief to those on middle and low incomes isn’t their fault. Youth unemployment isn’t their fault (and in less than a week it’s gone from being John Key’s biggest issue to being a problem that’s ‘overstated’). Now, what was that about “buck-passing”?


Why we’re supporting this Bill

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 18th, 2011

Today the Labour Party is taking the unusual step of supporting the National Government passing a Bill through all stages of Parliament’s process under Urgency. We’ve been pretty critical of National’s use of Urgency to avoid select committee scrutiny so I think it’s important we explain why we’re supporting its use in this instance.

In 2008 a major re-write of the Police Act was passed by the previous Labour government. It’s a big and complex piece of legislation and mistakes were made. Under the law, if someone is discharged or found not guilty of a crime, their photographs and fingerprints have to be destroyed by Police, but if they are found guilty, they’re kept on file.

Inadvertently, the law was changed to prevent the Police retaining the photos and fingerprints of young people where they were dealt with by the Youth Court rather than the District Court. In other words, even if the young person was found ‘guilty’ by the Youth Court the Police would have had to destroy their photographs and fingerprints.

This needed to be fixed under Urgency because once the mistake was publicly known young offenders who had been convicted using identifying information the Police had stored could have had grounds for appeal.

The Bill that Parliament is currently passing effectively restores the status quo. It reverses a law change that was made by accident, without debate, without select committee scrutiny, and without anyone even knowing it was happening.

The Green Party and the M?ori Party are voting against the Bill currently before Parliament. Some of their arguments are based on process; that Urgency creates bad law and the Bill deserves select committee scrutiny. As I’ve noted above, on balance I don’t accept that in this case and think there is a legitimate case for Urgency.

But some of the arguments being raised in opposition to the Bill raise wider policy issues. I agree that these are legitimate debates, but this is not the appropriate time to raise them (I would also note that when the substance of the law was being debated, neither the Greens nor the M?ori Party felt sufficiently strongly about the issues at the time to even speak about them and that part of the original Bill was passed unanimously).

As I’ve said, I don’t like the use of Urgency to pass laws in a hurry without proper debate and scrutiny. It should only be used in exceptional circumstances. In this instance I think Urgency is warranted.


John Key ain’t no statesman

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 16th, 2011

Trevor Mallard got tossed out of the House this afternoon for calling John Key a chicken. It was probably a fair call on Lockwood’s part, it wasn’t a particularly dignified remark, but nor was the behaviour from the PM that prompted it.

Labour set down several questions to the PM on young people today. Key transferred the one from Phil Goff to Paula Bennett. He couldn’t do that for a subsequent question lodged by Annette King though, so Phil and Annette basically swapped. Annette asked the question to Bennett, while Goff sought to ask the question of the PM.

However, our PM has clearly decided that answering questions from the Leader of the Opposition is beneath him, so he simply walked out of the debating chamber, leaving Bennett to answer on his behalf. Whatever took him away clearly can’t have lasted long, because he returned later to answer questions from other members.

Pretty poor form for the PM to duck answering questions about his own comments.


Electronic voting

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 15th, 2011

In my speech on the Electoral Administration Bill last Thursday I said that I thought it was time we had a debate about electronic voting. That sparked quite a lot of feedback via Twitter and Facebook, with No Right Turn and Kiwiblog also posting their opposition and support on their blogs. I thought I’d set out my thoughts in a bit more detail here.

The first thing to clarify is that I don’t think we should rush into this. A move to electronic voting will need to be robustly debated, the pros and cons carefully weighed, and if we do decide to proceed, great care will need to be taken to ensure we avoid the pitfalls experienced in many overseas jurisdictions.

But there are a lot of potential benefits to electronic voting that we can’t ignore. A large percentage of those who are eligible to vote but don’t are young people. Electronic voting is likely to appeal to them quite a lot (the Bill we passed last week allows people to enroll to vote and update their enrollment details online, a very welcome step).

Electronic voting also has the potential to improve participation amongst those with disabilities. Blind people can’t complete a secret ballot under current arrangements, and those less mobile also rely on others to ensure they can do their democratic duty. Those temporarily overseas or out of their electorates may also be more inclined to vote if they could do so online.

