PARLIAMENT | PARTY | GRASSROOTS

Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘John Key’

Urgently taxing toddlers

Posted by David Cunliffe on May 25th, 2012

The test of urgent legislation is not just what is in the legislation, but what is not. On both counts this National government should be condemned.

It’s the day after the Budget and Parliament is sitting in urgency to debate new tax legislation. The Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill is apparently so important that National have:

  • Deferred the main Budget Debate;
  • Removed normal select committee review;
  • Imposed a retrospective effect.

So what is this tax bill about?

Is it the secret “base broadening measures”; National’s supposed answer to Labour’s future focussed capital gains tax?

Is it the closing of the major loophole by which half of the wealthiest 100 New Zealanders avoid being on the top tax rate?

Is it reinstatement of the Labour Government’s research and development tax credits, the key tool which was stoking our businesses’ engines of innovation?

Er, no, no and no.

The centrepiece of this Bill is picking the pockets of paperboys and papergirls.  Urgently taxing toddlers, if you will.

It’s laughable that National’s top economic priority is retrospectively stealing the pocket money of 68,000 kids.

But it’s incredibly sad that this is what government in our beautiful country has come to.

National has wrecked New Zealand’s economy.  Just yesterday they unveiled a horrific 17% plunge in exports.  But instead of getting a real plan to deliver a brighter future they’re plotting to tax toddlers.

The zero Budget of 2012 is yet another wasted opportunity for a country desperate for change.  It’s an insult to ordinary Kiwis who are working harder and longer for less and less.  It’s a slap in the face to law abiding families and small business owners who pay their taxes, and who deserve to get ahead instead of being pickpocketed.

New Zealand is losing 1,000 Kiwis every single week.  That’s 50,000+ a year.

Unemployment is up by 50,000+ since National took office.  The number on benefits is up over 50,000 too.

A zero Budget means zero hope for them, and all New Zealanders.

It also means zero pocket money for paperboys and papergirls.

Tags: , , , , ,
Filed under: Budget, Economic Development, economic, economy
30 Comments

Four Years of Failed Promises

Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 24th, 2012

Tags: , ,
Filed under: Budget, economy
4 Comments

Good point

Posted by Clare Curran on May 1st, 2012

On Twitter this afternoon someone mused on the contrast between the UK parliament being granted a couple of days ago a snap debate on the Leveson Inquiry into  the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal whereas today here in New Zealand, our own Speaker would not grant an application for an urgent debate regarding the John Banks investigation and Key not standing Banks down as Minister.

The Guardian has written a good editorial about the role of parliament in holding the government and its Ministers to account. I would hope that our parliament sees its role in a similar vein.

Jeremy Hunt: the court of parliament

Monday 30 April 2012 20.53 BST

If it is parliament’s job to hold ministerial feet to the fire, then a good parliament will make the government sweat.

The Commons got halfway there yesterday, after Speaker John Bercow accepted an “urgent question” about the position of Jeremy Hunt. In opposition, David Cameron proposed Westminster clawing back power from Whitehall, but as prime minister he was dragged across the road from Downing Street in a palpable rage.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, democracy, parliament
9 Comments

Show us your cards, John

Posted by Trevor Mallard on April 18th, 2012

20120417-show-us-yr-cards-John
The Sky City deal that John Key has cut looks deeply dodgy. Is legislation for sale in NZ? Labour is committed to asking the questions that need to be asked around this deal and exposing the cronyism for what it is.

Check out our website on this and take a minute to email John Key and tell him what you think.

Tags: ,
Filed under: #ownourfuture
54 Comments

Huawei. Australia takes action. New Zealand says no issue here. Why?

Posted by Clare Curran on March 30th, 2012

This morning it has been revealed in the Australia/NZ tech publication Comms Day that:

The Australian Government has begun secret talks with carriers on proposals to enhance the security of Australia’s telecom infrastructure which would, in part, mandate a penalty-backed requirement on operators to secure their networks against external threats and require risk assessments of key infrastructure upgrades, modifications and procurement decisions.

