Red Alert
Author Archive
The consultancy blowout
Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 19th, 2012The explosion in the cost of consultants and contractors over the last 5 years clearly shows that the National government have failed to live up their promise of a more efficient public service focused on the frontline. Between 2006/07 and 2010/11 the total spend on consultants and contractors leapt from $336 million to $525 million, the biggest leap coming in National’s first year in office when they imposed their arbitrary ‘cap’ on the number of staff the public service can employ.
National’s arbitrary cap on staff numbers has caused this blowout in consultants and contractors costs, plain and simple. They’re not delivering more efficient public services, in fact quite the opposite – Kiwis are paying more to get less. It can’t possibly be more efficient to make someone redundant one day and then reengage them on consultants rates only a few days later, as we’re now seeing happen throughout the public sector.
National’s supposed drive for greater efficiency in the public service has failed miserably. They’ve failed to adequately monitor the effect of their cuts, failed to stop cost blowouts in other areas, and failed to live up to their promise of a more efficient and effective public service. The consultancy culture has gotten so out of hand under National that Bill English’s own department, the Treasury, even hired a consultant to write a review on the use of consultants.
In these tight economic times, Kiwis want to know that the government is spending their tax dollar wisely. A more efficient and effective public service should be a major priority for any government. National has failed to deliver it.
Consultants and contractors
Posted by Chris Hipkins on April 11th, 2012Keith Ng has been digging around the issue of government use of consultants. He’s unearthed some stats that show the use of consultants within the public service has increased under National, despite their promise to bring greater efficiency to public services.
This was inevitably going to be one of the consequences of National’s arbitrary ‘cap’ on the number of people employed by the public service. If government departments aren’t allowed to employ new staff, but still have to do the same amount of work, or in some cases even more, what will they do? They’ll contract the labour in, and it looks like that’s what’s happening.
As Danya Levy’s story on Stuff reminds us, last month the Defence force had to admit that it had rehired two Navy staff just weeks after making them redundant after it was unable to fill their roles. The more arbitrary cuts National inflicts, the more of this we’re going to see.
I’ve blogged before that I support a greater focus on efficiency and outcomes within the public service, but the National government are doing things back to front. They’re too focused on what they can cut and what they can sell, rather than reviewing what they actually want the public service to deliver. That’s where there attention should be focused.
Today’s members bills
Posted by Chris Hipkins on April 5th, 2012Today Labour MPs had 29 bills in the ballot. Not bad out of a caucus of 34. I’ll be working on my colleagues to ensure we have 34 our of 34 next time. Two Labour bills were drawn today. I’ve posted a summary of the Explanatory Note from each Bill below.
Sue Moroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill
This Bill extends paid parental leave to 26 weeks, which, among other things, supports the World Health Organisation recommendation that exclusive breastfeeding is recommended up to 6 months of age. The ability for parents to choose to care for newborn babies is an essential part of supporting families to develop nurturing relationships.
Extending paid parental leave from the current entitlement of 14 weeks to 26 weeks would support families and also create jobs across the economy as employers engage staff to replace those on paid parental leave. As the majority of paid parental leave is uplifted by women, it has the added benefit of creating jobs in areas of the economy where women work, while supporting families and the well-being of children.
This Bill recognises the fiscal implications of this additional entitlement,by staging the implementation of 26 weeks paid parental leave over the course of 3 years.
Lianne Dalziel’s Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill
This Bill will amend the Illegal Contracts Act 1970, to extend the coverage of the Act to prohibit attempts to limit the power of any regulator to award any remedy or distribute the proceeds of any settlement or court order to any individual.
This issue came to light with the ING/ANZ settlement, where ING had set a deadline for investors with money caught up in the frozen funds, (ING Diversified Yield Fund (DYF) and the ING Regular Income Fund (RIF)) to sign up to a partial compensation deal, but in so doing the investors were forced to sign away their right to take further legal action against ING, or even participate in the benefits of someone else taking action against ING. This was despite the fact that the matter was still being investigated by the Commerce Commission.
The offer letter contained a release clause which included the following terms:
“By accepting this Offer you agree to surrender, settle and release all other rights or claims you may have against certain parties in connection with the relevant Fund… including any claims or the extent of any claims of which you are not currently aware, and any claims brought on your behalf or for your benefit by another person.
