Red Alert

Archive for the ‘Labour Party’ Category

Michael Foot R.I.P.

Posted by Phil Twyford on March 7th, 2010

foot 2

Michael Foot died this week at the age of 96. He was a writer, rebel, orator, CND supporter, Labour radical, democrat and party loyalist. A great man of the Left, and a notoriously unsuccessful leader of the British Labour Party. Have a listen to this BBC 4 programme about his life, musings from the Guardian’s editors, a great photo gallery on Foot’s political life, and the New Statesman has a collection of obituaries.


Leaders reply strikes a chord

Posted by Raymond Huo on February 26th, 2010

Phil Goff’s response to Prime Minister John Key’s statement on February 9 has resonated strongly within Chinese and Ethnic communities.

The speech has been “heavily” quoted in the Chinese-language media in NZ and been at the heart of many political debates in the community.

Last Friday Phil Goff gave a comprehensive interview with Auckland-based WTV on various issues including GST, R&D, how to grow economy and “catch up with Australia”.

Common sense would tell that if the Government is serious about catching up with Australia we need to look after the bottom 50 percent of wage earners not the top 5.

In New Zealand, the total income earned by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers is about 17 percent proportionally, and the total tax they pay is 12 percent. While in Australia the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers pay the same proportion of tax of 12 percent, but the total income they earned is 25 percent.

To put it in lay-terms, Australia’s bottom 50 percent of taxpayers have a bigger share of the total income, which means income is more equally distributed in Australia before tax is taken into account.

If National are really keen on closing the gap with Australia, the focus must be on the bottom 50, not the top 5.

Feel free to use this translated version of Phil Goff’s speech.

And to the National supporters that read this, if you read Phil’s speech with no prejudice, you will see why Phil has been so warmly welcomed by Kiwi-Asians.

During the huge Chinese New Year Celebration on Saturday 13 February attended by over 65,000 people, I was proud to learn that Phil Goff had more photos taken from the crowd than the Prime Minister himself!

(more…)


Nats feeling pressure on Nat Radio?

Posted by Brendon Burns on February 23rd, 2010

The fantastic Facebook page Save Radio NZ – now numbering 12,700+ fans -

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-Radio-New-Zealand/312651831782?ref=mf#!/pages/Save-Radio-New-Zealand/312651831782?v=wall&ref=mf

- just turned up this gem from Nat backbencher Jonathan Young…..

Dear Teresa Thanks for your email and views. I am a great fan of Radio New Zealand and feel the discussion and debate; as well as the attention to the arts and culture make it an iconic and important service to New Zealanders. I enjoy listening to it a number of hours each week.

I will seek a briefing from Hon Jonathan Coleman on the present status of things and discuss recent developments, as I normally sit on the Commerce Select committee where Radio NZ’s financial review is discussed, but was absent last week due to electorate commitments in New Plymouth.

Kind regards

Jonathan Young | Member of Parliament for New Plymouth

Perhaps the New Plymouth MP is a signal of wider disconent within the Government about the cuts proposed for Radio NZ? Coalition partner Peter Dunne was quick to express opposition.

I hope Jonathan Young can help persuade the other Jonathan when they have a wee chat that freeze-shrinking Radio NZ will not be supported by most NZers.

Even Grandma Herald agrees in an editorial today Little to gain from cost cuts at Radio NZ – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10627866

I hope there might be some Nats who join the Facebook-organised protest rapidly being organised for Parliament’s forecourt on Thursday lunchtime – http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=312651831782&topic=12312

Myself and  some Labour colleagues intend to be there – though organisers note, the House is currently under urgency which makes timing a bit trickier.


Come on John, where’s the passion?

Posted by Sue Moroney on February 1st, 2010

Joining 250 other Hamiltonians in 27 stifling degrees to listen to Phil Goff’s scene-setting speech last week, I was struck by two main revelations:

  1. It’s not true that Hamiltonians desert the city for Coromandel beaches in January and;
  2. NZ needs a leader with passion and substance (like that displayed by Phil in his speech).

What stuck in people’s minds after Phil’s speech was the passion he has for delivering to the many, not the few.