CommsDay also understands that the government is highly concerned by the offshore dissemination of Australian citizens’ private data and calling information for use by customer service centres in locations such as India, Sri Lanka and the Philippines. This could lead to a requirement for all data to be housed onshore. The recent discussions likely explain the timing of the revelation last Saturday that Huawei Technologies would be barred from supplying the National Broadband Network.

In recent weeks, representatives of major Australian operators were called to a confidential roundtable meeting with government officials from the Departments of Attorney-General and Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy to discuss the proposed measures. These include a notification process of infrastructure purchase decisions and upgrade or modifications to networks which may have national security implications. Infrastructure builds would potentially be subject to scrutiny or what is termed “risk assessment” under the arrangements with a key focus on details regarding suppliers. Existing infrastructure may also be subject to the reporting process.

The Prime Minister, the ICT Minister Amy Adams and her predecessor Steven Joyce are directly accountable for the actions and inaction of New Zealand to respond to warnings and advice from our security agencies.

The security and integrity of our telecommunications and new broadband infrastructure is a matter of utmost national importance. Cyber security is the new frontier and all countries take it extremely seriously. Despite the lip service paid to it by our government, it appears they have ignored advice and this may have the potential to undermine and compromise our infrastructure.

There are questions to be answered. John Key and Amy Adams must answer whether they received advice comparable to the advice given to Australia, when they received that advice and what actions they have taken since. Steven Joyce is also accountable in his former role as ICT Minister.

I am not party to the advice. But as the Opposition spokesperson for Communications and IT I am raising what I think are valid questions. Why has our approach to this issue been so markedly different to Australia’s? Surely alarm bells must be ringing in the government. What are they doing about it?

Yesterday I would have asked this question in the House to the Acting Prime Minister had Winston Peters not chosen to withdraw his question given John Key was not present.

Does he agree with The Australian newspaper’s Foreign editor Greg Sheridan who said today that if David Irvine, the head of ASIO, Australia’s intelligence service, and who is a former Australian ambassador to China,  had authorised a judgement to be cautious on Huawei, then it was certainly sound. And if so, did he receive the same advice and why hasn’t he acted on it?

It’s worth reading Greg Sheridan’s piece.

Paul Maley’s piece in The Australian is also worth reading . He revealed yesterday that:

BRITAIN’S intelligence services were forced to erect a costly, resource-intensive auditing structure to ensure Huawei did not steal secrets after the Chinese telco was allowed to take part in a British broadband project.

Given that New Zealand defence analyst Paul Buchanan has made some very strong statements in recent days about the importance of these issues the Prime Minister needs to answer this:

When did he become aware of what defence analyst Paul Buchanan has described as the “collective view of the security community”  in the US, Britain and Australia that Huawei is almost certainly a front for Chinese intelligence services, and  what actions has he taken as a result of hearing this view?

Today, Australian PM Julia Gillard is reported as sticking up for Australia’s national interest. I wonder what ours is doing?

“I’ve stood up for Australia’s interest. I know the opposition is standing up for the interests of a Chinese company,” she said while in Sydney for an announcement on the NBN.

“We’ve made the decision in the national interest. Any suggestions this is in breach of our trade obligations is simply untrue.

“We’ve got a strong, robust relationship with China. We are deeply engaged at every level, we have a strong economic relationship, we have increasing ties at every level — diplomatic ties, multilateral ties, and you will continue to see our relationship with China strengthen and grow.”

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: broadband, comms & IT
10 Comments

Herald gutless but suspect should out himself

Posted by Trevor Mallard on March 29th, 2012

The Herald this morning reports that a former National MP is under investigation for assault.

A former National MP allegedly punched another customer in the face as shocked tellers looked on at an inner-city Wellington bank after an argument over a parking space.

Wellington police yesterday confirmed receiving a complaint from a man alleging he had been assaulted by another man on Monday last week in Courtenay Place. They said the incident was still under investigation.

Westpac spokesman Chris Mirams said there was an incident in the bank’s Courtenay Place branch that day and said Westpac was co-operating with the police.

The Herald has spoken to the victim of the alleged assault who said the incident arose from a disputed car park outside the bank.