“…It also means you are agreeing not to benefit from any claim made by any other person in connection with the Funds…”
A Release Disclosure Document was annexed to the Offer Letter and this contained a list of those covered by the release (essentially ING, ANZ, NZ Guardian Trust, and all of the financial advisers who had advised on the investment in the Fund) and referred to the investigations being undertaken by the Banking Ombudsman and the Commerce Commission.
The question that arises is whether, as a matter of public policy, companies that may have transgressed the regulatory framework they operate under should be allowed to make a settlement conditional on these terms.
There is no problem making a settlement conditional on not proceeding with a civil cause of action, but where a regulator has identified a breach of the very rules designed to protect investors, no such agreement should be allowed to stand. It simply exacerbates the wrong should it transpire that these rules were broken.
Over half a billion dollars were stranded in the ING product funds, with a lot of it representing the life savings of elderly people who continue to be angry and confused at the way they were treated.
It is not fair that people were forced to take their chances on accepting a deal that would prevent them benefiting from any action that could follow a finding that ING had breached its statutory obligations.
If the Commerce Commission inquiry produces no findings of wrongdoing on the part of ING or those offering investments in the two Funds (DYF & RIF) then there is no problem. If on the other hand they are found wanting by the Commerce Commission in terms of their legal responsibilities to their investors, this Bill will have retrospective application. A public statement was made prior to the closing of the settlement offer, making it clear that a private member’s bill with retrospective application would be introduced.
Today’s members’ bill ballot
Posted by Chris Hipkins on April 5th, 20121. Accident Compensation (Recent Migrants and Returning New Zealanders) Amendment Bill, Melissa Lee
2. Care of Children Law Reform Bill, Jacinda Ardern
3., Children’s Commissioner (Reporting on Legislation) Amendment Bill, Dr Rajen Prasad
4. Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Amendment Bill, Eugenie Sage
5. Commerce (Code of Practice for Supermarket Grocery Suppliers) Amendment Bill, Steffan Browning
6. Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill, Jacqui Dean
7. Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill, Mojo Mathers
8. Continental Shelf (Oil Exploration Safety) Amendment Bill, Moana Mackey
9. Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Break Fees Disclosure) Amendment Bill, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga
10. Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill, Hon Maryan Street
11. Defence (Overseas Deployment) Amendment Bill, Iain Lees-Galloway
12. Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Representation) Amendment Bill, Hon Parekura Horomia
13. Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Bill, Rino Tirikatene
14. Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill, Louisa Wall
15. Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill, Dr David Clark
16. Energy Efficiency and Conservation (Warm Healthy Rentals) Amendment Bill, Gareth Hughes
17. Environmental Reporting Bill, Grant Robertson
18. Equal Pay Amendment Bill, Jan Logie
19. Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill, Nicky Wagner
20. Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill, Michael Woodhouse
21. Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, Chris Auchinvole
22. Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill, Hon Lianne Dalziel
23. Immigration (Migrant Levy) Amendment Bill, Raymond Huo
24. Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill, Metiria Turei
25. International Non-Aggression and the Lawful Use of Force Bill, Dr Kennedy Graham
26. Kiwi Jobs Bill, Clare Curran
27. Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill, Scott Simpson
28. Land Transport (Give Way to Buses) Bill, Julie Anne Genter
29. Land Transport (Safer Alcohol Limits for Driving) Amendment Bill, Phil Twyford
30. Lobbying Disclosure Bill, Holly Walker
31. Local Government (Council Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill, Darien Fenton
32. Local Government (Public Libraries) Amendment Bill, Dr Megan Woods
33. Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill, Hon Annette King
34. Local Government (Salary Reform) Amendment Bill, Denis O’Rourke
35. Maritime Transport Amendment Bill, Hon Phil Goff
36. Members of Parliament (Code of Ethical Conduct) Bill, HV Ross Robertson
37. Minimum Wage Amendment Bill, Andrew Little
38. New Zealand Bill of Rights Amendment Bill, David Clendon
39. New Zealand Flag Bill, Charles Chauvel
40. New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Change of Electoral Sytem for District Health Boards) Amendment Bill, Dr Jian Yang
41. Oaths and Declarations (Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill, Su’a William Sio
42. Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill, Te Ururoa Flavell
43. Overseas Investment (Owning Our Own Rural Land) Amendment Bill, David Shearer
44. Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill, Dr Russel Norman
45. Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, Sue Moroney
46. Plain Language Bill, Chris Hipkins
47. Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, Todd McClay
48. Public Finance (Sustainable Development Indicators) Amendment Bill, Kevin Hague
49. Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Essential Financial Services) Amendment Bill, Denise Roche
50. Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill, Hon Ruth Dyson
51. Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill, Catherine Delahunty
52. Sentencing (Reparation) Amendment Bill, Kris Faafoi
53. Sentencing (Short-sharp Sentences) Amendment Bill, Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor
54. Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Shopping Centre Opening Hours) Amendment Bill, Hon Trevor Mallard
55. State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill, Hon Clayton Cosgrove
56. Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill, Dr Cam Calder
57. Summary Proceedings (Warrant for Detention Conditions) Amendment Bill, Jonathan Young
58. Wild Animal Control (Increased Fines and Sentence of Imprisonment) Amendment Bill, Ian McKelvie
Update: Lianne Dalziel, Sue Moroney and Holly Walker’s bills were drawn
Nick Smith to go..?
Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 21st, 2012Nick Smith has called a press conference for 1.45pm today. He has no option but to announce his resignation.
The question now is why John Key didn’t take decisive action earlier. He promised to set high standards for his ministers, yet yesterday he was claiming Smith had done nothing wrong.
As late as this morning Keywas reported as saying if he sacked every Minister who made an error of judgement he wouldn’t have many left. Hardly a way to show his confidence in his own team…
Reflections on Key’s speech
Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 15th, 2012John Key’s speech this afternoon focused on three things: setting yet another set of targets, lowering the cap on the number of people employed in the public service, and creating a new ’super-ministry’. A few thoughts on each before some more general observations.
1. Setting targets for the public service
It’s a good thing to set clearer targets for the public service, but Ministers can’t abdicate all responsibility by placing all the onus on departments to achieve them. Ministers set the budgets, sign-off the strategies and plans, and have a huge amount of say over the directions the public service will take when seeking to achieve those targets. They are still responsible. We also need to recognise that some of the targets we set will have long lead-times. For example, getting more 18 year olds with at least NCEA Level 2 starts when those very same kids are 2 and 3 years old, if not before.
2. Capping the core public service at a lower level
As I’ve noted before, this is an ‘input’ measure and cuts against John Key’s stated intention of focusing the public service on ‘outcomes’. It’s also pretty arbitrary and can lead to unintended consequences. For example, if a govt agency needs to take on new people in order to deliver on one of the outcome goals, but they’re up against their quota of staff, they could end up hiring external contractors or ‘outsourcing’ at a higher price than they could deliver the same outcome for internally if they didn’t face such an arbitrary constraint.
3. Creation of a new ’super-ministry’
Restructuring is often seen as something you do when you don’t have a clear sense of what you’re trying to achieve but want to look like you’re ‘doing something’. I agree with what John Key said “Few problems are solved by significant reorganisations – in fact, many more tend to be created. It is easy to underestimate the amount of energy and inspiration soaked up by institutional change, as well as the loss of personal and institutional knowledge”. Shame he didn’t stick to that.
The public service can continually be sliced and diced in the never-ending search for ‘natural synergies’ but what we should really be focused on is getting the whole of government working more effectively together. Constant uncertainty and restructuring doesn’t achieve that.
So overall impressions? We’ve seen enough action plans, strategies, and targets from National. This latest list follows on from the six-point plan in 2010, the revised six-point plan in 2011 with 41 actions, and 2012’s 120-point plan. Time to start making some progress. About the only ‘progress’ they can point to so far is more people out of work.
David Shearer’s speech
Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 15th, 2012
This morning David Shearer spoke about his vision for New Zealand. He spoke of a New Zealand with a strong, clever and creative economy and a world-class education system that gives all Kiwis the opportunity to succeed.
