Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘John Key’

Actually John Key you did invite Huawei into NZ

Posted by on June 5th, 2013

John Key today accused me of deliberately misleading the House by asking this question:

Clare Curran: Does he now feel embarrassed that, having invited  Huawei into New Zealand and virtually offering it contracts on a plate in 2011, he is now being forced to keep it out of the major contract, following the persistent concerns of all our major security partners?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is deliberately attempting to mislead the House. I did not invite Huawei into New Zealand.

Ultimately he was forced to apologise.

When Guyon Espiner interviewed John Key on TVNZ’s Q&A 11 July 2010 he said this:

GUYON Are there specific projects that have been looked at, I mean I’ve seen commentators talk about projects like Transmission Gully in Wellington. I mean is that a realistic thing that the Chinese might come and do something like that?

JOHN They might do, and at the end of the day from New Zealand’s perspective I mean we’re looking for value for money. So let’s take ultrafast broadband, they’ve got a lot of expertise in that area, Huawei is a big player, they’re bigger round the world, they’ve got a huge partnership in the United Kingdom for instance. No one’s saying they would be the final selected partner in New Zealand but they’ve certainly got the capacity if they wanted to, to come in and look at doing something like that. So you know from New Zealand’s point of view the bottom line is, can we get investment, can we get ultimately value for money?

No-one had mentioned Huawei in relation to the UFB until John Key did that interview on his return from China. Subsequently there was a rash of speculation and discussion about the relationship between the National Govt and the giant Chinese tech company.

Despite a recent visit to New Zealand by Huwaei President Mr Ren Zhengfei a few weeks ago who gave his first ever media interview on our soil, it appears the buck may have stopped for Huawei’s involvement in our public infrastructure.

I was told today that within the telco industry it was believed that Huawei had already been given the contract by Chorus and that it was a back flip to hear that Huawei had been dropped. Whatever the real story is, it involves a turnaround for John Key.

I guess the real question is, what took him so long?

You can watch the interchange here:

 


The right wing agenda

Posted by on May 22nd, 2013

*Update to post. It’s fair enough that the comments are focussing on why I’m not support this or that. I highlighted and bolded one issue that I could definitely support. I didn’t highlight others that I thought needed discussion because I didn’t outright support them. But have subsequently done so. I do however think the discussion should be about the impact of the agenda and not about what I think.

On the 4 April, in the great stone-and-glass National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne, luminaries descended to celebrate the 70th Anniversary of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), Australia’s leading free-market think-tank.

Tickets to the gala dinner cost a minimum of AU$500 (£340) per head, and an auction to raise funds for the IPA featured prizes including a guided tour of the Reagan Ranch in California and a behind the scenes Fox News “experience” in New York City, including a meeting with host Bill O’Reilly . Among the speakers were Rupert Murdoch, journalist Andrew Bolt, billionaire mining magnate Gina Rinehart, and a man named Tony Abbott, Leader of the Opposition.

Tony Abbott, Gina Rinehart and Rupert Murdoch took turns sharing the stage. Andrew Bolt (a conservative columnist for the Melbourne Herald Sun) was MC. By accounts, Abbott praised his fellow key-note speakers, especially Murdoch, and promised the crowd a “big yes” to many of the think tank’s list of 75 policies to radically transform Australia.

It is worth remembering that Tony Abbott and his conservative Liberal Party, David Cameron and the UK Conservatives and John Key and the National Party are all advised by the PR gurus Crosby Textor.

It’s also important to note that this dinner and the following ideas were the brain children of a right wing think tank. But it’s no coincidence that these three men and their parties share much of the following agenda. I wonder how many of these ideas (which have relevance here) will find their way into National’s agenda if they win another government term? I have marked the  ideas which I think have merit.

