labour.org.nz | Facebook | Twitter | Red Alert Radio

Red Alert

Cutting pay Nat style #2

Posted by on April 29th, 2013

Simon Bridges will try to soothe the path of his Employment Relations Amendment bill by saying it’s about fairness and flexibility. Anyone who opposes will be portrayed as unreasonable and unbalanced.

When things get rocky, he will try to portray the Labour Party as being in the pockets of unions and unions as backwards-looking organisations. It wouldn’t surprise me if we heard more about North Korea and Polish shipyards!

Cutting workers’ pay is easy if you follow the MO of Mr Bridges and the National Government’s new legislation.

1. Increase the minimum wage by the barest of margins ($5.60 a week or 14 cents an hour in real terms since 2009).
2. Make workers vulnerable in their first 90 days of employment, so they don’t raise issues or concerns and have no bargaining power if they want the job.
3. Allow employers to refuse to settle a collective agreement – and the standards that extend to other workers are reduced as well.
4. Pay new workers less than the rate in any collective agreement so pay and conditions are undermined.
5. Enable employers to opt out of industry agreements (MECAs) so they can undercut competitors by paying lower wages – and drive down wages overall.
6. Tax workers if they work to rule rather than carrying on giving the free overtime.
6. Open up competition to small, under resourced competitors by removing rights for vulnerable workers to be transferred in contracting out.

If standards set by collective agreements are lowered, that will affect hundreds of thousands of workers, not just union members. Take for example, four weeks annual leave. That became law under the Labour Alliance government, because unions had bargained it into collective agreements for enough union members to justify extending it to all workers under the Holidays Act. Without that happening, workers would still be sitting on three weeks annual leave.

There will be a lot said in the coming months as Simon Bridges tries to justify these changes, but he shouldn’t assume people are stupid enough to buy his claims that the changes will lift productivity and help businesses grow.

We know they won’t because we’ve done this before under the National Government of the 1990′s. Thanks to similar employment law reforms, the gap between New Zealand wages and those of Australian workers widened and today it is more than 30%.

Watch out New Zealanders.

Paycuts are coming your way.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Employment Law, legislation, value of work, Work and Wages, workers rights
24 Comments

Power to the People

Posted by on April 26th, 2013

If you wanted a reason to know why we need to do something about power prices, look no further than the lead story in today’s Dominion Post. 44% of people in the survey are living pay day to pay day. The cost of living is taking its toll as unemployment stays high and wages are not keeping pace. Raewyn Fox from the Family Budgeting Services Federation said they had seen a 60% increase in those needing financial support and advice in the last two years. And yes, she highlighted power prices as one of the causes of financial stress.

One of the reasons I am really proud of New Zealand Power as a policy is that it will put money back into the pockets of ordinary New Zealanders.  It is a hugely significant change to the way our electricity system is run. Its not something that we have gone into lightly, but New Zealanders have been ripped off for too long. Its time that people come first, not super-profits and million dollar CE salaries. This policy cuts to the heart of reducing inequality and it will help businesses who struggle with energy costs to develop and create more jobs.

This is what we mean by Labour being a hands-on government.  We can use the power of being in government to change our country for the better.  And yes, you can expect to see more bold policy from Labour. Just like KiwiBuild and NZ Power we are not going to sit on our hands while opportunity and prosperity concentrates in the hands of the few. National’s disastrous policies in education, labour relations and elsewhere need to be, and will be, turned around. And we are not going to be put off by the predictable howls of outrage from those with a vested interest.

The government Labour leads will be a progressive, social democratic government, far, far different from the hands-off crony capitalism of the National Party. Get on board if you want to be part of it!

Filed under: Uncategorized
37 Comments

Cutting pay 101 Nat style

Posted by on April 26th, 2013

New Minister Simon Bridges has done what his predecessor Kate Wilkinson failed to do and that’s to get legislation before Parliament that will cut workers pay.

In doing so, he’s following the directions of his boss John Key who said ages ago he would love to see wages drop.

The legislation Simon Bridges announced today is unnecessary, and fiddles while Rome burns.  It returns to the old Nat ideology : when all else fails have a go at the workers. It’s the old formula dressed up in the language of reasonableness and flexibility.

Many will think this won’t affect them. Next post I will tell you how it will.

Filed under: Work and Wages, workers rights
15 Comments

So they gave me a tin hat, and they gave me a gun, and they sent me away to the war

Posted by on April 24th, 2013

Every ANZAC Day I have the Pogues singing And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda in my ears.  It’s a melancholic rambling ballad about the young men who left Australia to fight in Gallipoli, written by Eric Bogle but immortalised  by the great Shane MacGowan and the Pogues. It is a classic yarn in the anti-war tradition. When I get up tomorrow morning and pin my poppy on, and head off to the dawn ceremony at Waikumete I’ll be humming along. At the Te Atatu ceremony, and then Henderson service later in the morning, and then back to the local RSA for lunch and a beer, it will be my soundtrack.