I know that there will be some who argue David should have set out a detailed policy agenda for the next Labour government, just 3 months after an election we lost. Here is what David has to say about that:
I want to arrive in government on Day One with a detailed plan that will actually achieve a shift to a new, job-rich, high-value economy. We won’t be waiting around for officials to give us cautious ideas and suggest a few adjustments. We will be presenting them with detailed and far-reaching policies. Labour will spend the next two years listening, drawing up our plans. We will accept the best ideas wherever they come from. On Day One in office we will be ready to go.
That highlights a huge difference in approach between John Key and David Shearer. David resisted the temptation to rattle off a gimicky “action plan” that ticks a few boxes but doesn’t deliver the real change that New Zealand needs. Instead he set out a vision, and committed Labour to building a comprehensive plan based on the best advice and the best evidence available. That’s real leadership.
Then and now: Key on all sorts
Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 14th, 2012Over the weekend I posted some of John Key’s earlier statements on asset sales and public sector restructuring, pointing out how much his current views and approach differ from what he promised people before he became Prime Minister.
Tonight TV3 have gone one better and unearthed video footage of him speaking to the PSA Conference back in September 2008. Not only does John Key rule out asset sales, he makes a compelling case against them.
“There’ll be no asset sales in the first term of a National government, and there may never be asset sales in the years ahead… Nor am I hell-bent on selling assets actually. I personally think it’s not the issue that the current economy faces. In the world of making the boat go faster, actually I don’t think selling off state assets is going to make the boat go faster.
Labour has been arguing all along that asset sales will not make us a richer country. We’ve been consistent. John Key and the National government have done a complete u-turn and have now placed asset sales at the centre of their economic strategy.
“The Crown’s dividend streams from the Meridians, the Mighty Rivers of the world is large, so on both motivations we don’t have a debt problem, they’re acting, I think, highly effectively as companies, and they’re making money. There is no motivation to sell assets.
Once again, Key is borrowing the line that Labour has been consistently arguing for over a decade. The SOEs are highly profitable. They make more money than we would save in debt repayment costs if we sold them. Also note Key arguing we don’t have a debt problem (Bill English also made similar comments both before and after the 08 election). Interesting how after 3 years of a National government debt seems to be the biggest issue we face…
“So there’s no agenda to sell assets.
This is perhaps the most damning quote. Although Key was careful before the 2008 election to qualify his no asset sales pledge with “during the first term” he gave New Zealanders the very clear impression that he wouldn’t be selling assets long-term either.
“What we are saying is we’re not going to cut jobs, we’re simply capping at 36,000.
That commitment didn’t even last a term. Now he’s promising even more job losses during National’s second term. Nothing about that in their manifesto for 2011.
“The second point is, no we’re not borrowing for tax cuts.
So if they’re not borrowing for tax cuts, and New Zealand didn’t have a debt problem when they took office, why are they now arguing we have a major debt problem and need to sell assets to fix it?
John Key has built his political career on telling people what they want to hear. Eventually that strategy always catches up with people, and it’s catching up with Key big-time.
NZ is not for sale
Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 11th, 2012Today David Shearer released a new Member’s Bill to prevent foreign investors from buying rural land unless they can prove it will bring substantial benefits to New Zealand that would otherwise not occur.
National has botched the handling of the Crafar farms issue. They’ve got it wrong. John Key has tried to brush away criticism by arguing land was sold to overseas investors under Labour too and if we were serious about our opposition we’d change the law. Today David made it very clear we will be doing just that.
Unlike National, Labour is out there listening to New Zealanders, who are increasingly concerned about our country being sold out from under us. John Key was right when he said New Zealanders don’t want to end up tenants in their own land. It’s a shame his actions aren’t living up to that sentiment.
David spells out the case for the Overseas Investment (Owning Our Own Rural Land) Amendment Bill pretty clearly:
“We cannot afford to lose control of our best income-producing assets and become tenants in our own land. Selling our farmland to foreign buyers does not improve our economy. Instead the profits simply flow offshore. We also do not want to see New Zealand farms priced out of the reach of Kiwi farmers who are the best in the world at what they do.
National just doesn’t seem to get that we can’t sell our way to a brighter future. Four years ago John Key was ambitious for New Zealand. Today he seems content to manage our economic decline. There are alternatives, and Labour is going to be at the forefront of promoting them.