The man, who did not wish to be named, said he had parked his car in a space outside the bank which another motorist had been intending to use. Words were exchanged, and while he was retrieving items from his car the other motorist, who had by that stage parked his vehicle elsewhere, tried to shut the car door on his legs.

Although “it didn’t really hurt at all”, the man said they exchanged further words when both were in the bank a few moments later.

However once the motorist completed his transaction “he just turned around and gave me a good old whack … a swinging right arm across the face”, the man said.

I’m not sure when former MPs deserve the protection that members of the public get while their cases are being investigated – but the problem with this story is that dozens of former MPs are implicated. While it is unlikely that Simon Power or Simon Upton were involved they are in that group of male former Nat MPs. I didn’t mention Don McKinnon because the suspect was driving and Don seems to be driven these days :)

The Herald should have named the suspect.

And if the suspect is on the Nat list John Key should get on the phone and tell him to do the decent thing.

Tags:
Filed under: law and order, national
48 Comments

Black Friday Date for Asset Sell Off Submissions

Posted by Trevor Mallard on March 28th, 2012

Friday 13 April is the closing date for submissions to the committee considering the How Key wants to give our silver to his mates (aka Mixed Ownership Model) Bill.

The Committee has indicated a willingness to travel to hear submissions – so ask if you want to be heard either in your home city or in Wellington.

The link to the parliamentary site is here.

Tags:
Filed under: #ownourfuture, asset sales
8 Comments

Nick Smith to go..?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 21st, 2012

Nick Smith has called a press conference for 1.45pm today. He has no option but to announce his resignation.

The question now is why John Key didn’t take decisive action earlier. He promised to set high standards for his ministers, yet yesterday he was claiming Smith had done nothing wrong.

As late as this morning Keywas reported as saying if he sacked every Minister who made an error of judgement he wouldn’t have many left. Hardly a way to show his confidence in his own team…

Tags: , ,
Filed under: ACC
29 Comments

Reflections on Key’s speech

Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 15th, 2012

John Key’s speech this afternoon focused on three things: setting yet another set of targets, lowering the cap on the number of people employed in the public service, and creating a new ’super-ministry’. A few thoughts on each before some more general observations.

1. Setting targets for the public service

It’s a good thing to set clearer targets for the public service, but Ministers can’t abdicate all responsibility by placing all the onus on departments to achieve them. Ministers set the budgets, sign-off the strategies and plans, and have a huge amount of say over the directions the public service will take when seeking to achieve those targets. They are still responsible. We also need to recognise that some of the targets we set will have long lead-times. For example, getting more 18 year olds with at least NCEA Level 2 starts when those very same kids are 2 and 3 years old, if not before.

2. Capping the core public service at a lower level

As I’ve noted before, this is an ‘input’ measure and cuts against John Key’s stated intention of focusing the public service on ‘outcomes’. It’s also pretty arbitrary and can lead to unintended consequences. For example, if a govt agency needs to take on new people in order to deliver on one of the outcome goals, but they’re up against their quota of staff, they could end up hiring external contractors or ‘outsourcing’ at a higher price than they could deliver the same outcome for internally if they didn’t face such an arbitrary constraint.

3. Creation of a new ’super-ministry’

Restructuring is often seen as something you do when you don’t have a clear sense of what you’re trying to achieve but want to look like you’re ‘doing something’. I agree with what John Key said “Few problems are solved by significant reorganisations – in fact, many more tend to be created. It is easy to underestimate the amount of energy and inspiration soaked up by institutional change, as well as the loss of personal and institutional knowledge”. Shame he didn’t stick to that.

The public service can continually be sliced and diced in the never-ending search for ‘natural synergies’ but what we should really be focused on is getting the whole of government working more effectively together. Constant uncertainty and restructuring doesn’t achieve that.

So overall impressions? We’ve seen enough action plans, strategies, and targets from National. This latest list follows on from the six-point plan in 2010, the revised six-point plan in 2011 with 41 actions, and 2012’s 120-point plan. Time to start making some progress. About the only ‘progress’ they can point to so far is more people out of work.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: public services
32 Comments

Then and now: Key on all sorts

Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 14th, 2012

Over the weekend I posted some of John Key’s earlier statements on asset sales and public sector restructuring, pointing out how much his current views and approach differ from what he promised people before he became Prime Minister.