ANZAC Day has become such an important fixture. A day when we remember those who gave their lives for their country, and reflect on war and peace, and how both have shaped the country we are today.

The version below is from the Pogues’ 2012 Australian tour. Wish they’d come to New Zealand! Stay with it through the shaky camera at the beginning, it is worth it.

Have a good ANZAC Day everyone.

 

Tags: , ,
Filed under: peace, war
3 Comments

Saving New Zealand’s own eel

Posted by on April 23rd, 2013

We’re a passionate people about our natural environment. From the kiwi to the kauri, from the black robin to Maui’s dolphin, our shared sense of responsibility to protect (and when necessary save) our native flora and fauna unites New Zealanders from all walks of life.

The longfin eel (known in Te Reo Māori as tuna) is this country’s only native eel. It’s an amazing species.

Longfin eel only reproduce once in their lifetimes. When the females reach about 80 years of age their instinct drives them from their homes in freshwater streams and rivers out into the sea, and onto a journey of thousands of kilometres to the Tonga Trench where they breed and pass away. Their spawn are carried by ocean currents all the way back to New Zealand, where they make their way up the rivers and that very slow reproductive cycle begins again.

Tuna are taonga to many Hapu and iwi, and at times in history they have been a crucial food protein source for Māori.

Indeed eel is a reasonably popular food in West European markets, particularly in Belgium and the Benelux countries. New Zealand fishers have long exported to Europe and recently there’s been some tentative steps towards selling into Asia.

The available science shows longfins are in decline. They are particularly susceptible to water pollution and sedimentation, and their slow breeding cycle has been disrupted by overfishing and damming of rivers.

Perhaps the starkest evidence is the size of the commercial fishery. At 82 tons it has dropped a whopping 96% since the 1960s.

Yet, for all which we do know, our longfins remain mysterious creatures – and we as a country don’t have adequate science to know just what is required to turn around their path to extinction.

That’s a gross failing on the part of Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy, who is supposed to be responsible for fisheries science, as well as Conservation Minister Nick Smith who is responsible for the DOC estate where much of the population lives.

In the face of hands-off inaction from the Government, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, launched her own investigation into the status of longfin eels. Last week Commissioner Wright released her comprehensive report, and it’s a true landmark.

The Commissioner calls for better science, which is a no-brainer – but also for a total moratorium on the commercial fishery.

Now a moratorium is a bold step which would hit fishing communities and some iwi in the pocket. However if the eels go extinct the outcome is the same – only we’d all be the losers.

Conservationists and fishing industries around the world have long looked to New Zealand as an example of a country where the people care for the environment, and as a an early leader in science-based quota management. If the choice is extinction or saving our native eel, then I expect New Zealanders will want their Government to take responsibility and rescue our natural heritage.

So the Government’s deafening silence in the face of Commissioner Wright’s report has been truly disturbing. Ministers haven’t even issued press releases, and the only acknowledgement of the report has come from officials.

I asked Nathan Guy “Is he concerned that the longfin eel (tuna) might go extinct; if so, why, if not, why not?” and here’s what he said:

I will not be able provide the Member with a response within the timeframe available and will endeavour to provide this response at the earliest opportunity.

I received that non-answer three weeks ago but haven’t heard a peep from the Minister since.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment couldn’t have been clearer that the time for action is now. If we don’t commit to saving our native eel then it will go extinct – and extinction is forever.

Could it be that the National Government are so hands-off and hostile to the environment that they just don’t care?

Filed under: Comservation, Economic Development, economy
14 Comments

Getting The Answers You Want

Posted by on April 21st, 2013

Given the Government’s enthusiasm for building Transmission Gully by Public Private Partnership (PPP), you’d be forgiven for believing that the NZTA has told Gerry Brownlee  it is clearly the best option for financing the project .

However, reading through cabinet committee papers and ministerial briefings, a very different picture emerges.

It turns out that Cabinet asked Gerry to explore the use of PPPs and he in turn asked NZTA to look at all the projects they currently have planned and decide which might be completed via PPP.

NZTA’s response was that Transmission Gully was the best candidate for a PPP.

Note that NZTA did not say a PPP is the best way to build Transmission Gully. Rather,  that if something had to be built by PPP, Transmission Gully would be the best candidate.