I have watched John Key “ho-hum” his way through a few speeches now, and everytime I have been underwhelmed.

I know he’s working hard at cultivating the “clown at a BBQ” kinda cosiness, but watching him do an official speech is a bit like being a wedding guest during the best man’s speech.

You know he thinks its his job to embarrass the bride and groom, but you hope he won’t cheapen the occasion too much.

I think NZ deserves better than that.


Phil Goff’s Speech: The Many Not the Few

Posted by Grant Robertson on January 28th, 2010

photo-11

I’m in Hamilton for Phil’s speech. A full house of about 200 people are currently listening to a passionate speech from Phil about the importance of spreading the benefits of the recovery to all New Zealanders. He has made a couple specific policy commitments to introduce the bill to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour and to cap the salaries of public sector Chief Executives at the level of the PMs salary (around $400,000). Chief Executive salaries have grown at twice the rate of inflation since 1997, while rank and file workers have only just kept pace with inflation.

Lots more in the speech, well worth a read.


Another thoughtful contribution

Posted by Trevor Mallard on January 27th, 2010

Last week Jordan Carter made a contribution on the future direction of the Labour Party which I shared on Red Alert.

Kaine Thompson has put his Grassroots post onto facebook so it is out there for debate. Worth a look.


Fair cop Farrar: Mike’s done us proud

Posted by Clare Curran on January 21st, 2010

This year has had some odd beginnings for me. Here I am agreeing with David Farrar. Well actually, we agree on a number of issues I suspect. Just not some of the really fundamental ones.

Anyway, David drew attention on Kiwiblog to the fact that none of us  (on Red Alert) have congratulated Mike Moore on his appointment as NZ Amabassador to the US.

Of course Labour has made a statement in MSM congratulating Mike. But fair cop, we haven’t said anything here.

There’s two things to say. Firstly, it’s an honour and a measure of the man that he has merited such an appointment. It’s hugely significant and follows from his rather interesting, but stellar career as Prime Minister of New Zealand and Director-General of the World Trade Organization.

The second thing is to draw attention to his book Saving Globalisation launched a few months ago in Parliament. I haven’t had time to do more than flick through it, but it’s hugely interesting and informative and somewhat controversial.

Not just for those interested in globalisation, but for anyone interested in the state of progressive/social democratic ideas in a globalised world.

A recent review on Amazon puts the essence of the book like this:

Moore passionately believes that greater international economic engagement and interdependence driven by truly free trade can reduce poverty and promote more freedom and democracy throughout the world.

Weirdly, I’ve heard that the book hasn’t been reviewed in New Zealand. Not sure if that’s true, but if so, for goodness sake what’s wrong with us?

I don’t know Mike well. I’m newish to politics, he’s at another level. But we’ve had a couple of robust conversations (over fish and chips) and I like that he’s constantly thinking and challenging our ideas and political strategies. I’m looking forward to more robust discussions and think he retains enormous value in our Party, in our country. So congratulations Mike, keep on doing us all proud.


Jordan Carter on Labour in 2010

Posted by Trevor Mallard on January 20th, 2010

Missed this earlier in the week. Good piece well worth reading.

Thanks to DPF for alerting me. Might add photo later.


Summer School IV – Who is Labour For?

Posted by Grant Robertson on January 9th, 2010

After some time relaxing in the sun and showcasing the cricketing  skills of the young and not so young, we had a really interesting afternoon session looking at how we retain and develop support for Labour. Margaret Hayward, a Labour stalwart and former private secretary to Norman Kirk kicked things off by looking at how Labour had put its values in action over the decades.   Her aside that Kirk not only felt people should  have good health, housing and education but  also “something to look forward to” captured those values.  Clare Curran provided a detailed analysis of a number of voter groupings and the use of social media. We learned her star pupil is Trevor Mallard who has clocked up more than 2400 friends in just a few weeks on Facebook!  Jordan Carter finished the panel contributions by highlighting the importance of continuing Labour’s ability to build coalitions of support among traditional and new constituencies.  As we expect from Jordan he provided some provocative ideas of policies to do just that.