Click here to download a copy of David’s Bill, along with the detailed explanatory note.
Then and now: Key on public services
Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 10th, 2012Yesterday I blogged about John Key’s pre-election promises about asset sales and pointed out how the post-election reality falls well short of his earlier rhetoric. Key’s pre-election promises on public services back in 2008 paint an even starker contrast. What National promised and what they’ve been doing are polar opposites.
“A new National Government is not going to radically reorganise the structure of the public sector…..Few problems are solved by significant reorganisations – in fact, many more tend to be created. It is easy to underestimate the amount of energy and inspiration soaked up by institutional change, as well as the loss of personal and institutional knowledge.” (John Key, speech to PSA Congress, September 2008)
I’m not sure the staff at MFAT, where one on four could end up out of a job, would agree that isn’t radical restructuring. Under National, multiple agencies have been merged, over 2,500 jobs have been lost, regional offices have been closed, and now Key is promising even more to come.
“So let me reiterate National’s position. We are in no way going to reduce the number of frontline staff. Let me make this absolutely clear – under National the numbers of doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers, police and other frontline staff will grow.” (John Key, speech to PSA Congress, September 2008)
In the past few weeks we’ve seen DHBs talking about laying off medical professionals because of under-funding, education officials talking about bigger class sizes so that we employ fewer teachers, police being told they have to make massive savings, closure of frontline regional offices (eg. Housing NZ), and the replacement of frontline consular services overseas with an 0800 number.
“In additional (sic) to upholding the professionalism of the public service, we are also going to uphold its political neutrality….There has to be a clear line drawn between the political role of the Government and professional independence of the public service.” (John Key, speech to PSA Congress, September 2008)
I’m not sure how John Key appointing his own local National Party electorate chairman to broadcasting funding agency NZ on Air lives up to this commitment, particularly given said chairman’s role in deciding which political documentaries got funding in the lead-up to the general election.
“The New Zealand government is in a sound fiscal position. We can afford to protect the vulnerable and maintain social services….” (John Key, speech to PSA Congress, September 2008)
Quick, somebody tell Bill English. According to Key, NZ’s books were in good shape when they took office. Of course, having flushed our sound economic position down the toilet they’re now trying to blame the previous Labour govt, who paid back the debt and left the books in good shape.
Then and now: Key on SOE sales
Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 9th, 2012John Key really doesn’t enjoy being reminded of the promises he made to New Zealanders before the election. It doesn’t matter whether it was the 2008 election or the 2011 election, he clearly doesn’t seem to think he should be held to his word. So here are a few of the commitments Key made about asset sales last year. You can be the judge.
“We’ve given the public a commitment: 85 to 90 per cent of these companies owned by New Zealanders” (John Key, TVNZ Leaders Debate, 23 Nov 2011).
The Mixed Ownership Model Bill introduced into parliament on Thursday contains no provisions that guarantee this. Under the legislation as tabled, there is nothing to stop 5-6 foreign investors scooping up all the listed shares.
“That was one of the tests I set out for the mixed-ownership model: that “New Zealand investors would have to be at the front of the queue for shareholdings”, and that we would have to be confident of widespread and substantial New Zealand share ownership.” (John Key, Question Time, 7 June 2011)
Once again, there is nothing in the Bill that gives New Zealander’s priority over foreign investors. There is also nothing to stop any NZers who do buy shares then on-selling them within a short space of time to a foreign buyer (remember how the local energy retailers were snapped up by overseas investors so quickly…)
“Kiwi mums and dads will be at the front of the queue…” (John Key, Question Time, 6 July 2011)
Leaving aside the obvious question of where these mums and dads are going to find several thousands of dollars to invest on the stockmarket at a time when many are struggling to pay thier own power bills, there is nothing in the legislation that puts mums and dads at the front of the queue at all.
“We’re giving people a commitment: no more than one shareholder can have 10 per cent, majority controlled owned by New Zealanders, 85 to 90 per cent of the entire company owned by New Zealanders. That is my commitment to them tonight as Prime Minister” (John Key, TVNZ Leaders Debate, 23 Nov 2011).