The downsides and risks are considerable. If an electronic voting system was used it would need to be auditable and recountable. It’s hard to go past paper ballots on both of those counts. The system would also need to be very simple so that voter intention is clearly respected (ie. your vote goes to the candidate or party you think you’re voting for).

I’m no IT expert, but I do all my banking online, do a lot of shopping online, and interact with most of my friends online. Security has improved remarkably in recent years. I’d be surprised if we couldn’t design a robust, fair and transparent voting system using electronic means. Let’s have the debate. If it improves participation, why wouldn’t we?


More ACC jiggery pokery

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 13th, 2011

Earlier this week the National government was once again caught fudging figures about ACC. When they took office, they manufactured a financial crisis in ACC in order to justify hiking levies and carving it up for privatisation. The cynical nature of their crisis beat-up was highlighted when just a few months out from an election they suddenly decided ACC was in great shape and the levies should be cut again.

Now it’s been revealled that this year’s Budget, the one in which Nick Smith heralded ACC’s dramatic turnaround, over-stated the savings ACC is supposed to be making. Documents obtained by Radio NZ under the OIA show that the Government ignored warnings from the Labour Department before the Budget that Treasury figures on proposed savings from ACC were too optimistic. The Labour Department predicted savings of $400 million over the next three years, but Treasury said $580 million would be saved.

Nick Smith has been all over the place on ACC figures. One minute it’s having a financial crisis the next he is ignoring Labour Department advice in order to make the Government’s financial position look better than it otherwise might. Nick Smith and National simply cannot be believed when it comes to ACC. There was never a crisis. ACC is an excellent scheme and National should stop trying to sabotage it so that they can make bigger profits for the Aussie insurance industry.


Democracy denied by smug Nats

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 12th, 2011

Earlier this year Phil Goff and I accepted a petition signed by almost 6,000 Kiwis concerned about the government’s cuts to compensation to those suffering from work-related hearing loss. Thanks to National, people with hearing impairment are the only group of New Zealanders required by law to demonstrate a particular percentage of disability before rehabilitation will be offered under the ACC scheme.

At yesterday’s Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee meeting National members voted en-bloc to report back the petition of Louse Carroll and 5857 others to the House without hearing a single piece of evidence. That’s undemocratic and a slap in the face to all those who sought to have their concerns heard by their House of Representatives.

Having actively discriminated against those with hearing loss, the National government is now turning a deaf ear to their concerns. They aren’t even willing to allow them to come to Parliament and have their say. That’s frankly disgraceful. If almost 6,000 people were willing to take the time to sign a petition to Parliament, the least their elected representatives can do is allow them the courtesy of a hearing.


Where will Winston stand?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 1st, 2011

Winston Peters is playing his favorite game, which is to keep everyone guessing. This time around he’s staying tight lipped about which seat he is going to stand it at this year’s election. Speculation is rife!

Naturally, many pundits are picking he’ll throw his hat into the ring in Epsom, which is shaping up to be the highest-profile electoral contest so far, with ACT’s future in Parliament almost certainly dependent on getting John Banks elected there.

There is also speculation he could stand out west, in either Te Atatu or Waitakere, where in either case he’d be running against two sitting MPs.

Some have suggested he could run against Key in Helensville, but given the size of the PM’s majority he’d run the risk of a long, lonely campaign he had little chance of winning while Key was off around the rest of the country. He could also run in Tamaki (his mentor Muldoon’s old stomping ground) but that’s unlikely to generate much media attention.

Then there is the possibility nobody has suggested so far (at least not that I’ve seen). Winston could really shake things up by throwing his hat into the ring in Te Tai Tokerau. A Winston/Hone/Kelvin battle would certainly be a sight to see!

So what do you reckon pundits? Place your bets. Where is Winston going to stand?


TVNZ stupid to close Avalon

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 31st, 2011

Yesterday the Dom Post picked up some of the concerns that I’ve been raising about TVNZ’s planned closure of the Avalon TV studios. I use the term ‘closure’ deliberately, because at the moment that seems like the most likely outcome of their decision to relocate the last of their shows to Auckland and place the complex on the open market.