Great session,  lively discussion, lots of ideas and a few good laughs.


Summer school III – the global economic recession and nz

Posted by Trevor Mallard on January 9th, 2010

Peter Harris led this session. For those who don’t know him Peter has a wonderful ability to unpick complex economic questions and give answers or ideas that don’t require a real understanding of economics. One of the best thinkers in the country Peter has worked for the PSA, CTU, Michael Cullen and now like many picks employers as a consultant.

Again the session got off into some interesting policy options some of which are worth blogging on and I’m sure we will, and others which need  thought before sharing.

Peter’s take on the recession:-

  • NZ protected because of lack of merchant banking industry our banks mainly shift money from small savers to inflating house prices.
  • Didn’t need the bank bailouts of US and UK.
  • Saw wealth loss especially for those that used rental housing as savings
  • Also for those who had savings with finance companies.
  • It impacted on people who weren’t rich.
  • It impacted on older people who won’t have time or income to recover.
  • Job losses not as bad as could have been because of expansionary 2008 budget.
  • Revenue loss mainly through massive reduction in company tax because of reduced profits/increased losses and flow through from rate reduction.
  • Sets up the excuse for the government to attack public sector but also the possibility for cuts to reignite recession.

Summer school I – first night

Posted by Trevor Mallard on January 9th, 2010

Young Labour have a summer school every year. And sometimes winter school as well. People (mainly young) get together and are stimulating and stimulated. They have lots of ability to have discussions which are both very broad and really pretty informal deep. Great.

Tonight was informal. Darren Hughes did the welcome and President Andrew the speech. Both good.

Then icebreaker where everyone had the name of famous person on their foreheads and have to guess using yes/no questions but only one to each person. Before I am outed I was Thatcher. People thought it was funny. Got it in five. Recounted tea with her in Lords.

Then good social session meeting some very bright young people and taking piss out of colleagues. Good fun.


Labour’s position on internet censorship

Posted by Clare Curran on December 31st, 2009

There have been requests for an elaboration on Labour’s position on internet filtering following my previous post two days ago. Here’s what I sent to Tech Liberty lobbyist Thomas Beagle in late July in response to his request about where Labour sits on censoring the internet.

In November 2008 the Labour Government introduced a programme of test filtering on a trial basis blocking access to the approximate 7000 websites, known to deal with exclusively child sexual abuse imagery.

At the time, the Hon David Cunliffe said “The programme intends to contribute to the safety of the public’s online experience by preventing inadvertent access to this type of objectionable material. It also intends to contribute to international efforts against the production of and trade in child sexual abuse imagery.

There are no plans for the programme to be expanded to other types of illegal material.”

He also stated that New Zealand had no intention of following Australia’s legislation of mandatory filtering by ISPs. New Zealand’s response to undesirable material has been an emphasis on education, as demonstrated by Netsafe. The Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act had no legislative authority for website filtering, he said.

The previous Labour Government action was in response to a proposal from ECPAT NZ, part of a global organisation which aims to eliminate child prostitution and pornography and the trafficking of children for sexual purposes.

There were clear guidelines around privacy protection. The system had been successfully trialled in Sweden.

ISPs joined the programme on a voluntary basis. Labour’s policy hasn’t changed.

I believe there is a need for further discussion within our caucus on these matters. My view is that a voluntary, opt in system for ISPs to a contained filtering programme focussed solely on child sexual abuse is about as far as you’d want to go. I’m keen to learn more about why some of you believe filters don’t work.


The future of social democracy

Posted by Phil Twyford on December 28th, 2009

English historian Tony Judt has a powerful essay in the latest New York Review of Books which is a must-read for anyone interested in the future of the Left. Titled What is Living and What is Dead in Social Democracy? it starts out considering the old question why there is no socialism in America and then takes the reader through a history of social democracy in twentieth century political thought, ending with a call to action that should stir even the most jaded Labour heart.