This is a classic case of only asking the questions that will get you the answer you want.

Asking “Which project is best suited to a PPP?” gets you a PPP whether or not the case for it stacks up.

Asking “What is the best way to build Transmission Gully?” would have got Transmission Gully built within a sensible timeframe and at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.

So has the case been made that a PPP is the best way to build Transmission Gully?

No.

As noted in a Cabinet Committee paper prepared for Gerry Brownlee and Bill English, the cost of capital for the private sector is higher than it is for the crown and the actual value for money proposition will not be known until the proposals  have  been received.

In the event that neither of the shortlisted consortia can prove that building Transmission Gully by PPP is more cost effective than doing so by traditional procurement, the Government should pull the pin on the PPP.

But according to Gerry, Cabinet has already given the NZTA approval to finance and build the Transmission Gully highway using a PPP – and NZTA has indicated this will add an extra $2 billion to its costs over the next 30 years.

National is letting ideology and its desire to use taxpayers’ money to create low-risk, high-return investment opportunities for its banker buddies get in the way of making economically rational decisions.

The winners here are the corporate giants creaming profits off public infrastructure. The losers are Kiwi taxpayers and consumers.

Who is National really working for?

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: transport
13 Comments

Charter schools have no future

Posted by on April 17th, 2013

On Friday the Education and Science Select Committee reported back to the House the legislation introducing charter schools. In our minority report, the Labour Party has set out very clearly our reasons for opposing the legislation. Among our reasons are:

  • The introduction of charter schools is based on the failed notion that increased competition will improve student outcomes. There is clear evidence from New Zealand and overseas that this isn’t the case. Even the Treasury has argued that systems with “highly competitive elements” do not produce systematically better outcomes.
  • At a time when the government claims it is focused on quality teaching, charter schools won’t have to employ registered teachers, and the principal won’t even have to hold a teaching qualification.
  • Charter schools will lack public scrutiny. They won’t be covered by the Official Information Act, and although the Ombudsman can now investigate concerns about student stand-downs and exclusions, the overall accountability regime is still very weak.
  • New Zealand’s world-leading curriculum won’t have to be taught in charter schools. Charter schools could be used for indoctrination, rather than education. For example there is nothing to stop a charter school teaching “intelligent design” in the place of science.
  • The Labour Party does not believe that schools should be in the profit-making business. Money that is extracted from charter schools in the form of dividends for shareholders is money that isn’t being invested in education.
  • Charter schools will not have an enrolment zone. While the government claim that charter schools will be targeted to areas of high need, there is nothing to stop such a school accepting a majority of their enrolments from outside their neighbourhood. We remain concerned that charter schools will be able to use underhand methods to “cherry pick” students.
  • We recognise that a number of learners are currently struggling within the education system, and that Māori and Pacific learners are disproportionately represented in that group. That’s why we believe the government should be focused on ensuring that every school is a great school, regardless of where they live. Policies should be based on research and evidence, not ideology.
  • Much of the flexibility that the government claims it seeks through the charter schools model already exists, for example Special Character Schools can already be established with in the existing public school framework.
  • National has no mandate to introduce charter schools. Although it was working on the proposal before the last election, it did not reveal it to the public until afterwards. The fact that the process of establishing charter schools has already started even before the legislation has passed is a real slap in the face to those who took the time to make submissions to the select committee.

I’ve made Labour’s position on the future of charter schools very clear – there isn’t one. We will not guarantee on-going funding to any charter school established under the present government, nor will we necessarily offer them integration into the public system. The legislation allowing for their establishment will be repealed.

You can read Labour’s minority report on the Bill here.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: education
23 Comments

Working harder but never getting ahead

Posted by on April 14th, 2013

I just received an email from a constituent Alisha Keoghan who describes herself as a working Mum. Alisha says what I think most of West Auckland and much of New Zealand is feeling. She and her husband are working harder and harder and not getting ahead.

Wages are too low. Houses are too expensive. There aren’t enough jobs. The costs of commuting, paying childcare, and all the monthly bills leave little left over.

Hi Phil,

I am a resident of Te Atatu South and I have received your letter in the mail re: mobile clinic.

I would have loved to come along but tomorrow it is my birthday.

I know this will fall on deaf ears but I don’t know what else to do.

I have worked full time since the age of 16 and have been a law abiding citizen paying my taxes etc.

I went on maternity leave end of Aug 2011 and then resigned from my job (of 6 years) as the cost of childcare to gas, parking, traffic to and from the city was not going to work in my favour.

My question is how am I meant to succeed in my life?  I want to work full time.  I am not a home body and I want to provide for my family and pay off a home.