Tonight TV3 have gone one better and unearthed video footage of him speaking to the PSA Conference back in September 2008. Not only does John Key rule out asset sales, he makes a compelling case against them.

“There’ll be no asset sales in the first term of a National government, and there may never be asset sales in the years ahead… Nor am I hell-bent on selling assets actually. I personally think it’s not the issue that the current economy faces. In the world of making the boat go faster, actually I don’t think selling off state assets is going to make the boat go faster.

Labour has been arguing all along that asset sales will not make us a richer country. We’ve been consistent. John Key and the National government have done a complete u-turn and have now placed asset sales at the centre of their economic strategy.

“The Crown’s dividend streams from the Meridians, the Mighty Rivers of the world is large, so on both motivations we don’t have a debt problem, they’re acting, I think, highly effectively as companies, and they’re making money. There is no motivation to sell assets.

Once again, Key is borrowing the line that Labour has been consistently arguing for over a decade. The SOEs are highly profitable. They make more money than we would save in debt repayment costs if we sold them. Also note Key arguing we don’t have a debt problem (Bill English also made similar comments both before and after the 08 election). Interesting how after 3 years of a National government debt seems to be the biggest issue we face…

“So there’s no agenda to sell assets.

This is perhaps the most damning quote. Although Key was careful before the 2008 election to qualify his no asset sales pledge with “during the first term” he gave New Zealanders the very clear impression that he wouldn’t be selling assets long-term either.

“What we are saying is we’re not going to cut jobs, we’re simply capping at 36,000.

That commitment didn’t even last a term. Now he’s promising even more job losses during National’s second term. Nothing about that in their manifesto for 2011.

“The second point is, no we’re not borrowing for tax cuts.

So if they’re not borrowing for tax cuts, and New Zealand didn’t have a debt problem when they took office, why are they now arguing we have a major debt problem and need to sell assets to fix it?

John Key has built his political career on telling people what they want to hear. Eventually that strategy always catches up with people, and it’s catching up with Key big-time.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Filed under: Tax, asset sales, privatisation, public services
30 Comments

NZ is not for sale

Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 11th, 2012

Today David Shearer released a new Member’s Bill to prevent foreign investors from buying rural land unless they can prove it will bring substantial benefits to New Zealand that would otherwise not occur.

National has botched the handling of the Crafar farms issue. They’ve got it wrong. John Key has tried to brush away criticism by arguing land was sold to overseas investors under Labour too and if we were serious about our opposition we’d change the law. Today David made it very clear we will be doing just that.

Unlike National, Labour is out there listening to New Zealanders, who are increasingly concerned about our country being sold out from under us. John Key was right when he said New Zealanders don’t want to end up tenants in their own land. It’s a shame his actions aren’t living up to that sentiment.

David spells out the case for the Overseas Investment (Owning Our Own Rural Land) Amendment Bill pretty clearly:

“We cannot afford to lose control of our best income-producing assets and become tenants in our own land. Selling our farmland to foreign buyers does not improve our economy. Instead the profits simply flow offshore. We also do not want to see New Zealand farms priced out of the reach of Kiwi farmers who are the best in the world at what they do.

National just doesn’t seem to get that we can’t sell our way to a brighter future. Four years ago John Key was ambitious for New Zealand. Today he seems content to manage our economic decline. There are alternatives, and Labour is going to be at the forefront of promoting them.

Click here to download a copy of David’s Bill, along with the detailed explanatory note.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: #ownourfuture, asset sales, economic, economy
8 Comments

Then and now: Key on public services

Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 10th, 2012

Yesterday I blogged about John Key’s pre-election promises about asset sales and pointed out how the post-election reality falls well short of his earlier rhetoric. Key’s pre-election promises on public services back in 2008 paint an even starker contrast. What National promised and what they’ve been doing are polar opposites.

