Get serious about rebutting the mounting criticism that the Government has no plan for the economy. Rush out a one pager to prove that an economic plan really does exist. Discover that there isn’t really enough hard facts to fill a page. So add in ‘more elective surgical services, more hips, more cataracts ‘as an identified driver of economic growth!
Loading ...Have another brain wave. Declare New Zealand has a future as an important international financial hub. Then do, ummm, well nothing really. So…
Loading ...Not much good news around about the NZ economy.
Standard & Poor Chief economist David Wyss told Auckland economists yesterday that there is a one in three chance of another crash and while the “recession is over”, it’s a very fragile recovery. NZ businesses say they cut too deep in the recession last year and are struggling to rebuild because many of the skilled workers they laid off have gone elsewhere – and who can blame them? Tens of thousands got the chop with no redundancy pay and NZ wages and conditions are falling further and further behind Australia’s. Confidence is faltering and today, our government will fork out around NZ$1.6 billion in taxpayers money to 35,000 depositers in South Canterbury Finance that were covered under the extended guarantee scheme.
The best our government can come up with? Cut workers’ protection against unfair dismissal, restrict their access to union advice, cut their meals and rest breaks and put their holidays up for grabs.
You don’t have to go far to find some pretty grumpy voters. And they’re set to get a lot grumpier come the 1st October when GST goes up and most find that their tax cut has already been eaten up.
This clip from Jim Stanford (aka Lieutenant Stanfordo), who wrote “Economics for Everyone” has parallels, and also some warnings. Paula Bennett’s Welfare Working Group has been promoting unemployment insurance, but look what happens to the workers who are laid off in this video. Compulsory savings is an attractive idea, but without government guarantees, workers can end up getting nothing. I hope someone makes a NZ version.
Breathlessly announce that it is Government policy to catch up with Australia’s GDP/capita by 2025. Forget to spell out how. Then discover that we are heading the other way. Go into denial of the bleeding obvious, relying on a hilarious attempt at obfuscation, rather an acknowledging the truth and playing a longer game.
(See A goal is not a strategy by the New Zealand Institute)
Loading ...Take an axe to Kiwisaver and halve it. Cancel payments into the Cullen fund. Wait almost two years. Discover that New Zealanders’ don’t save. Set up a committee to find out why.
Loading ...I attended a session at the NZ Diversity Forum in Christchurch today and am a panellist at one of the sessions tomorrow. Today’s session was organised by Migrante Aotearoa and was called “Migrant Workers & The Recession – the South Island Experience. There were a number of excellent speakers and they raised some very important issues. These issues are not new to Christchurch MPs as we have been very well-briefed about the impacts of the recession on skilled migrants who were still in the process of working their way to residence when the recession hit. Jim Anderton & I wrote to Minister Jonathan Coleman requesting a meeting to discuss the situation and he refused to meet, because he knows everything. The result of the government’s policies is that skilled migrants are not having their permits renewed (having been subjected to a fresh labour market test) and are being forced to leave New Zealand even though they have a job and are on a pathway to residence. This means we are losing these people, despite the fact that we know we will need them again.
The session included Mike Bell from Move2NZ, giving an overview of the problems that occur when policies change after people are already in NZ. He made very good points about the link between residence and work permit policies and how changes in one impacts on the other and it is simply unfair to do that when people have quit their job and sold their house to come here. I totally agree. I think the Minister is wrong to think that his department doesn’t encourage people to come on visitor visas, so they can look for the job that will support their skilled migrant application for residence. It is sophistry to argue that they couldn’t expect their work visa to be automatically renewed as it is only a temporary visa. Mike made the point that close to 40% of permanent residents were on a temporary visa in New Zealand when they applied for residence. It’s not good enough to ignore the reality of the situation and treat them as temporary visa holders when the government knows they were planning to get residence.