I see  young teens walking the streets with the newest iphones, smoking, drinking and I cant even afford to get my son nappies from time to time?

I dont get the logic of it all? I would LOVE more then anything to go out and have a glass of wine with my girlfriends but I just get NO help from the government.

IRD and WINZ tell me we make too much $???  How is my husband earning $20 ph earning enough to pay rent, power, water, rego, WOF, gas, groceries enough?

Im so ashamed of the system!  I need help or a job!  I am a talented woman!  I worked for Baycorp NZ for 6 years in the sales area and now I am stuck in a temp job with not even a guaranteed 40 hours and childcare of $235 per week to pay for?

How is Labour going to help me?

A far as I’m concerned John Key’s only concern is looking after the rich!  I would be rich if I was given the opportunity!

HELP!

Alisha Keoghan

I replied to Alisha that this is not what we want for New Zealand. Labour’s vision is for a more prosperous New Zealand where people who are prepared to work hard can get ahead.

I cited a few of our policies I believe will make the difference she wants to see:

1.    Jobs – This is our number one priority. We will support Kiwi firms, and grow more and better paid jobs. We are going to support our exporters, and help NZ manufacturing to rebuild.
2.    Minimum wage – We will increase the minimum wage to $15\hour immediately.
3.    Housing affordability – We will build 10,000 affordable starter homes every year for 10 years. This will drive down the cost of families getting into their first homes.
4.    Public transport – we will deliver better public transport. I am campaigning for high frequency bus routes, a dedicated busway on the NW Motorway, and a commuter ferry service for Te Atatu that would mean she would not need a car for commuting to work.
5.    Skills and training – Labour will increase the number of apprenticeships, and training opportunities.

This is the job description of the 6th Labour Government.

* email posted with Alisha’s permission.

Filed under: jobs, Labour Party
24 Comments

Choking Rural Roads

Posted by on April 14th, 2013

Marae Investigates ran an excellent piece today on rural roads in Northland. The report highlighted the fact that unsealed rural roads which carry large volumes of heavy vehicles are both economically inadequate and a significant health hazard as residential properties get showered in choking dust with every passing truck.

This problem is not unique to Northland. I recently met with the Mayor of Tararua District Council who pointed out that his council is responsible for many unsealed roads – roads that, like Northland, already carry significant volumes of agriculture-related heavy vehicles which will soon be joined by log trucks as forests mature.

A similar story can be repeated all over the country.

Several components of National’s approach to transport infrastructure work against any progress being made:

  1. Roads of National Significance trump everything else.
  2. The narrow economic analysis of transport projects National insists upon prioritises congestion relief over all other factors. Therefore unsealed rural roads on which high value goods are being transported get less attention than roads carrying large volumes of single-occupant cars.
  3. Financial Assistance Rates (FAR) – central government’s contribution to local roads – are under review. The review is intended to do one thing only: Reduce the amount central government spends on local roads (to free up more money for Roads of National Significance). Reduced support from central government means local councils either need to increase rates or delay / cancel roading projects.
  4. Changes to the Land Transport Management Act currently before Parliament remove the requirement for land transport programmes to protect and promote public health.

National – supposedly the party of provincial New Zealand – is running a transport programme that will never deal with these issues. In fact resources are being sucked out of the regions to pay for unaffordable, gold-plated monster motorways that simply are not economically, environmentally or socially sustainable.

Labour doesn’t take the regions for granted like National does. We will build a robust transport network using roads, rail and sea that includes building the local infrastructure needed in the regions.

We reject National’s limited analysis that will always deliver the same answer to any transport question: Build a bigger highway.

Roads have their part to play, but a sensible 21st century policy will see the Government investing in a much more diverse transport network. It will take a Labour-led Government to make that happen.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Filed under: transport
7 Comments

Nicky Hager to deliver this year’s Jack Lyon

Posted by on April 13th, 2013

This year’s  Capt Jack Lyon Memorial Lecture will be delivered by author and investigative journalist Nicky Hager – Uncomfortable truths: NZ foreign policy in the ‘war on terror’.

Drawing on his acclaimed book Other People’s Wars, Nicky will tell the story of New Zealand’s role in the war on terror. Based on thousands of leaked New Zealand military and intelligence documents, extensive interviews with military and intelligence officers and eye-witness accounts from the soldiers on the ground, he shows how the military and bureaucracy used the war on terror to pursue private agendas, even when this meant misleading and ignoring the decisions of the elected government.