“A new National Government is not going to radically reorganise the structure of the public sector…..Few problems are solved by significant reorganisations – in fact, many more tend to be created.  It is easy to underestimate the amount of energy and inspiration soaked up by institutional change, as well as the loss of personal and institutional knowledge.” (John Key, speech to PSA Congress, September 2008)

I’m not sure the staff at MFAT, where one on four could end up out of a job, would agree that isn’t radical restructuring. Under National, multiple agencies have been merged, over 2,500 jobs have been lost, regional offices have been closed, and now Key is promising even more to come.

“So let me reiterate National’s position.  We are in no way going to reduce the number of frontline staff.  Let me make this absolutely clear – under National the numbers of doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers, police and other frontline staff will grow.” (John Key, speech to PSA Congress, September 2008)

In the past few weeks we’ve seen DHBs talking about laying off medical professionals because of under-funding, education officials talking about bigger class sizes so that we employ fewer teachers, police being told they have to make massive savings, closure of frontline regional offices (eg. Housing NZ), and the replacement of frontline consular services overseas with an 0800 number.

“In additional (sic) to upholding the professionalism of the public service, we are also going to uphold its political neutrality….There has to be a clear line drawn between the political role of the Government and professional independence of the public service.” (John Key, speech to PSA Congress, September 2008)

I’m not sure how John Key appointing his own local National Party electorate chairman to broadcasting funding agency NZ on Air lives up to this commitment, particularly given said chairman’s role in deciding which political documentaries got funding in the lead-up to the general election.

“The New Zealand government is in a sound fiscal position.  We can afford to protect the vulnerable and maintain social services….”  (John Key, speech to PSA Congress, September 2008)

Quick, somebody tell Bill English. According to Key, NZ’s books were in good shape when they took office. Of course, having flushed our sound economic position down the toilet they’re now trying to blame the previous Labour govt, who paid back the debt and left the books in good shape.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: public services
8 Comments

Then and now: Key on SOE sales

Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 9th, 2012

John Key really doesn’t enjoy being reminded of the promises he made to New Zealanders before the election. It doesn’t matter whether it was the 2008 election or the 2011 election, he clearly doesn’t seem to think he should be held to his word. So here are a few of the commitments Key made about asset sales last year. You can be the judge.

“We’ve given the public a commitment: 85 to 90 per cent of these companies owned by New Zealanders” (John Key, TVNZ Leaders Debate, 23 Nov 2011).

The Mixed Ownership Model Bill introduced into parliament on Thursday contains no provisions that guarantee this. Under the legislation as tabled, there is nothing to stop 5-6 foreign investors scooping up all the listed shares.

“That was one of the tests I set out for the mixed-ownership model: that “New Zealand investors would have to be at the front of the queue for shareholdings”, and that we would have to be confident of widespread and substantial New Zealand share ownership.” (John Key, Question Time, 7 June 2011)

Once again, there is nothing in the Bill that gives New Zealander’s priority over foreign investors. There is also nothing to stop any NZers who do buy shares then on-selling them within a short space of time to a foreign buyer (remember how the local energy retailers were snapped up by overseas investors so quickly…)

“Kiwi mums and dads will be at the front of the queue…” (John Key, Question Time, 6 July 2011)

Leaving aside the obvious question of where these mums and dads are going to find several thousands of dollars to invest on the stockmarket at a time when many are struggling to pay thier own power bills, there is nothing in the legislation that puts mums and dads at the front of the queue at all.

“We’re giving people a commitment: no more than one shareholder can have 10 per cent, majority controlled owned by New Zealanders, 85 to 90 per cent of the entire company owned by New Zealanders. That is my commitment to them tonight as Prime Minister” (John Key, TVNZ Leaders Debate, 23 Nov 2011).

There is nothing in the Bill that ensures Key’s last promise will be honoured. Five foreign investors buying 10% each could scoop up the 49% that is publicly listed.

Guyon: “Can you guarantee that no more than 10 to 15 per cent of these shares will end up in foreign hands?” John Key: “Yes. I spent my life starting in investment banking. I know how these things work.” (John Key, TVNZ Leaders Debate, 23 Nov 2011).

Not sure this one needs any further comment really. It speaks for itself…

If you want to check out the full debate, the whole thing is up on Youtube: TVNZ Leaders Debate

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: asset sales
24 Comments

Assets and Elbows

Posted by David Cunliffe on March 1st, 2012

Can the Government tell an asset from an elbow?