There is nothing in the Bill that ensures Key’s last promise will be honoured. Five foreign investors buying 10% each could scoop up the 49% that is publicly listed.
Guyon: “Can you guarantee that no more than 10 to 15 per cent of these shares will end up in foreign hands?” John Key: “Yes. I spent my life starting in investment banking. I know how these things work.” (John Key, TVNZ Leaders Debate, 23 Nov 2011).
Not sure this one needs any further comment really. It speaks for itself…
If you want to check out the full debate, the whole thing is up on Youtube: TVNZ Leaders Debate
Getting public sector reform right
Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 4th, 2012In the past few days a few more details have started to emerge about National’s plans for further cuts to the public service. It’s been interesting to note how the current rhetoric emanating from the top floors of the Beehive hasn’t been matched by the reality so far.
As Andrea Vance reports, despite putting over 2,500 people out of work, National’s bold plan to save $1billion over 3 years has come up short, with only $20m in savings actually realised.
In my view, the National government have got the whole process around the wrong way. There is room for improvement in the way our public services are delivered, and we should start by asking how that can happen, rather than starting by asking how much we can cut.
I tend to agree with Colin James, who has argued that greater efficiency should be a flow on effect of greater effectiveness, not the other way around.
John Key talked only of efficiency at a recent press conference in which he discussed the “better public services” programme. He did not mention effectiveness… But in the real world where people, not equations, live, efficiency is an ingredient of effectiveness, which is the translation of outputs into recognisable, measurable — and desired– outcomes. Better public services will be better only if they are effective. John Key didn’t make a good start.
National started off entirely on the wrong foot three years ago. Then they weren’t focused on outcomes or even outputs. They were focused on ‘inputs’ in the form of staffing numbers, rather than worrying about what those staff actually do/did.
What we should be asking is what New Zealanders expect from their public services and how that can best be delivered. There is certainly a lot of room for improvement, and again I agree with Colin James:
[There is now] an expectation now that goods and services will be custom-made and so the means of access to them and delivery of them be customised. This expectation has been building for two or three decades as technology and globalisation have enabled a transition from mass production to mass customisation. Particularly younger people have that expectation. Fordism is long dead in the private sector and is dying in the public sector. The factory state was time-bound in the twentieth century.
Reform in the public sector is necessary and should be a positive thing, but we need to start by asking the right questions. Focusing on inputs and outputs, rather than the outcomes we want our public service to achieve sets any reform agenda up for failure before it’s even started.
A more responsive public service
Posted by Chris Hipkins on February 14th, 2012Can our public services be more responsive to the needs of New Zealanders? Yes. Can the public service be more efficient? Yes. Will we achieve these things through arbitary cuts that are designed to save a certain amount of money, rather than deliver services better? No.
Improving New Zealanders’ access to services, like passport applications, through new technology and data sharing between government agencies makes sense. But we need to make sure that systems are robust and that many people who don’t have access to the latest technology can still get help from a real person, face-to-face.
We also shouldn’t over-estimate the potential for such innovations to save money. In their initial development they can be costly, and even once they’re fully implemented, someone still needs to be there behind the scenes to make sure they’re maintained (a website is only as good as the content being posted to it).
Some of John Key’s more radical proposals should be very carefully scrutinised. His idea of more user-pays police services, for example, sets a lot of alarm bells ringing.
Many Kiwis will also be alarmed to hear John Key talk about centralising public service administration and greater use of private sector contractors in the same breath. The idea that we could see regional offices closed and replaced with call-centres in Mumbai will be abhorrent to many. We cannot afford to have our public services lose touch with the very people they are set up to help.
We should focus all our attention on how we make public services better. Arbitrary cost cutting, yet more restructuring, and contracting out to the private sector won’t make the public service more efficient or improve our economic situation in the long-term.
National is being exposed for its inability to come up with a coherent plan for economic growth. It’s only ideas are to sell our assets and slash the public service. We can’t ‘nickel and dime’ our way to greater prosperity.
Maiden Speech Timetable
Posted by Chris Hipkins on February 8th, 2012Here 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, 20121. 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, 2011Yesterday 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, 2011Yesterday 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, 2011Yesterday 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.