Each year around Anzac Day, the North Shore Labour Electorate Committee hosts the Capt Jack Lyon Memorial Lecture in memory of Jack Lyon who was the MP for Waitemata, part of which later became the North Shore electorate. Jack Lyon served in the first Labour Government and volunteered to fight in World War Two. He died fighting in Crete. The annual lecture is a forum to discuss issues of war and peace, and national identity. Previous lecutres have been delivered by Gaylene Preston, Maui Solomon, Glyn Harper, and Bob Tizard.

5pm Sunday 28 April.  1st Floor, 7 The Strand, Takapuna (next to the Library), Auckland.

Tickets $20 from Frances Bell, frabil@xtra.co.nz 09-445 6178. There will be no door sales.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: peace, war
9 Comments

Deal with the real issues please John

Posted by on April 12th, 2013

This week, I’ve had several more groups and individual migrant workers tell me about how their rights are being abused by exploitative employers. Sub-minimum wages, long hours, substandard accommodation. They’re caught in a trap. Report the employer, and their work visa or residence is invalid and they are punished by being sent home : don’t report the employer and they continue to put up with the unacceptable.

The outcome?  Labour and immigration laws are flouted with impunity, Kiwi jobs, wages and conditions are undermined, good employers doing the right thing get annoyed and our reputation for fairness takes another hit.

So, what’s our government doing?

Nothing.

Instead, it’s returned to its let’s copy Australia bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill, which now has the votes to get through and is likely to be debated next week.

According to John Key, we face the imminent threat of a mass arrival of asylum seekers.  He wants us to be fearful that a handful of people might, (but probably won’t) arrive in a leaky boat any day now.

John Key said he was vindicated this week when a boat from Sri Lanka arrived in Western Australia, flying a New Zealand flag and holding a sign saying they wanted to come to New Zealand.

Apart from the sheer impossibility of reaching New Zealand in a treacherous journey, John Key doesn’t appear to even understand the basics.

The rules are strict under the UNHCR convention. A person must request asylum at the earliest opportunity. It is impossible to arrive in Australia, as the Sri Lankans did this week and seek asylum in New Zealand.

Anyone claiming they want to come to New Zealand via the Australian coast by boat cannot apply for asylum here and if they did, they would become ineligible.

It’s gotten desperate when the reasonable voices in Australia include Malcolm Fraser, former Conservative Prime Minister, who says the claims of successive Australian governments are designed to justify a policy of brutality.

Former National Party Immigration Minister, Aussie Malcolm, says John Key’s actions in agreeing to take 150 Australian refugee as part of our quota is a tragedy.

This is a stupid bill. Parliament will waste time on it. It will pass by one vote and our reputation as a good international citizen will take a hit because the John Key government thinks it’s okay to copy the Aussies and put asylum seekers in detention centers.

The boat people will likely never arrive.

But the migrants who are already here will see the exploitation go on and on.

The government is turning a blind eye.

Which is the greater threat to New Zealand?

Update : This in today’s SST 

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: Immigration
10 Comments

Surrender and retention in schools

Posted by on April 12th, 2013

Today the Education Amendment Bill was reported back to the House. While much of the debate on the Bill will focus on the establishment of charter schools, there are some very important changes to the powers of schools around search and surrender of student property.

As a committee we spent a lot of time debating these issues, and I think the position we reached is sensible. Schools have a very difficult job balancing the rights of individual students with the rights of all students and staff to work in a safe environment. The clearer the rules and guidelines are, the easier it will be for schools to tread that fine line appropriately.

Here is a quick summary of some of the key provisions of the Bill (paraphrased):

  • If a teacher or an authorised staff member has reasonable grounds to believe that a student has hidden or in clear view on or about that student’s person, or in any bag or container under the student’s control, an item that is likely to (a) endanger the safety of any person; or (b) detrimentally affect the learning environment,  they may require the student to produce and surrender that item. If the item is contained on a computer or electronic device they may require them to reveal the item or surrender the device on which it is stored.
  • Where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a student has a harmful item (one that poses an immediate threat to the physical or emotional safety of any person) in their possession and the student has refused to produce or surrender it, the teacher or authorised person may ask a student to remove a jacket or outer clothing so that it can be searched (but this would not be allowed if they had no clothing underneath it); require the removal of a head covering, gloves, footwear or socks (but this specifically excludes tights and stockings); require a student to hand over a bag or other container and allow it to be searched.
  • Such actions need to be done with sensitivity and so as to afford the student maximum privacy and decency; and that where possible the search be carried out by a teacher of the same sex as the student, in the presence of another teacher or authorised staff member of the same sex.
  • A school may allow a contractor to bring a suitably trained dog onto their premises to search school property such as desks or lockers (but not to search students).
  • The legislation also requires the Secretary of Education to issue rules regarding the surrender and retention of property and searches by schools. These rules will need to spell out requirements for written records to be kept, how any property confiscated is to be dealt with, the procedure for authorising staff members, and so forth. These rules are treated as regulations and can therefore be disallowed by the Regulations Review committee.