Had it thought through the fatal flaws in its partial privatization drive, or has it been taken by surprise? Hat tip to Clayton Cosgrove for bringing SOE sale issues to the fore. Here’s a potted summary of some emerging commercial and economic development implications:

- When the SOE’s are partially privatised they become companies with a partial public shareholding, regulated by commercial law and not the SOE Act. They are no longer SOEs. They no longer have the Crown’s good corporate citizen obigations. Elbow #1.

- That is why the s9 Treaty Clause debate is so fundamental. Iwi are 100% right to be outraged that the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi could be sold down the river (literally). If the Crown’s response is to indemnify the private investor and bear 100% of the ongoing Treaty obligation, then the taxpayer is effectively subsidising the private investor. Clayton nailed this last week. Elbow #2.

- Minority shareholders rights include the ability to invest in future profitable expansion plans. Dilemma for Crown: pony up its 51% of those future capital requirements or face equity dilution below 51% and loss of residual control. The Govt’s response has been to hedge how much it wil initially sell. Does 45% leave it enough of a buffer? For how long? How long is a piece of string? How does this affect its sale proceeds? In a rare moment of frankness Bill English fessed up that those proceeds are only a “guess”. You bet they are. Elbow #3.

- Magically the Government’s new-found forecasts of SOE dividend loss are not, apparenty. These were shamefully omitted from the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) because they were apparently too hard to calculate. They have since been found in a bottom drawer and Lo! they show there will be precious few future divvies, so little loss. Ooops Why would a private investor buy them then? Elbow #4.

- Except Air NZ of course, which will be as cheap as chips after its sad losses last year. Crazy, stupid fire sale. Elbow #5.

- Speaking of which, future takeover threats must now be managed. Minority shareholders have rights. If a future merger or takeover provides them a windfall, they have the right to sell, most likely to foreign corporates or hedge funds (subject to the 10% individual cap, if any). What would the Crown do in the face of such temptation? Could it face legal action from minorities if it blocked such a future sale? How is the public protected from future leveraged asset stripping? Elbow #6.

- Potential cross-shareholding complications arise, as confirmed by the Chair of the Commerce Commission at the Commerce Committee hearing this morning. (I can’t comment on the Committee’s views but can on the issues diiscussed in public hearing). Lets say a foreign energy company bought the maximum allowable shareholding in each of the 3 SOE generators – risks of information pooling, coordination and anti-competitive behaviour would need to be policed by the Commission. At best there would be a lag while consumers suffered and prices rose. The Crown itself would have to be subject to Commission oversight in this regard. Sound complicated? Elbow #7.

Back to the original dilemma: did John Key know about all these issues when he started this privatisation crusade? If so, why was the Government not more transparent about them all before the election – with the public and even with its potential coalition partner?

Oh yeah, I momentarily forgot. It’s politics.

That being the case, lets fight this crazy plan to the last comma.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: Economic Development, Energy, M?ori, Uncategorized, commerce, economic, economy, privatisation, regulation
13 Comments

RBS show how mixed ownership doesn’t work

Posted by Trevor Mallard on January 31st, 2012

The Royal Bank of Scotland is getting a bit of publicity at the moment.

Royal Bank of Scotland was among the biggest fallers in the FTSE 100 on Monday, in part because of anxiety among investors about political interference following Stephen Hester’s decision to waive his near-£1m bonus.

The move sparked a debate about whether the government should step back and try to maintain the “arm’s length” management approach set up by Labour through UK Financial Investments (UKFI), or take full control of a bank in which the taxpayer already owns an 82% stake.

In New Zealand the Labour government handled Air NZ at arms length. Provincial route cuts, industrial disputes all resulted in political pressure which Cullen and Clark rejected. But not all finance Ministers are as strong, and Prime Ministers like Key take the line of least resistance trying to please as many people as the polls tell them to.

I’m not sure that these shares are as risk free as Key pretends. He should be able to see the biggest risk in the mirror as he shaves.