We also heard from a dairy worker, Roberto Bolanos, who described the difficulties Fillipino workers faced and some of the barriers that are put in their way by Immigration requirements that they cannot easily address from Ashburton. He also spoke about the discrimination at work – some subtle, some not so subtle, including having to speak in English with each other even on their breaks. I actually couldn’t believe this was still happening – it happened in the hospital kitchen 30 years ago where the kitchen staff were told they had to speak English – probably because the supervisors (who only spoke English) were worried that the Samoan cooks were talking about them behind their backs. I took the case up as the union delegate and made the point that they most definitely had much more interesting things to talk about. I also said that I would go to The Truth newspaper (that used to be useful in those days) if they didn’t take the notice off the wall – it was gone the next day!
The session included two EEO advisers from the Human Rights Commission who talked about the migrant issues that arose in the National Conversation on Work. This is well worth looking at as it debunks some of the myths around work, as well as identifying the issues that need addressing. And finally we had Bill Rosenberg, an economist from the CTU, who gave an excellent overview of the current economic situation and how that impacted on the prospects & challenges for migrants – locally and globally. I have linked to the CTU’s Economic Bulletins.
I am glad that these issues are being debated, because we will always need skilled migrants, and we cannot afford to see NZ’s reputation for having a well-balanced immigration programme undermined just because we are in recession and expectations have changed. These changed expectations should be managed from the front end – not at the point of no return for those who had a legitimate expectation they were working their way to residence. It isn’t fair and it’s damaging to our future.
Just been sent this. From Computerworld. It shows the effect of delay and uncertainty, confusion and secrecy. It’s affecting our economy now.
FX Networks has posted a reduced profit for the March 31 2010 year. This, says managing director Murray Jurgeleit, is largely due to a pause in buying by dark fibre customers because of lack of clarity in government plans for ultra fast broadband, as well as the rural broadband initiative.
Steven Joyce needs to show some of his cards and let there be a public discussion and debate about what happens to Telecom rather than letting its negotiating tactics dominate the decision around a vital piece of national infrastructure.
Part 1:
Part 2:
From yesterday and doesn’t need much comment but there must be a limit to how long the Nacts will let English reply on behalf of the Prime Minister.
For those without broadband Hansard is below :-
Amazing u turn from Key on savings. His two budgets both moved us away from a savings culture.
And his big move – set up a committee.
No secret that Peter Harris and I have different views – but important to have informed debate from all sides.
Policy progress has another Harris blog.
the third in a set of posts on savings and pensions issues from Peter Harris. The other two posts in the series are Good policy process – the case of New Zealand Superannuation and Why compulsory savings should not be on the agenda.
Radio NZ reporting that Aussie banks are dropping their mortgage interest rates for a second time in a week to try and match Kiwibank. Can’t get link yet.
Doesn’t bode well for economic expectations but makes nonsense of Ralph Norris’ (NAB/BNZ) claim earlier this week that Kiwibank rates were too low.
About time Key gave Kiwibank the small capital boost it needs to move business lending rates down in a similar way.
I’m sick of the one way funnelling of cash west over the ditch.
Suspend payments into the “Cullen fund” – that’s the fund that helps pre-pay superannuation for when all the baby boomers retire in the next twenty years, and therefore makes national super sustainable.
Justify that decision on the basis that the global economic downturn means that the government is fresh out of cash, and would need to borrow.
Quietly overlook the fact that the share market was really low at the time and that that is precisely when smart people buy.
Forgo a huge profit opportunity for the “Cullen fund” as a result, leaving the future of national super uncertain, yet again.
Loading ...A fascinating piece (not on-line it seems) in the Dom Post on Monday from Conor English, Chief Executive of Federated Farmers, and brother to Finance Minister Bill English. He asks the question in terms of the New Zealand economy- “are we asleep at the wheel?”.
This sounds oddly reminiscient of what the Labour Party has been telling Bill English and John Key for some time, that there is no plan. Conor English notes the seismic changes in the world economy and raises the resulting need for us to innovate and to grow our capital markets. He says
We need to focus on the strategic issues that matter. Are we asleep at the wheel, like Wellington was when it forgot to extend its runway for long haul planes? Will we only wake up to realise the world has passed us by and a real opportunity lost? Lets not sleep. Lets find a solution so future generations can benefit from our Kiwi ingenuity.