The Bill makes it very clear that students are not allowed to be strip searched, nor is any property they possess allowed to be forcefully confiscated. If a student refuses to comply, the school may take appropriate disciplinary action, for example stand down / suspension from school. While the legislation authorises a teacher or authorised person to ‘require’ a student to do the things above, they cannot be ‘forced’ to do it.

If a student refuses to show a teacher an item on an electronic device (eg. a cellphone, laptop or tablet), the teacher can ask them to hand the device over, but they couldn’t then search it without the students consent.

It’s also important to note that there need to be reasonable grounds for suspicion, and that the power to require students to surrender items is limited to items that present a risk to safety or to the learning environment. The very limited powers around search are even further limited to only cases where there is an immediate risk to safety.

Schools should be safe places, free of drugs and weapons. Teachers shouldn’t be required to act as ‘police’ but they should have the ability to deal appropriately with the very real challenges they face on a daily basis. I think the new provisions, as amended by the select committee, get the balance about right.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: education
2 Comments

Op-ed: We all must pay tax – including multinationals

Posted by on April 12th, 2013

This op-ed was originally published in the New Zealand Herald.

On May 14 Australia’s Budget will introduce new requirements providing more transparency of tax arrangements by giant multinationals like Apple and Google. It’s a fair bet that just two days later, our Government’s Budget won’t.

Australia has chosen to front-foot an important global economic challenge while, once again, our Government sits on the sidelines.

The new Australian regulations will ensure companies with annual revenue above A$100 million ($122.5 million) will have their tax details published by the Government in a bid to ensure that all pay, and are seen to pay, their fair share.

The issue is sharpest for online sales, where it is possible to allocate costs and shift profits and tax liabilities across borders to low tax jurisdictions.

“As a matter of principle, taxpayers, whether they’re companies or individuals, should pay their proper rate of tax.” Most fair-minded Kiwis would agree with that statement by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

On April 2 the Herald’s editorial railed that “point-scoring outbursts will not solve [this] tax conundrum”.

I couldn’t agree more. Reasoned and considered debate on this complex issue is required. But that must not be an excuse for inaction. This is not a populist issue – it is an issue for a 21st century tax system and one that multiple jurisdictions and international bodies are grappling with, including the OECD and the Group of 20 industrialised nations.

Enduring solutions will require both a global response and a clear sense of what we expect of our tax system in New Zealand. But global co-operation is no excuse for local indifference, impotence or resignation.

Recent months have shown that we have a Revenue Minister who is more interested in tinkering around the edges.

Peter Dunne wants to tax New Zealanders’ use of iPads and iPhones but shies away from taxing Apple itself.

The Herald asked this writer if it seemed fair that in New Zealand Apple paid only $2.5 million in tax on $571 million in turnover. Of course tax is paid on profit, not revenue – and Apple NZ apparently made only $5.5 million in profit and paid 31 per cent tax on that. Fair enough?

Oddly, Apple shares have climbed 73 per cent from US$404.30 to $700.09 ($471,00 to 815.85) over the tax year to September 2012. Its global profits climbed from US$25.922 billion to $41.733 billion, or from 23.94 per cent to 26.66 per cent of sales revenue during that time. So why was its New Zealand arm so apparently unprofitable at less than 1 per cent of sales revenue, relative to Apple’s global operations?

New Zealand Inc’s inability to answer that question is exactly why the Australian Government will soon move to require transparency of tax arrangements for large firms. I would hope that as good corporate citizens New Zealand-based multinationals would welcome similar transparency here.

Let me put on record that Labour is not proposing new taxes in this area – we are researching and consulting on a widely recognised challenge: how to protect the tax base, improve transparency and reduce legal avoidance of existing tax obligations by global companies operating within New Zealand.

Globalisation is a fact, not a philosophy. The issue for all New Zealanders is how we deal with it.

Do we lay ourselves blindly open to the chill winds of international markets and simply take the tax affairs of multinationals on trust? Do we say it’s all too hard and bury our little heads in the Antipodean sand like the current Revenue Minister? Or do we learn to play a high-value global game like winners – including insisting that global businesses operating in New Zealand transparently pay a fair and equitable share of tax?

The answer matters because if multinationals avoid paying the taxes that are due, Kiwi mums and dads will be forced to pay more for their early childhood education, school “donations” and higher fees for taking their kids to the doctor. Or we will be told the services we need are no longer available because we, as a country, can’t afford them any more.