Tags:
Filed under: #ownourfuture, asset sales
6 Comments

The Sad State of Key’s Nation

Posted by Grant Robertson on January 27th, 2012

There is an old joke about the politician who dies, and arrives in heaven to find that market forces have taken hold, and that heaven and hell are offering one day trials so that he can decide where to spend eternity. The politician takes up the offer and spends a delightful, restful day in heaven listening to harp music. He goes down to Hell and has a great time partying, eating, drinking and generally having fun. He goes back to heaven and tells St Peter his decision’s made, its Hell for him. When he gets back there he finds none of the fun, but just a brutal, cold, barren landscape. He seeks out Satan, and asks what’s happened to the Hell he saw the day before, and Satan says, ” you’re a politician you should understand, yesterday we were campaigning, today we’re in office.”

In the election campaign we have just had, the paying down of debt and the return to surplus were big issues. The “show me the money” moment was just one where John Key brandished his credentials to lead us to the promised land of surplus by 2014-15. It was a certainty, and it could happen even earlier. Yet, six weeks on, the dampners are on. Key now says its only a “reasonable probability”. Another $1 billion have been knocked off the forecast. Truth is little is different in the challenging global environment now from when the promises were made, except the PM is not campaigning any more, he is in office. Not for the first time he gave the public the message they wanted to hear about economic growth, but now its time to lower expectations.

The so-called State of the Nation speech from the PM yesterday was a dull and miserable affair. Gone is the brighter future we were all promised just a few weeks ago. What plan there is has at is centrepiece more cuts to the public service. Regardless of the wisdom of those, they will be a drop in the bucket of improving the government’s finances.

No one is underestimating the challenge in front of the government. But what’s happened to the sunny optimisim of our PM? Actually there is every reason to be optimistic about New Zealand’s future if the government is prepared to do things differently. The world has changed, will the government? There is opportunity to reset fiscal and economic policy, and make the investments that will support innovative growing companies, grow our skills base and ensure that everyone reaches their potential.

But there was none of that in the speech. Not just a lack of economic vision either. And as Pita Sharples (yes, he is a Minister in the government) points out nothing on dealing with poverty or inequality. Nothing on the issues that need to be dealt with to unlock the potential of thousands of New Zealanders.

It was a defeatist, sad and tired effort. A bit like an old joke.

Tags: ,
Filed under: economy, inequality, national
38 Comments

His vision of a grey country

Posted by A Guest Poster on November 22nd, 2011

Jordan Carter is a Wellington-based List candidate

John Key’s rather wooden performances in the leaders’ debates so far, are consistent with his vision for New Zealand.  A country painted bright grey, where everyone is “ambushus” for — well, nothing much really, except power in Key’s case.

Through the whole election campaign, Labour has stood up for New Zealand and the country we can be:  a place where everyone can work at a decent job on decent wages, where the environment is clean and protected, and where we respect and look after each other, rather than creating false divides between Kiwis.

The policy framework we have rolled out is a plan that will tackle long-standing problems the country faces.  It’ll fix the things that hold us back: unfair taxes, biased investment into speculation, a lack of skilled and trained workers, housing shortages and so on.

But it’s the frank appeal to what it means to be a New Zealander that is exciting about Labour’s campaign.

Stopping asset sales is part of that, but think back to the other bits of recent political history: “gone by lunchtime” on New Zealand’s nuclear free (Brash, who Key is trying to disinter from his political grave); the effort to get mining done on Schedule 4 lands; the attacks on people on benefits; the pegging in of people’s rights at work; the “it’s not a priority” message to diverse communities all around New Zealand.

Their whole effort is to diminish and undermine the things that make us who we are, and to turn us into a privatised, corporatised bunch of Klingons who are only consumers, never citizens, and where to have a different ambition or even a different opinion is to be something other than “mainstream”.

National and John Key are running a grey campaign and their vision of our country is grey to match.  They are avoiding the tough issues, have no plan to change the economy or protect our environment, and just haven’t got what it takes to let every New Zealander get ahead — and to look after the people who can’t.

There is more to us than that. We are a better country than that.  We don’t need a bright grey future. We need one where everyone can fly.