He frames the twentieth century’s contest of ideas around Hayek and Keynes. And then charts the rise of the post-war welfare state. Its great success, here in New Zealand and in the US, the UK and everywhere it was tried, was the reduction in social and economic inequality. The great paradox of the welfare state was that its success undermined its own appeal. The generation that remembered the 1930s was the most committed to hanging on to progressive taxation, strong public institutions, and universal social services. Those who came later began to forget why they had sought such security in the first place. Remember NZ in the 1980s anyone?

The next three decades saw the rise of neo-liberalism, a reassertion of the Right, which set about the conquest of the political high ground in every western society and the dismantling of the institutions of the post-war social democratic compromise. Read it and weep: the flattening of tax scales, winding back of social assistance, privatisation of the functions of the state. And no big surprise, the return of high levels of inequality.

There is a great discussion of privatisation in which he contrasts the British approach to the railways with that taken by the Italians and the French. In 1996, the year before the UK privatised rail, they boasted the lowest public subsidy of rail in Europe per capita (9 pounds). The French subsidy was 21 pounds, the Italian 33; a differential reflected in the quality of the service and the state of the infrastructure.

The French and the Italians have long treated their railways as a social provision. Running a train to a remote region, however cost-ineffective, sustains local communities. It reduces environmental damage by providing an alternative to road transport. The railway station and the service it provides are thus a symptom and symbol of society as a shared aspiration.

Judt isn’t sentimental about social democracy. It was after all, the era’s belated response to the dilemmas of capitalism, and as he points out our problems are rather different. He thinks we are entering a new age of uncertainty, with climate change and the volatility of our globalised world economy posing a threat to peace and prosperity of comparative scale to the ones faced by our forebears in the early years of the twentieth century. The challenges might be different but we should look to the ways our grandparents’ generation responded. Social democracy, the New Deal in the US, and the first Labour Government’s reforms here in New Zealand were direct responses to the insecurities and injustices of the time.

The task of the Left says Judt is to remind people of the achievements of the twentieth century, along with the consequences of our heedless rush to dismantle them. If social democracy has a future it is as a ’social democracy of fear’ – the fear of what we have to lose. The Right on the other hand has inherited the modernist totalitarian impulse to destroy in the name of a universal project.

A social democracy of fear is something to fight for. To abandon the labours of a century is to betray those who came before us as well as generations yet to come. It would be pleasing – but misleading – to report that social democracy, or something like it, represents the future that we would paint for ourselves in an ideal world. It does not even represent the ideal past. But among the options available to us in the present, it is better than anything else at hand.

Looking back on 2009, we in Labour have done a fair bit of fighting to defend the gains of the past: opposing regressive tax cuts, cuts to education, health and ACC, and the privatisation of prisons. We’ve outed Key as the leader of a do-nothing government content to sit on its hands while tens of thousands of Kiwis are thrown out of work. We’ve put inequality back on Labour’s agenda, and signalled that ending child poverty will lie at the heart of the next Labour Government’s agenda.

And I like to think that we have revealed a few of the green shoots of a new social democratic politics. First, we defended an emissions trading scheme that actually could have reduced the economy’s long term reliance on carbon. It will come back. Second, we signalled an end to the 1984 consensus on monetary policy, that will I hope lead to an economic policy focused on Kiwi firms, jobs and economic resilience.  Third, in opposing the Government’s corporate stitch-up of the Auckland super city, but supporting the Royal Commission’s vision, we have recognised the possibility of strong regional government as the driver of democratic progressive change in our biggest city. Fourth, Labour’s advocacy on open source software and social media hints at the possibilities for new technology to open up more inclusive and democratic political engagement.

Tony Judt’s essay is a great read. It is based on a lecture he gave at New York University on October 19 which you can watch here.  A year ago Judt was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s Disease, a neuro-degenerative disorder. He is now a quadraplegic and can only breathe with the aid of a machine. It didn’t stop him getting up in front of an audience and delivering a 90 minute tour de force.


First, Twice, Again, Sort of…

Posted by Pete Hodgson on December 14th, 2009

This post is inspired by Charles Chauvel’s post earlier today especially his point 3.