We are increasingly paying a high price for growing inequality. We have a right-wing Government moving to “targeted” social funding because even it is not blind to the inexcusable, ghastly truth that 270,000 Kiwi children live in poverty.

But that, once again, will be at the expense of working and middle New Zealanders facing more intrusive, penny pinching local taxes – from car parks to phones to Christchurch rebuild accommodation. These are the result of the Government balancing their books at the expense of yours – while waving the proverbial wet bus ticket at multinational tax avoidance.

Our tax system must be fair to all – and that includes multinationals paying their fair share. Because in the end somebody has to pay.

David Cunliffe is Labour’s Revenue Spokesperson.

Filed under: economy, Revenue
14 Comments

Holding on (and on and on and on…)

Posted by on April 10th, 2013

After four long years it’s obvious the National-United Future Government has no plan to turn around New Zealand’s economic decline or fix the unfair tax system.

The common theme of the Government’s legislative programme is it’s all tiny, tinkering, distracting little changes which ignore the big issues.

This year MPs have had interminable debates about petty new taxes on car parks and iPads and cellphones and laptops – with the sole result being that Revenue Minister and United Future leader Peter Dunne has had to back down on all of them, after Labour demonstrated how the minister hadn’t done his sums.

So if Mr Dunne isn’t doing his job of crafting workable tax laws, then surely he must be very busy overseeing his IRD department? Um, no, he’s not.

I reckon Kiwis who’ve tried to phone the taxman this week will be absolutely pulling their hair out.

A few weeks ago Peter Dunne assured me the IRD was adequately staffed to deal with the poorly-communicated 1 April tax changes. Well the Revenue Minister’s credibility today is as shot as the economy.

Try phoning IRD for yourself. It won’t take long, because they’re not even bothering to put people in a call queue – they just play a message saying they’re too busy and then they hang up on you.

(Now, if you really do want to torture yourself like that, please make sure you’re sufficiently wealthy and of a generation inclined to have a landline rental, because the IRD won’t accept 0800 calls from cellphones. With wait times stretching on and on, many people would need more call credit to phone the cellphone-acceptable number than they’d owe in tax).

If, however, you’re not a glutton for frustration you could try writing a letter to the IRD… but you might never get a reply.

Because now the Peter Dunne has admitted his department have no performance indicators for responding to postal transactions. Not one! None!

They might chuck your letter in the bin unopened for all the Revenue Minister cares.

Last year Dunne slashed IRD staff by 7% and this year he’s fluffed around in his cushy ministerial limo creating endless tiny, tinkering new taxes which he didn’t even bother to cost, all while the 1 April changes were looming.

And now the chickens have come home to roost.

But, as usual with this Government, it’s ordinary Kiwis who will pay the price in time and worry (and cellphone credit) for ministers’ incompetence – and they’ll pay an even bigger price if they mix up their tax obligations, no matter how many times they’ve tried to phone the IRD and no matter how many letters they’ve written.

Filed under: Revenue, Tax
24 Comments

Diminish, Divert, Demean- John Key’s MO

Posted by on April 4th, 2013

A curious thing happened in Parliament last Wednesday. In the midst of the red cards for Trevor Mallard and Chris Hipkins, John Key had, unprompted, decided to tell New Zealanders that the Director of the GCSB who he had recommended to the Governor General for appointment some 18 months ago was a family friend. Curious in that he had not thought it important enough to mention up to now, and more so that he was not actually asked about the relationship.

Why then, raise the issue? We know now it was because he was looking to limit the damage from the revelation that he intervened in the selection process for the Director by shoulder tapping his old friend, who then was the only person who was interviewed for the job.

This whole episode is a classic example of John Key’s modus operandi – diminish, divert, demean. Read the rest of this entry »

Filed under: Uncategorized
15 Comments

Should notification of data breaches be mandatory?

Posted by on April 3rd, 2013

The Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff last week told us that public trust is being eroded by government sector breaches. She said  government agencies have huge databases of information which the public is forced to provide, and in return they need to look after that information properly and that public sector agencies needed to have stronger controls in place when handling spread sheets of personal information.

Last year she warned us that the public sector can’t afford to be complacent. It’s quite clear that agencies holding large amounts of personal information need to place greater value on that information asset. They need to develop strong leadership and a culture of respect for privacy, as well as day to day policies and practices to provide trustworthy stewardship of our personal information at every level of the organisation. There has been far too little focus on the fact that there are real people behind the masses of information that government agencies hold.