TVNZ claims that there are about 60 permanent staff working at Avalon, but closure will have a flow-on effect on a far greater number of people than that. Most of the people who make a living from Avalon these days are contractors. The camera men, lighting technicians, and so forth. Then there are the many local suppliers, from the florist who decorates the Good Morning set through to taxi companies, local caterers and so on.

Closing Avalon is a stupid decision that lacks vision and shows TVNZ’s lack of commitment to quality local programming. Avalon is widely recognised as the best TV production facility in the southern hemisphere, but our state broadcaster would rather screen yet more low-budget reality TV shows than put it to good use. In a few years time if Avalon is closed and they decide to produce another Dancing with the Stars type series, they’ll have nowhere to film it. Instead they’d end up converting an unused warehouse somewhere in south Auckland, with all of the cost and expense that goes with that.

The decision to relocate Good Morning to Auckland also needs to be questioned. I’m told by those that work on the show that many of the segments currently screened, including Astar’s cooking segment and the live local music performances, won’t be able to be filmed in the Auckland studios because they’re too small. Don’t forget that TVNZ relocated Good Morning to Auckland once before and it didn’t work so they moved it back to Avalon. This time, if they’ve closed Avalon down, they won’t have that option.

As I’ve said before, we don’t have a public service TV broadcaster in New Zealand. TVNZ is no different to the privately-owned commercial stations like TV3 and Four. And it’s a dinosaur. TVNZ’s heavy reliance on cheap, imported shows will be its downfall. With the proliferation of TV channels and with new technology opening up all sorts of new ways for us to access content, TVNZ’s competitive advantage should be it’s local content. The closure of Avalon demonstrates once again how they’ve failed to grasp that.


ACC and hearing loss

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 24th, 2011

When National took office, they manufactured a financial crisis in ACC in order to cut entitlements and prepare it for privatisation. Nick Smith’s hysterical claims about the financial state of ACC have now been widely discredited, and even Smith himself is now trying to back away from them by claiming a miraculous financial turnaround in just 18 months.

Smith and the National government used the financial crisis to make a number of changes to ACC that undermine some of the central principles behind the scheme. The changes that they made to compensation for victims of work-related hearing loss illustrate it well.

Under National, the guidelines ACC works to when considering hearing loss claims have been changed and ACC now discounts a person’s hearing loss as they get older, regardless of whether or not that loss is age-related. They’ve also set up an arbitrary 6% hearing loss threshold before compensation is considered, regardless of where on the hearing spectrum the loss happened. It’s quite possible to have less than 6% hearing loss and still not be able to hear the person standing next to you in a crowded room.

One of the core principles of the ACC system is that it’s comprehensive, no-fault coverage. Hearing loss is now the only injury/accident where the victim has to meet an injury severity threshold before they’re covered. I’m pleased the Human Rights Commission has agreed to hear the case. The only fair way to deal with hearing loss cases is to deal with each one individually, based on its own merits. That’s how ACC should work.


More support for #ownourfuture

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 17th, 2011

Support continues to roll in for Labour’s plan to own our future and make sure everyone contributes their fair share to the society that they live in, and some of it comes from some pretty unlikely places.

It’s not often that I agree with Deborah Coddington, but I do today.

…muggins like me who stick our savings in the bank have to pay resident withholding tax and can’t escape it. That’s why, in principle, a capital gains tax, as sold to me this week by Labour’s revenue spokesman Stuart Nash, is hard to argue against. If you earn a buck, you pay tax on it. Taxation should be fair…

While Coddington doesn’t agree with a progressive taxation system (ie. the more you earn, the more you contribute), she does take aim at those who have become excessively rich at the expense of others:

The more I see the fiercely wealthy, the more I dislike them. Are they born unpleasant or do riches change them because they’re accustomed to sycophants hanging on every whim? … they’re terrified of losing their money, and becoming grasping and predatory. They fear everyone is out to take it away so they must increase their pile … Rich isn’t a dirty word, but these guys’ refusal to accept they’ve done wrong gives everyone in business a bad name.