When our PM arrives in Copenhagen he will declare two world firsts for NZ. The first first will be our ‘all gases all sectors’ ETS. He will not dwell on the fact that it was passed 15 months ago in David Parker’s name and that his Government has since gutted it. It still has form but struggles for substance.

The second first will be NZ science leadership on agricultural gases especially methane. He will announce, again, an international NZ-led effort. Splendid. Except it began about 5 year’s ago. Remember the Fart Tax? Well the farmers paid up anyway and so did the taxpayer and the research got started. (I was both Climate and Science minister at the time)

Not that we shouldn’t do more. Not that another conference of research workers mightn’t be a good idea. But it ain’t new.

So what would be new?

*research and business development of ligno-cellulose(ie forestry products or by-products) to ethanol in pilot refineries beginning in BoP where the science and the wood is most concentrated. Actually the science is done but the scaling out of the lab isn’t.
*research into deep geothermal energy. That research got underway two year’s ago but modestly. We need baseload thermal electricity to wind out Huntly and to give charging capacity to electric vehicles….
*an undertaking to purchase a few hundred electric vehicles, possibly limited for official use in Wellington in the first instance, not to save lots of petrol (there would be too few), but to test recharging options, planning law, and other infrastructure so that when they are available affordably we will be ready.

The Conference would erupt at your speech because they would see substance Mr Key. Substance Mr Key. Mr Key? Hello? Hello…….?


Goff on Cost of Living

Posted by Grant Robertson on December 14th, 2009

Courtesy of the great new In-The-House website here is Phil Goff’s speech in the General Debate in Parliament last week. It is a great speech that zeros in how the Government is contributing to many Kiwi families struggle with the cost of living with a pay freeze, rising power prices and their own poor sense of priorities. Phil’s speech starts at the 1.12 mark.


Natural Justice

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on December 12th, 2009

Dame Margaret Bazley is a trusted public servant who has been called upon by successive governments to take on challenging and complex roles – the Review of Legal Aid was the most recent of these.  When the Minister of Justice appointed her to undertake the review I was pleased.  I felt that there were serious issues around the Legal Aid system and I was confident she would undertake a thorough review.  I was disappointed when the Discussion Paper came out, because it did not appear to be a first principles review at all – more a patch up job.   However, when the final report came out it exceeded my expectations.  It had some great insights into how the legal aid system could be used to address the inter-generational drivers of crime and contained recommendations about strengthening and expanding the Public Defence Service and the Community Law Centres. 

However Dame Margaret went further than that – she said in her report that she had been told that up to 80% of the lawyers practising in the Manukau District Court could be gaming the Legal Aid system and with this single sentence she condemned them all.  A group of them wrote an open letter to the Minister which was published in the Herald.   Charles Chauvel and I arranged to meet with the lawyers and although the meeting was cut short for some as a result of the industrial action that the court staff have been taking (something the lawyers completely understood by the way) we had enough time with enough lawyers to get a very clear picture of what needed to happen.  As a result Charles and I issued a challenge to the Minister to meet with the lawyers as we had done and to be fair to him he has agreed to do just that. 

However he has refused to repudiate the 80% figure which condemns Manukau lawyers to be judged as likely to be one of them and this has demoralised everyone – including the Public Defence Service – and damaged their reputations.  This unsubstantiated claim taints the whole report and should have been excised before the report was published by the Ministry of Justice.   It is nothing less than a breach of natural justice.  Dame Margaret did not follow a proper process by listening to this hearsay – which any lawyer will tell you is not evidence – and nor does it become evidence the more often it is repeated – otherwise we could dispense with inquiries and just leave it to talkback radio. 

I would love to know who seeded that figure in her mind, however I keep coming back to the fact that Dame Margaret must have trusted the source.  This leads me to think that someone of standing has an axe to grind or something to hide or both.  The sooner the Minister investigates the better.


What’s the need for secrecy?

Posted by Clare Curran on December 4th, 2009

In the interests of transparency and public interest, the New Zealand Government should reveal the text of recent secret discussions in South Korea on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

In the interests of transparency, I will release today the content of discussions held last week in the Commerce Select Committee on this issue. The transcript was only made public this week.