Data breach notification isn’t currently required by law, but the Law Commission recently recommended that it should be made compulsory where breaches put people at risk. That would bring New Zealand law into line with practice overseas.

The private sector has warned repeatedly that New Zealand has a major problem with information security, and a strategy released late last year by a group of  IT security professionals said that although technological innovation is high within the New Zealand market, the national spend on educating, training, and developing skilled technical personnel is surprisingly low, creating an imbalance and directly contributing to the fragility and vulnerability of our nation’s IT systems. If that is not a significant warning, I do not know what is.

Last week the chief executive officer of the  Institute of IT Professionals, Paul Matthews, said that the Earthquake Commission had failed Security 101 and that it was  mickey mouse stuff that such sensitive information could be sent so easily to an outside person.

We are daily finding out about more data breaches, which indicates that they are commonplace.

The solutions aren’t off the shelf, but the Government’s refusal to treat the breaches as systemic, requiring the highest attention is very concerning.

The reason for many breaches will no doubt lie in the way each department and agencies IT systems have grown. Privacy and security systems are unlikely to have been built into these systems from the very beginning. Many issues can be resolved through training people using the systems in simple procedures to protect data. IT solutions exists to provide password protected spreadsheets being sent out as attachments and sometimes to prevent email attachments fullstop.

An across government response is required with a Chief Technology Officer with clout responsible to the Prime Minister. Our approach to information security is 20th century and inexcusable. I fear the public service is ill resourced to deal with the ongoing breaches we have faced and will face.

Instead, we have a Prime Minister who shrugs his shoulders and dismisses the breaches as “inevitable, human error and a trade-off”. He may rue those remarks.

NB: have attempted to contact Threat Toons for copyright permission. But have repeatedly been blocked from accessing their site. Might be the title. Happy to continue trying

Tags: ,
Filed under: comms & IT, digital, privacy
4 Comments

And they want to put a tunnel here??

Posted by on April 1st, 2013

I was in Queenstown over Easter and had arranged to meet with people in Glenorchy who are opposed to the proposal to put a tunnel through from the Dart River to Milford, while I was there. So on Easter Saturday afternoon, I turned up to meet the committee organising the opposition and then there was a public meeting after that.

I hardly expected anyone to turn up, but they started to pour in the door just before 3pm. Some people’s apologies were given because they had gone away or had haymaking to finish (where do you go for a weekend when you live in paradise?). Even Rob Munro (ex-Nat MP for Invercargill) turned up, but he left early - once he had determined how the meeting was going perhaps?

After the meeting, at which  just EVERYONE there was vehemently opposed to the proposed tunnel, I was taken up to the start of the Routeburn track, where the mouth of the tunnel would be located.

Now, I love Central Otago and am familiar with large parts of it, but I had never driven up to Glenorchy from Queenstown. It is jaw-droppingly beautiful. It is pristine wilderness, protected as a World Heritage Park recognised by UNESCO. There was more LOTR scenery than you could shake a stick at. I am now absolutely committed to walking the Routeburn next season. Have a look at the Bear Grylls safety video AirNZ is using now in its Boeings and see if you think the environment would be enhanced by a tunnel.

This government’s proposals for the environment are truly scary – just have a look at the proposals for the second round of RMA ‘reforms’ and the water proposals. Nick Smith is going to make the decision about the Dart tunnel himself, which he can do. Do you think he will remember to do what his remit is as Minister of Conservation – to protect the environment? Does it make any sense at all to put a tunnel here??

 

 

Filed under: conservation, environment, tourism
10 Comments

We used to be a country that valued protest

Posted by on March 31st, 2013

Today Energy Minister Simon Bridges announced new hefty criminal offences for protesters targeting ships in the EEZ, including for entering a 500 m exclusion zone.

Photos: The Dominion Post Collection, Alexander Turnbull Library.

Tags:
Filed under: democracy, Energy, environment, protest
13 Comments

By the numbers

Posted by on March 28th, 2013

12,800           The dollar difference between what average Kiwis and Auzzies earn.

280                 Fewer hands on deck at DoC won’t go unnoticed.

1:23                 PM – The Government has a further EQC breach on its hands.

59                    National MPs voting to rob Kiwis of their hard-earned public holidays.

1                       Speaker of the House looking forward to a long weekend more than ever

Tags:
Filed under: Uncategorized
8 Comments

Systemic data breaches; The wider issues

Posted by on March 28th, 2013

Labour members outlined the shocking systemic information security crisis emerging across government ministries, departments and agencies. This issue needs attention at the highest levels. Instead it is being treated on a case by case basis and the Prime Minsiter even made light of the data breaches earlier this week

 

 

Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ
2 Comments

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »