Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘ACT’

Contempt for democracy

Posted by on March 2nd, 2013

Even supporters of National’s Charter Schools have asked for changes to draft legislation currently before the Education and Science Select Committee. While the overwhelming majority of the 2,000 or so submitters have opposed the idea, and presented compelling research, facts and arguments against them, a handful of supporters have put forward suggested amendments to the Bill that are practical and sensible.

I don’t agree with the whole concept of Charter Schools, and will continue to oppose them. Nothing I’ve heard from submitters has convinced me that we need them, or that our existing publicly-owned and operated schools can’t deliver the supposed ‘flexibility’ and ‘innovation’ these new for-profit schools are supposed to showcase. But if the government is determined to plough ahead, they could at least work to knock the rough edges off the legislation they’ve hastily cobbled together as payback for the Key/Banks ‘cuppa tea’ deal.

Sadly, the government isn’t listening. They’ve already kick-started the process of setting up these new privatised schools before the Bill has even been reported back from select committee, let alone debated and voted on by the whole House. We only finished hearing public submissions on Wednesday. The committee hasn’t yet had the chance to consider what changes to recommend based on them.

This whole process has been a sham. New Zealanders don’t want to see schools set up as profit making businesses. And they certainly don’t want to see Government funding used for schools that employ unqualified teachers, and don’t have to teach to the New Zealand curriculum.

The composition of the Board to oversee the schools establishment, announced yesterday by John Banks, makes it crystal clear that the Government’s real aim is the commercialisation of the school system – not lifting student achievement. National and Act are obsessed with the idea that competition will somehow improve educational outcomes. Even the Treasury doesn’t believe that.

We should be focused on making sure every school is world-class, instead of wasting time and effort on the ideological experiment of Charter Schools. There are some positive changes in the Bill to other areas of education policy (for example more flexibility around school opening hours) but they are being well and truly over-shadowed by National’s ideological experiment in privatising education.


From Charter Schools to leaky building syndrome

Posted by on December 6th, 2011

Here we are again!

The charter schools being a model for experiment per se may not be that terrible – should the government have the mandate to do so. But how the agenda unfolds itself in New Zealand shortly after the general election has caused concerns.

Act Party, joyriding into Parliament on a grand total of 21,446 voters nationally (1.07%), is suddenly shaping and dictating key education policy (no pun intended). And Act did not even have an election policy of charter schools for god’s sake.

Secondly, the economy-savvy electorate of Epsom knows that Act’s old mantra of Chicago School of Economics is one of the main reasons the western world is in the doldrums.

Worse, Chicago School of Economics which advocates for unfettered free market and less government intervention (“big market, small government”), came under attack in the wake of the financial crisis we all are experiencing now. It has also been blamed for growing income inequality in Europe and the United Sates.

Unfettered free market leads to deregulation which, in the New Zealand context, caused various problems with one of the worst case scenario being felt by so many in the leaky building syndrome.

Although in a long process, leaky buildings may be repaired, revamped or reconstructed. But as Ehoa commented on Red Alert: “As for charter schools…once again South Auckland schools become lab rats for two Johns and one dunny (SIC)”.

I would be very nervous where our kids – no matter what socioeconomic status – are likely to be treated as guinea pigs. They are our future, not statistics.


Stable Government- brought to you by ACT

Posted by on November 8th, 2011

A bit of fun passed on to me by an interested reader.


National MP Opposes VSM Bill

Posted by on September 28th, 2011

Here is a video taken of Michael Woodhouse at a public forum at Otago University in July. He quite clearly states that he is opposed to the Bill in its current form (ie the form that it is in right now). Today, in the Third Reading Michael Woodhouse and other National MPs will vote to pass the Bill into law.

Michael also goes on to assure people that the Bill in its current form won’t pass into law this year. I have heard from other students that is the same commitment they got from other National MPs. This was misleading students and the National MPs should be ashamed of themselves. They heard the evidence at the Select Committee, and they know that tertiary institutions do not want the Bill, the vast majority of other submitters do not want the Bill, but they are still supporting the ideological crusade of their crumbling coalition partner.

Michael also suggests that Labour should promote the ‘opt out’ compromise solution. We did. It was rejected by ACT and National.

So the question for Michael Woodhouse (and other National MPs) is, why will he vote to pass a Bill today that he does not support and that he knows will destroy student services and advocacy?


The 2025 Taskforce

Posted by on May 24th, 2011

This year’s Budget offered no plan for the future. Full of cuts with no real gain, it was based on a bunch of optimistic predictions about jobs and growth with very little to back it up. Which makes you wonder why the government have spent over $325,000 on Don Brash’s 2025 taskforce? Clearly none of his recommendations have been adopted.

Following news that the Taskforce was to be scraped, I asked Rodney Hide (the Minister responsible for it) a few questions on how much it had cost, whether he was satisfied with it, and what it had delivered. I asked him whether he was satisfied with the performance of the Chair, to which he gave the underwhelming reply: “Yes, because the Taskforce produced two high quality reports.” Two very expensive door-stops if you ask me.

It also turns out that the decision to discontinue the 2025 Taskforce wasn’t made by the Cabinet but was made after “discussions” between the PM, the Minister of Finance, and Hide. In other words, Hide threw his toys after Brash rolled him and the Taskforce got the chop.

Given that the government have spent $325,000 of taxpayer money to effectively write the ACT Party’s manifesto for this year’s election, perhaps now they are rolling in dosh following the Brash coup, ACT would be happy to pay some of it back??


Taxpayer support for Brash?

Posted by on April 29th, 2011

It wasn’t so much a hostile takeover as a buy-out. Don Brash threatened to shut off the money to ACT unless they made him their Leader, in much the same way he threatened to shut off the money to National unless they did the same eight years ago. So now he’ll be leading ACT from outside Parliament until the election in November, when he supposes he’ll be back in Parliament.

All of this begs the question of how ACT will manage without a Leader in Parliament? Over the road the penguin is jumping up and down about Hone Harawira’s taxpayer-funded travel, but at least Hone is a duly elected MP. Will any taxpayer resources go into supporting Don Brash, the non-MP ACT party Leader? Will he have access to their Research Unit and media team? Will any of ACT’s taxpayer funded promotional material have the Don’s mug on them? Will any of their parliamentary staff be reporting to the party Leader?

I’m sure after the fuss they’ve made about the use of parliamentary resources in the past, the National government will go out of their way to ensure the ACT party don’t inappropriately use theirs…


John Key is just another politician

Posted by on September 18th, 2010

So, as others have noted, our Prime Minister John Key has said he thinks Rodney Hide has handled the David Garrett fiasco well. The Herald reports John Key said Hide “has shown very good judgment” and has his full support.

No-one else believes that, so what is going on?

In my opinion, it shows John Key to be just another politician.

It pains me to use that phrase, because it demeans all politicians and our parliamentary democracy.

Sometimes the mistakes made by MPs in any party reflect so poorly on the institution of parliament and MPs that most New Zealanders think less of us as a group and have less confidence in our democracy. Most MPs feel a degree of shame when this happens.   This week’s events are a case in point. It is not so much what David Garrett did many years ago, as the deception and hypocrisy by ACT since.  The public are right to feel misled and distrustful.

So when John Key says he stands by Rodney Hide and ACT’s handling of this, I feel let down by my Prime Minister. I do expect him to uphold the integrity of Parliament. He has not.

Rodney Hide has lost any shred of the moral authority that a Minister needs to maintain the confidence of a Prime Minister.

Now, I am not calling John Key dishonest or corrupt. But he trades on being different. On not being like other politicians. Yet, he so plainly is. The litany of bad mistakes he has tolerated in order to maintain his hold on power is long enough to make the conclusion that he is no higher being.  I won’t list them all but they include:

  • Allowing Hide to criticise National as being weak, lazy and easy to manipulate
  • Giving Hide more rope when the perk buster was busted on his ministerial perks
  • Letting Hide choose Boscawen (an MP with less than 2 years experience) to take over Roy’s portfolio in his Government when Hide and Key both said she had performed well as a Minister and it was clear what was going down was an internal implosion caused in no small part by Rodney Hide’s bullying and other mistakes
  • Allowing  Bill English to stay on as Deputy PM and Minister of Finance after changing accommodation expense rules to profit himself (or his family trust)
  • Brushing over Phil Heatley’s abuses of his Ministerial privileges

Add to that the latest errors of judgment by Hide and ACT, which have exposed ACT to ridicule and irrefutable allegations of hypocrisy and poor judgment.  John Key’s response, to back Rodney Hide and express confidence in him, shows he is in no special category of politician.

What should the leader of our country have done, you ask?  Well, Phil Goff called it correctly.  John Key should have stripped ACT of all its ministerial warrants. They are scandal ridden and unworthy.

After less than two years into its first, and I hope only,  term John Key’s government is tainted by disrepute.  John Key is the leader of that government. The Prime Minister’s own brand is tarnished.

John Key has stopped walking alongside New Zealanders. They know Key is wrong to support Hide and ACT. He is just another politician.


Key Backs Hide, But Not Even Hide is Backing Hide

Posted by on September 18th, 2010

Key Backs Hide is the headline of the story on the NZ Herald website.

Prime Minister John Key says ACT leader Rodney Hide has shown good judgment and has his full support following the resignation of disgraced MP David Garrett from the party.

The ridiculous thing about that statement is that not even Rodney Hide thinks he has shown good judgement here. He said as much at his press conference. The reality is that Rodney is the person who decided that it was ok for Garrett to be the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s person in the ACT Caucus despite knowing of his conviction and his bizarre and creepy plot. Rodney was the one who was happy for it not to become public. Rodney was the one who made him law and order spokesperson. Good judgement is in short supply in this case.

Rodney Hide and ACT’s days are numbered. John Key knows that, but he needs Hide to keep his government going. Its a messy place to be.


Garrett has to go from Parliament

Posted by on September 17th, 2010

The last time an ACT MP left the party to become and independent they went all the way to the Supreme Court to have her thrown out of Parliament. That was just after Rodney Hide became Leader of the party. What did he have to say about it at the time? Here’s a few selected quotes:

“…taxpayers must continue to foot the bill for a non-functioning MP”.

“Standing up for your principles is never cheap, but the country can be assured that ACT does put its principles first.”

“At the last election the people of New Zealand voted for nine ACT Members of Parliament. It was never right that for some time now the people of New Zealand have only been represented by eight ACT MPs. Fair proportionality is a key aspect to the success of MMP and today the wrongs have been put right. Justice has been delivered. The ACT Party will now be more fairly represented and New Zealand will be better served. I believe the reputation of Parliament will be enhanced.”

So will Rodney keep sticking by those principles and insist that David Garrett resign from Parliament now that he has quit the ACT Party? If he’s going to have any credibility at all (and even then it will only be a sliver) he has no choice but to tell Garrett to go completely.


Public want Hide and Garrett to go

Posted by on September 17th, 2010

Rodney Hide has rushed home a day early to deal with the fallout from David Garrett’s bizarre admission that he stole the identity of a dead child to get a fake passport. But it seems it might be too little, too late for both Garrett and Hide, and probably the ACT party.

A poll on Stuff this morning reveals that 48% of respondents think both Garrett and Hide should go. Another 28% think just Garrett should be dumped. Only 11% think nothing should happen. The credibility of both men, and their entire party, is now in tatters. Hide knew about all of this before Garrett even became an MP. What grounds does he have to sack him now if he knew all along? He can’t exactly say he was happy for Garrett to keep his job as long as he didn’t get caught.

There are some wider questions for the Prime Minister too. Does John Key still have confidence in Rodney Hide, given Hide knew about this all along and didn’t think to tell him? When did Key first find out, and what did he do about it? Key promised higher standards for his ministry. Has he got the guts to cut Hide adrift and keep that promise? He doesn’t need Hide’s votes, he still has a majority with the Maori Party. ACT are now practically irrelevant. The real focus should now be on what the PM does.


Just how political is the review of policy advice?

Posted by on August 3rd, 2010

The government announced a review of policy advice today. Given that they have already asked Departmental Chief Executives to look at every line item to find services to cut, it is hard to see this anything other than a political exercise required the confidence and supply agreement with ACT.

Its perhaps no surprise then that Graham Scott, former ACT Party candidate has been chosen to head the review. Mr Scott has had a bit to say over the years about the state sector, including noting in a paper in 2009 that one of Labour’s failings was we had too many political appointments to advisory bodies! I guess he is feeling differently nowadays, especially as on the 30th of August he will be the guest of honour at what appears to be an ACT fundraiser in Auckland

In all seriousness listening to Bill English today, and knowing Graham Scott’s ideological views, this review does have the potential to be one that pushes the privatisation of advice in the public sector. While from time to time all governments will want to get advice from outside the public service, the value of a neutral public service able to give free and frank advice can not be understated. It is a cornerstone of the Westminster system, and gives taxpayers the re-assurance that someone is undertaking dispassionate and thorough analysis and review of policy. Simply getting advice from those you agree with via the internet as Mr English said on radio tonight will not be good for the quality of public services in New Zealand.

PS. take a look at the question (from about 3.30) on this today. I had a bit of fun with the idea of using figures obtained by the equivalent of a google search!


How long has Rodney got?

Posted by on March 27th, 2010

I watched TV3′s new current affairs show ‘The Nation’ this morning for the first time. It follows more or less the same format as the old Agenda show. I liked it.

The second item focused on Rodney Hide and the leadership rumbles within the ACT party. The strange thing about that was the fact that Heather Roy and John Boscawen both agreed to be interviewed for it.

If ACT wanted to stop speculation about Hide’s leadership they’d stop talking about it. Instead they seem determined to keep destabilising Hide. Makes you wonder how long he’s got left…


Hide in shame

Posted by on October 22nd, 2009

Bill English looked unimpressed but tried to brush off Annette King’s questions in the House this afternoon about the ACT Party’s shonky fundraising practices.  You have to conclude from his responses the Government thinks it is OK for Ministers to fundraise off the back of their Ministerial duties.

Questions remain:

Did Hide get approval for the Christchurch fundraiser from the Prime Minister as required by the Cabinet Manual?

English said in Question Time the Cabinet Office “don’t have concerns” about the matter. Hide said yesterday he was told the problem was that he was listed as Minister of Local Government in the programme notes. Which is true?

Is this standard practice by ACT?  (Appears so. More to follow.)

Will ACT donate any funds raised  in breach of the Cabinet Manual to charity?

Are any other Ministers in the Government flogging off political access to raise party funds?


The gorilla in the room

Posted by on May 16th, 2009

The gorilla in the room of the Auckland super city debate stirred into action this morning. No I am not talking about House Leader Gerry Brownlee. Privatisation is the issue. My colleague Charles Chauvel put up an amendment to the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill to protect assets during the transition to the super city.

Aucklanders are rightly fearful that as well as losing their voice in this new top-down super city, they also stand to lose strategic public assets like the port and the water company.

Am I being alarmist?  Generations of Aucklanders have built up $28 billion of public assets from the port to the water companies, parks, libraries, social housing, and shares in the airport.  Now consider the policy of Local Government Minister Rodney Hide’s ACT party to shed commercial activities and reduce local government to a narrow core of things like regulation, flood control and roads. Add to that a Government bulldozing through a gerrymandered Auckland Council that would install a permanent right wing majority. Then remember the determined but only partially successful efforts to flog off the airport and port in the nineties. (Mike Lee’s history of Auckland local government makes fascinating reading.)  And more recently John Banks and his C&R mates in Auckland City dispensing with social housing.

Aucklanders be afraid.  In spite of good speeches by Sue Kedgley of the Greens and Grant Robertson of Labour, Charles Chauvel’s amendment was of course voted down by the Nats and ACT. And that is why I am going to introduce at the next opportunity a private member’s bill to entrench public ownership of assets under the super city. Any asset sale will require a majority vote in a referendum. Good idea?