There’s a lot of agitation and unease building around this locally and overseas, in light of the unknown outcome of the Government’s re-write of controversial Section 92A of the Copyright Act which is overdue for release. People have been speculating that the delay is linked to the ACTA discussions. The Government has said it isn’t.

Labour is keen for public discussion and input on ACTA, and for the government to acknowledge this and release the content of the negotiations to date.

New Zealand is participating in the discussions along with Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States.

The NZ Herald reported in November that while the US government claims ACTA is about counterfeiting rather than major changes to copyright law, and shouldn’t be subject to public scrutiny, leaked versions of ACTA discussion papers seem to indicate that copyright lobby organisations may have in fact turned treaty negotiations to suit their own agenda.

Labour has taken a strong position on copyright this year, understanding the importance of public discussion and the needs for all stakeholders to be taken into account and a fair outcome reached.

To view what was said by the Ministry of Economic Development officials in last week’s select committee click below.

Further questions submitted from the select committee to MED are here. (more…)


About Lynne

Posted by Darien Fenton on December 3rd, 2009

Our friend and colleague, Labour MP Lynne Pillay, announced today that she won’t be standing for Labour in 2011.  She’s decided that she wants to spend more time with her partner, children and grandchildren and no-one can argue with that (even although I wanted to).

It’s her call, but we will miss her.

Lynne is the best of Labour – she’s fearless, she’s great company and no-one will ever die wondering what she believes in.  And she hasn’t forgotten where she came from.

The consolation is that we will get to spend another two years working with her in Parliament and in Labour.

But I just wanted to pay an early tribute to a staunch Labour woman and a fantastic MP.


Waitakere

Posted by Phil Twyford on November 22nd, 2009

I am seeking the Labour nomination for the seat of Waitakere for 2011. Waitakere should be a Labour seat. I think Paula Bennett can be beaten, and Waitakere should have a hard working MP serving the community. I want to win the seat back for Labour.


Finance company inquiry

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on November 22nd, 2009

The Commerce Committee has held its first day of hearings on the Inquiry into Finance Company Failures. I have been criticised for chairing the inquiry as I was Minister of Commerce during the period that the finance company collapses occured – 2005-2008. They ignore that an incoming Labour government inherited what I’ve described as a regulatory wasteland and it took a considerable amount of time to bring our regulation up to international standards – starting from ensuring the Takeovers Panel had a code to enforce – through to providing appropriate regulatory oversight for registered exchanges (including rules around continuous disclosure, and much stricter rules around insider trading and market manipulation) – through to the Taskforce on Financial Intermediaries which I inherited as Minister after the 2005 election and the Review of Financial Products and Providers – which involved the release of 9 discussion documents in 2006 and the passing of 3 major pieces of legislation before the 2008 election. The current government has carried on this work and more regulation will be introduced as they work through the remaining elements of the reform package. The finance company failures have also highlighted deficiencies that were not apparent prior to the last government announcing decisions in 2007 about a fortnight before Bridgecorp collapsed.

This current inquiry is not designed to duplicate the work the previous government has done and the work the current government is doing. However I believe that my role as a former Minister of Commerce has given me some insights into the ‘what’s missing’ from the government’s current workplan. If anyone thinks that I am immune to the suffering of people who had no idea they were exposing their hard-earned money to the level of risk they were, then they don’t know me very well. Lessons must be learned about what attracted people to certain investments in the first place and whether we need tighter rules around what people are told about the nature of the risk they are taking.  We have been accused of being populist by looking at tracing the money post failure and sheeting home responsibility to directors – but tell Mum & Dad investors that these things don’t matter when directors maintain their high life protected by family trusts and limited liability.

The role of the media has been interesting and will continue to be so. Read this story about the first day of hearings. In light of recent comments about the media being afraid to take on high profile individuals for fear of legal action I found it fascinating that not one media outlet reported the high profile politician who was mentioned in Professor Adams’ damning case study; nor the name of the high profile financial adviser the Crone’s referred to – even though such reporting would be covered by Parliamentary Privilege. More to come as the hearings continue!

This is going to be a very interesting inquiry.