I admire people who have worked hard and made a good life for themselves and their families. But I’ve got no respect for those who make huge piles of cash by ripping innocent people off, then stash it away in family trusts and try to pretend they can’t even afford lawyers to defend themselves. They’re rip-off artists, plain and simple. Ambition and hard-work should be rewarded, greed should not.


What others are saying

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 16th, 2011

It’s been a good week for Labour. We’ve put forward a bold policy agenda that will protect our valuable state assets whilst also setting us on the path towards a brighter future. It’s ambitious and highlights the contrast between Labour’s visionary approach and National’s total lack of a plan.

John Armstrong’s column in the NZ Herald notes that Labour’s policy is driven by a desire to do the right thing and get the economy moving again, unlike National’s approach of trying not to scare the horses by doing nothing:

National concedes that Labour’s promotion of the tax was always going to get the tick of approval from some economists, think tanks and academics. National did not count on that endorsement being so strong. The endorsement has come from across the political spectrum, thereby making Goff’s push for the tax look less political and motivated more by what might be in the national interest.

Over on Stuff, Andrea Vance argues that Labour has taken the lead:

…Labour has seized the moment. There comes a tide in the affairs of politics and this time Goff, Cunliffe et al have caught it…pitched against an asset selloff, a CGT looks to many like the lesser of two evils…

On TV3’s The Nation Colin James says that Key and National have “miscued”:

They’ve attacked things that aren’t in it, and attacked things that are in it that they said aren’t in it, and John Key talked about it being a ‘dagger through the heart of the economy’ and I thought Russell Norman in Parliament was able to skewer him on that, he quoted the OECD, he quoted the Treasury, he quoted Australia, and I think National just miscued, it didn’t handle it nearly as well…

Earlier in the week, Rob Salmond posted an interesting piece on Pundit correcting some of Key’s mythical claims:

If John Key is determined to measure a person’s welcome in New Zealand only through tax rates, then the conclusion is clear. High income earners are more “welcome” here than in any of the country Mr Key aspires us to be like… The CGT discussion so far has been a bit surreal. Labour starts a debate about tax policy, traditionally a strong area for National and ACT. In response, National becomes a fact-free zone and ACT retreats into an internecine war over the appropriate degree of their race-baiting.

Blogger Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn, often critical of Labour for not being bold enough, nails it:

The numbers stack up. This is not a spendthrift plan to just keep on borrowing. Instead, its a cautious, sensible, fiscally conservative plan to balance the government’s books by closing a serious tax loophole. And we don’t have to sell anything to do it. Labour is now presenting a clear alternative to the government’s policies: either we can sell the family silver and see the profits go offshore, while trying to cut our way out of recession – or we can pay off our debts and support our government services by making the wealthy pay their fair share. Put like that, its really a no-brainer.

Meanwhile Fran O’Sullivan questions whether John Key has the gravitas to deal with the challenges we face:

All New Zealanders know Key has fulfilled his childhood dream by becoming Prime Minister of our small nation. But does he really have serious aspirations for his prime ministership? Or even New Zealand?

One gets the feeling that Key and his Ministers quite like their ministerial BMWs and have forgotten why they’re allowed to ride around in them. We certainly don’t hear them talking about being “ambitious for New Zealand” very much these days.


National’s approach to state housing

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 4th, 2011

Pomare demolition

This photo was taken in Pomare over the weekend. Until recently, Pomare was a great little community in the southern part of my electorate. When National came to power they set about evicting people, leaving the houses there empty rather than finding new tenants for them. The places were allowed to be vandalised and some fell into an awful state of disrepair.

Now the wreckers have moved in, and this entire neighbourhood is being torn down (before some of the tenants have even moved out). Housing New Zealand don’t have any money to replace them. Their current plan is to sow grass in their place until they decide what to do. They call this process “neighbourhood renewal”.

Phil Heatley announced last week that a change in policy will see up to 148 Hutt Valley families purged from the Housing New Zealand waiting list. Those who do have houses already also now have a bit question mark hanging over their tenancy should National win this year’s election.

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. When they were last in government National introduced market rents and sold off 13,000 houses. Their promise to keep income-related rents looks pretty hollow in the context of more evictions, waiting list purges, more house sales, and even state house demolitions. Frankly it’s a disgrace.