An interesting article, raising interesting issues. Could also be interesting to be a fly on the wall at the next English family get-together.
John Armstrong has unusually harsh words for National in today’s Herald column.
“Shame on National. That party’s behaviour in Parliament over the past couple of weeks has on occasion veered close to being a disgrace both to itself and the institution … National has ended up being done like a dog’s dinner over one of its most fundamental planks – the closing of the gap between what New Zealanders earn in comparison to Australians … such has been the comprehensive mauling of the concept by Labour over the past week or so that National will now be loath to resurrect it. It is now a loser for National and looks like remaining so through to next year’s election”
“What has been disturbing in this debacle, however, has been the way National has responded to parliamentary questions about the income gap. The low point came on Wednesday when Steven Joyce briefly deputised for Brownlee … A week earlier, Brownlee had told the House in response to a question from Labour that “yes”, the Government did have milestones by which it would measure the progress it was making towards closing the income gap … So eyebrows shot through the chamber’s ceiling when Joyce made the startling admission that there were, in fact, no such milestones. Even more startling was what Joyce said next. Brownlee had given Labour what was technically known as a “brush-off”…”
“Brownlee’s gaffe about the income gap having narrowed since National came to power prompted a desperate search by National for anything that served as evidence, however questionable, of that being the case. Much of the evidence is to the contrary – including some of the material National has dug up. The upshot is that Labour – almost by accident – has given National an old-fashioned hiding on that most fundamental of all questions: which party can be can best trusted with the reins of economic management. The one compensating factor for National is that all this has happened largely out of public view.”
The government have had an easy reign so far, but as Armstrong has pointed out, the shine is starting to come off. National is reverting to type with their ‘born to rule’ attitude. They brush off serious questions by making wise cracks. Up until now that strategy has served them well, but people (particularly journos) are getting a bit sick of it. Questions are now being asked about what exactly National’s plan for New Zealand is. The answer seems to be they don’t have one.
Yesterday in the House Brownlee made it clear the government is getting close to throwing in the towel on Key’s fundamental purpose of government.
Hansard below.
The latest unemployment stats make for grim reading. Over 19,000 Kiwis have joined the ranks of the unemployed in the past 3 months. Since National has been in office unemployment has increased by 53,000. So what’s the National government focused on? Well they’ve spent most of this week trying to doctor figures to hide the fact that the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia has grown during their time in office, despite John Key’s pledge to make closing it his “fundamental priority”.
We should never regard unemployment as merely a matter of statistics. These are real people with real lives, real families, real homes, real mortgages, real bills to pay. The increase in unemployment from 6% to 6.8% in three short months marks thousands of individual tragedies. It’s a much bigger increase than anyone was predicting and highlights how adrift this government have already become.
Back in May John Key was happy to pronounce that his government is on the right track due to falling unemployment, so by his own standard they must have jumped the track in the past 3 months. Where is their plan? The Jobs Summit was a joke. The cycleway has failed to produce the thousands of jobs Key promised. Gerry’s bold plan to mine in National Parks has been stomped on. So what’s next? The thousands of Kiwis struggling to find work are keen to know…
Well, my first private members Bill is over. The Ethical Investment (Crown Financial Institutions) Bill was voted down 63-58 tonight. Supporting it were Labour, Progressives, Greens, Maori and United, against National and ACT. Check out the debate here if you are interested.
It was not a great surprise that National and ACT opposed the bill, but disappointing all the same. The Bill sought to have clear and consistent criteria for ethical investment in the legislation that govern our major investment funds such as the Super Fund and ACC. The criteria are based on international norms and treaties and emphasise the importance of investing in organisations that have good governance, treat their stakeholders fairly and uphold human rights and good labour standards. From an environmental standpoint the organisations that are invested in should be conscious of their ecological footprint and should not be harmful to resources such as air, water and land.
The opposition was based on the fact that some good progress has been made in ethical investment policies and that “the market” would deal with the issues. I thought this was an opportunity to move from a passive approach to ethical and sustainable investment to a positive one that could re-inforce our image as an environmentally and socially conscious country on the world stage.
Anyway it was an interesting process to go through, and I am the wiser for it. Pleased to extend the support for the Bill across the House, and have agreed with other parties to keep working on the issue.
Let’s see how much of this you agree with this.
New Zealand needs high quality ultrafast broadband. In principle, the goal of delivering this to New Zealand businesses, schools, hospitals and homes is the right goal.
Delivering high quality UFB is a core infrastructure priority for governments throughout the world and is in line with the US, Australia, Europe and many Asian countries. New Zealand is not leading, we are following many other countries in delievring on this goal. It is likely to take (at least) 5-10 years to deliver.
Delivering high quality UFB is a complex undertaking to get good outcomes for our country. It requires transition for existing players. Including Telecom. But transition is about the whole industry not just Telecom and it’s a great pity that what happens with the UFB project and how it will be delivered, seems to be all about Telecom.
There is a view that Telecom is currently the most vulnerable telco in the world. I’m not sure about that, but it is important that Telecom can survive the next 3-5 years and make the transition. But it shouldn’t be able to demand the terms.
The next ten years are unknown territory for telecommunciations in New Zealand. The industry is poised to change forever and to become about fibre rather than copper.
Transition will likely require some changes to existing legislation, in particular the Telecommunications Act 2006.
Crown Fibre Holdings, the body charged with making a decision on the UFB contract, is an infrastructure company. It has no ability to determine a vision, no policies and no strategic element.
Telecom’s statement yesterday wanting to ‘integrate the UFB (overseen by CFH and a ‘co-investment’) with the Rural Broadband Initiative (a grant scheme being driven by the MED) and funded by the new look Telecommunications Service Obligations (overseen by the Commerce Commission) shows what a confusing regulatory alphabet soup the Government’s cornerstone broadband policy is becoming.
We need clear orchestration of all the elements in this process. It’s complex and it needs flexibility and transparency. It’s taxpayer’s money. That’s why it’s time to change the governance process.
And that’s why today I called for Telecommunications Commissioner Ross Patterson to be given an independent oversight role in the government’s ultrafast broadband (UFB) scheme.
Communications Minister Steven Joyce should now consider changing the governance process for the UFB decision and to involve the independent Commerce Commission ensure public confidence in the process. At the very least Steven Joyce should remove himself from decisions about Telecom’s requests for variations to its operational separation agreement with the government.
Dr Patterson has sufficient credibility and experience within the industry to bring independent oversight and objectivity into the process and to be mindful of New Zealand’s long term interests in developing our future in broadband.
Otherwise there is likely to be a cloud over the broadband decision. Whatever the outcome, how can the public have confidence that Telecom is not somehow holding our country to ransom with its bid to secure as much value for its shareholders as possible in securing the broadband contract?
“New Zealand’s interests are paramount, not the Telecom shareholders and the government should recognise this.
This is extraordinary:
The UK coalition government’s emergency budget could be branded unlawful after a groundbreaking legal case was launched in the high court. Papers filed on Friday claim that Treasury officials broke the law by failing to carry out an assessment of whether the plans for heavy spending cuts would hit women hardest.
The action is being taken by the country’s leading women’s rights group in what is believed to be the first ever legal challenge to a British government’s budget. The Fawcett Society, which believes the plans “risk rolling back women’s equality in the UK by a generation”
Not sure how I feel about an organisation taking a legal challenge against the elected representatives’ Budget. But I applaud the issue they are challenging. I do wish we had an equivalent to the gutsy Fawcett Society in this country.
And there are parallels in this country with measures being undertaken by this National Government which entrench inequality. Through our employment laws (90 day rule particularly) changes to childcare (eroding the 20 hours free childcare) abolishing the Training Incentive Allowance for women trying to build their skills and re-enter the workforce, cuts to adult education, the upcoming Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill which entrenches beneficiary bashing… and so many more.
Making it harder for younger people, vulnerable people and people on low wages to get jobs, keep their jobs and then feel like bludgers when they can’t find jobs, and make it harder for them to get the skills to get a better job or re-enter the workforce. I’m getting angry again…
Hat tip Don Christie via twitter
