Red Alert

Author Archive

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.


Double Dipton discovers social media

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 27th, 2011

Screen shot 2011-06-27 at 1.20.42 PM

Bill English has discovered social media. How on earth will he find time to answer one whole question per week?

Still, it’s more than he answers in Parliament…


Transparency around lobbying important

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 20th, 2011

I don’t think New Zealand politicians have anything to fear from more open and transparent rules around the activities of lobbyists. The lobbyists I’ve come into contact with in my short time as an MP have been decent people and shouldn’t have anything to fear from a more transparent system either. In fact, the natural suspicion that the secrecy around their current activity arouses would be reduced, potentially leaving them better off in the long run.

I’m pleased the Labour Party has decided to support the Private Members Bill introduced by Sue Kedgley at First Reading, should it be drawn from the ballot. The Bill does two main things. First, it establishes a Register of Lobbyists, to be administered by the Auditor General. Second, it requires the Auditor General to establish a Lobbyist’s Code of Conduct and ensure that it is enforced.

I’ve had a chance to have a quick read through Sue’s Bill and I think it’s a good start, although I’m concerned that it may go wider than necessary. For example, as I read it under the current wording of the Bill, a plumber who makes an appointment to see their local MP to complain that the registration fees imposed by their professional body are too high would technically be deemed to be a lobbyist and therefore be required to register as one or be in breach of the law. I think that’s going a bit far.

New Zealanders are fortunate that we have a form of government that is incredibly open and accessible. Anyone can make an appointment to see their local MP and I’d hate to see any moves to regulate professional lobbyists compromise that. But that’s a question of detail and I’m sure it can be worked through at select committee, should the Bill make it that far. This is certainly a debate worth having.


Some gambling facts

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 14th, 2011

At his press conference yesterday, John Key argued that casinos are better at ‘harm minimisation’ than the average pokie machine operator. I tend to agree with him on that, which is why I’m disappointed his government haven’t done more to address the significant issue problem gambling is causing in some of our poorest communities.

At this point in proceedings I thought it would be useful to get a few facts about gambling in New Zealand on the table:

  • New Zealanders lost $2.034 billion through gambling in 2008 of which $938 million was lost through pokies.
  • $5.6 million is gambled every day in New Zealand.
  • Pokies (outside casinos) took $889 million in 2009, compared to $107 million in 1991, and have 46% of the gambling market.
  • 2.5million is lost every day on pokies – not including casinos.
  • There are 19359 non-casino pokie machines (March 2010) in New Zealand. With casino pokies this means there is one machine for every 134 people over 18 years.
  • Pokie machines are the most harmful form of gambling as over 78% of problem gamblers use them as their primary mode of gambling.
  • Between 10,000 and 60,000 (0.3% and 1.8%) of adults are problem gamblers in New Zealand.
  • A 2009 Ministry of Health study shows that pokie machines are concentrated in the most vulnerable communities.
  • 54% venues are in decile 8,9 & 10 areas and 56% Maori and 72% Pacific peoples live in these decile areas.
  • In decile 9 areas there is 1 pokie machine for every 75 people and in decile 1 areas there is 1 pokie machine per 465 people.
  • A study in 2005 found that approximately 35% of foodbank clients were either problem gamblers themselves or were affected by the gambling of others.

Now that John Key has suddenly had a revelation and decided that problem gambling and pokie machines are such a big problem in low socio-economic areas, I look forward to hearing his government’s comprehensive plan to deal with the issue. I won’t be holding my breath though…


Key puts up ‘NZ For Sale’ sign

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 13th, 2011

It’s time for John Key’s government to stop being dictated to by multi-national corporations and start putting the best interests of New Zealanders ahead of corporate profits. News that SkyCity has decided to invest in a new International Convention Centre in Auckland is great news for the economy, locally and nationally. But that doesn’t mean we should rush out and change our laws and regulations to suit the interests of SkyCity’s shareholders.

When Warner Brothers held a gun to National’s head, John Key rolled over and changed our employment laws to suit their whims. Now we’re seeing him roll over and offer to change our gambling laws to suit SkyCity. That’s not good enough. The National government should be guided by what is in the best interests of all New Zealanders, not what’s in the best interests of corporate giants.

It’s ironic that National aren’t willing to back New Zealand companies like KiwiRail, preferring to see contracts for new trains and carriages shipped offshore, but when one of the private sector big corporates clicks their fingers it seems there isn’t anything John Key won’t do to please them.


Nats plan more radical ACC reforms?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 5th, 2011

Nick Smith’s argument in favour of privatising the ACC Work account has already been blown out of the water by the private insurance industry themselves, who openly admit that they can’t offer cover as cheaply as ACC can. This from the Dom Post story:

Vero’s executive general manager of new ventures Nigel Edmiston said his company – which is owned by the Australian SunCorp Group – had done some planning on entering the workplace insurance market but that the Government’s proposal “wasn’t particularly attractive”…

Edmiston said that private insurers would not be able to compete with ACC’s pricing and would prefer it was excised completely from the market.

“[ACC] have a huge market share, they have all the infrastructure and systems, they’ve got no set up costs, they don’t pay tax and they don’t pay dividends and they don’t need capital.”

He said at the outset private insurers would need to provide 80 cents in capital expenses for every dollar gained in premiums on such a product.

In other words, Edmiston is confirming what we’ve said all along. ACC is incredibly efficient and cheap, and it ensures that all of the money collected actually goes into helping those with injuries, rather than into the profit lines of the Aussie insurance industry.

The only way the private insurance industry could compete would be if ACC was excluded, in other words, the cheapest provider was arbitarily shut out of the market. How exactly would that be competition?

This all begs the question, however, of just how enduring Nick Smith’s commitment to his current proposal is. If National win the next election, don’t be surprised to see a more radical proposal for ACC reform suddenly emerge as National claims it has won a ‘mandate’ to do whatever it likes in dismantling our world-leading ACC scheme.


Time to re-think govt office space

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 4th, 2011

I see yet another brand new high rise building is being planned for the lower end of Lambton Quay, with a government department, reportedly the Ministry for Social Development, signed-on as the anchor tenant. Frankly I’m getting a bit fed up of seeing massive amounts of money spent on brand new buildings in the Wellington CBD for government departments and agencies. Why does every government employee need to be located right opposite the Beehive in some of the most expensive real estate going? Why is it important for a call centre operator to be located across the road from the Minister they are never likely to meet?

Out here in Upper Hutt, we’ve got plenty of office space going that would be ideal for government employees, and it would cost the taxpayer about a third of what it costs to keep them in CBD offices. In this era of greater austerity and cost-cutting, surely we should be looking at whether or not we need to continue to prop up a bunch of central city property developers when there is plenty of office space on the periphery and in the suburbs that’s already available (not to mention the economic, social and environmental benefits of allowing people to work closer to where they actually live).

Public servants are entitled to work in comfortable surroundings, but that doesn’t mean they have to be accommodated in brand new CBD offices. It’s time for a major re-think about how government procurement of office space is handled. Having different government agencies bidding against each other for new office space is just stupid, and I understand that has happened in the past. Perhaps it’s time for a more centrally coordinated approach, with an increased emphasis on de-centralisation?