Tags: ,
Filed under: #ownourfuture
10 Comments

John Key’s “cheap shot”

Posted by Grant Robertson on November 15th, 2011

It just felt wrong to me when John Key decided to compare the taping, accidental or deliberate, of his conversation with the systemic phone hacking of the News of the World. It’s no real surprise that someone connected with that case, the lawyer for the victims has spoken out describing John Key’s comparison of the recording of his conversation with John Banks with the NOTW phone hacking as a “cheap shot”.

There is a difference between the News of the World hacking into someone’s phone to find out private information and seemingly – whether accidental or on purpose – effectively a journalist investigating some political statement.

I am certainly not condoning covert recording, but I felt uncomfortable when I heard the comparison to NOTW made by John Key. This was an orchestrated media stunt gone wrong, and is not even close to the intrusive, criminal behaviour in the UK.

Then, tonight on TV1 John Key made a comparison to the idea of high profile New Zealanders being recorded talking about a child considering suicide, that being published, and then the child committing suicide.

This just makes me even more uncomfortable. I had given credit to Key for saying he wanted to see coordinated action on youth suicide, but trying to draw that issue ( under which media have operated almost without fail in line with strict reporting guidelines) into what is a political situation seems wrong to me.

These comparisons and claims are all a smokescreen to John Key not wanting to be caught out for what he said to John Banks. He should wind back the rhetoric and just front up to what he said.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: act party
17 Comments

Cuppagate- Game Changer?

Posted by Grant Robertson on November 14th, 2011

Interesting to read Jonathan Milne from the Herald on Sunday’s account of the cuppagate tape.

Milne says

But the potential disclosure of the contents of that conversation – held only a metre away from the closest reporters – could yet throw a rocket into this election campaign. It is a game-changer.

And therein lies the problem. I am sure as hell not endorsing covert taping of anyone. But this was a major media stunt in a campaign. It was designed to be a public event. As David Farrar has noted if the tape reveals something where Key or Banks is saying one thing publicly and another thing privately, then that gives strong reasons in the public interest to know what was said. Milne uses the langauge “game changer”, which indicates there is something here.

Milne goes on

But it’s the sheer range of comments in Key and Banks’ discussion that is breathtaking – and the pair’s assessment of the prospects of National, Act and NZ First.

Perhaps leadership in ACT discussions? Maybe a discussion about future asset sales? Whatever, this episode has more to play out, and the all guns blazing approach of National against its release indicates there is something of public interest in those tea leaves.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: #ownourfuture, act party
28 Comments

Cuppa Tea gone sour

Posted by Clare Curran on November 14th, 2011

On the Stuff website last night:

Key, campaigning in Hawke’s Bay, said he wasn’t in the “slightest bit concerned” about what was on the tape. He said the conversation was “bland” – but has refused to make public what was said.

I don’t know all the circumstances of the taping of John Key’s and John Bank’s cuppa tea conversation. But I make these points:

  • The event was stage managed by the National Party. It was a hyped up event. Media were invited to film the meeting of Key and Banks, but not the actual conversation. There was an enormous amount of spin around it.
  • National’s intention was for Epsom voters to know that John Key thought they should vote for Banks.
  • The meeting was recorded without their knowledge. The journalist responsible owned up and fronted the media himself.
  • The Herald on Sunday did not publish the contents. They reported they had the tape.
  • John Key is now spinning it as News of the World tactics. He asserts that the journalist deliberately set out to covertly record a conversation. That’s a big accusation. I’d like to know if he wants the journalist charged? What about the Herald on Sunday?
  • Key says the conversation was bland.  But he won’t provide the nation with the contents.
  • There is enormous public interest in this issue. It could result in an Act/National coalition arrangement.
  • If National allowed the cameras and the media part way in for their own ends, then they’ve now got to front up and tell the nation what was said.
  • I cannot fathom what the privacy argument could possibly be that outweighs the public interest on this. There’s an election in 13 days time. These two men were discussing an arrangement between their respective parties. Surely the public has a right to know what it is.

A private conversation is held privately. Not stage managed in public. Tell us what you promised John Banks, John Key!

Tags: , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, media
27 Comments

« Older Entries