  • Means-test Medicare
  • Eliminate family tax benefits
  • Abandon the paid parental leave scheme
  • Abolish the Baby Bonus
  • Abolish the First Home Owners’ Grant
  • Repeal plain packaging for cigarettes and rule it out for all other products, including alcohol and fast food
  • Repeal the alcopops tax
  • Reject proposals for compulsory food and alcohol labelling
  • Repeal the Fair Work Act
  • Allow individuals and employers to negotiate directly terms of employment that suit them
  • Introduce a single rate of income tax
  • Return income taxing powers to the states
  • Cut company tax to 25 per cent
  • Cease subsidising the car industry
  • Abolish the Foreign Investment Review Board
  • Abolish the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
  • Abolish the Office for Film and Literature Classification
  • End local content requirements for Australian television stations
  • Break up the ABC and put out to tender each individual function
  • Devolve environmental approvals for major projects to the states
  • End mandatory disclosures on political donations
  • End all corporate welfare and subsidies by closing the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
  • Immediately halt construction of the National Broadband Network and  privatise any sections that have already been built
  • Privatise Australia Post, Medibank and SBS
  • Halve the size of the Coalition front bench from 32 to 16
  • Reduce the size of the public service from current levels of more than 260,000 to at least the 2001 low of 212,784
  • Slash top public servant salaries
  • Force government agencies to put all of their spending online in a searchable database
  • Repeal the carbon tax, and don’t replace it (if it is replaced by another costly scheme, most of the benefits will be undone).
  • Abolish the Department of Climate Change
  • Abolish the Clean Energy Fund and repeal the renewable energy target
  • Withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol
  • Repeal the mining tax
  • Privatise the CSIRO and the Snowy-Hydro Scheme
  • Abolish the Commonwealth Grants Commission
  • Introduce fee competition to Australian universities
  • Means test tertiary student loans
  • Repeal the National Curriculum
  • Introduce competing private secondary school curricula
  • Reintroduce voluntary student unionism at universities
  • Introduce a voucher scheme for secondary schools
  • Abolish the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
  • Eliminate ‘balance’ laws for radio and television broadcasters
  • Abolish television spectrum licensing and devolve spectrum management to the common law
  • Eliminate media ownership restrictions
  • Cease funding the Australia Network
  • Rule out government-supported or mandated internet censorship
  • End public funding to political parties
  • Introduce voluntary voting
  • End media blackout in final days of election campaigns
  • Formalise a one-in, one-out approach to regulatory reduction
  • Legislate a cap on government spending and tax as a % of GDP
  • Legislate a balanced budget amendment which limits the size of budget deficits and the period the government can be in deficit
  • Allow people to opt out of superannuation in exchange for promising to forgo any government income support in retirement
  • Encourage independent contracting by overturning new regulations designed to punish contractors
  • End all hidden protectionist measures, such as preferences for local manufacturers in government tendering
  • Remove all tariff and non-tariff barriers to international trade
  • Remove anti-dumping laws
  • Deregulate the parallel importation of books
  • End preferences for Industry Super Funds in workplace laws
  • Privatise the Australian Institute of Sport
  • Rule out federal funding for 2018 Commonwealth Games
  • End all public subsidies to sport and the arts
  • Eliminate the National Preventative Health Agency
  • End all government funded ‘Nanny State’ advertising
  • De-fund Harmony Day and close the Office for Youth
  • Repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act
  • Allow the Northern Territory to become a state
  • Introduce a special economic zone for northern Australia including:
    a) Lower personal income tax for residents
    b) Significantly expanded 457 Visa programs for workers
    c) Encourage the construction of dams.

Tell us it’s Dunne and dusted now Peter

Posted by on March 13th, 2013

United Future leader and Revenue Minister Peter Dunne’s belated recognition that he holds a casting vote in John Key and Steven Joyce’s shonkey SkyCity convention centre deal is welcome.

The question remains, however, whether Dunne will use his veto to stop the sale of our country’s laws to a casino.

Because he most certainly should.

By Dunne’s own admission the National Government “did play very fast and loose at times” during the rotten tender.

The Deputy Auditor-General was more clear – the deal was “unfair” and managed so the “SkyCity proposal was always going to be the most attractive”.

Last week Dunne (finally) appeared to lay down a challenge to the National Government which he otherwise supports:

There is a time-bomb warning to the government here. Support for the cut through approach will wither if it is seen to be a standard proxy for bending the rules or doing special deals to achieve the desired outcome. While the government is not immediately vulnerable on this issue, the clock has started ticking.

And it is worth remembering the adage, the ends do not justify the means.

Well National has responded to Dunne’s challenge.

I asked Steven Joyce written Parliamentary question [1307 (2013)]:

Does he regret any of his actions as Minister for Economic Development related to the Government’s decision to negotiate with SkyCity Entertainment Group Ltd for an international convention centre; if he does, which actions?

And Joyce has (finally) responded with one word:

No.

This is just about the only time I can recall the Economic Development Minister giving a straight answer to any question. But what an answer it is.

With one word Joyce has confirmed he’s learned nothing from the Deputy Auditor-General’s scathing criticism. He’s thumbed his nose at fair and proper process, at accountability to the people of this country, and at their hard-earned (but fast fading) reputation for having the lowest level of Government corruption in the world. Joyce has effectively confirmed that so long as he’s a Minister he’ll trade New Zealand’s laws if he sniffs a special deal for the big end of town.

So there you have it Peter Dunne. National do think the ends justify the means. The time-bomb has exploded.

And you – and only you – can put a stop to this madness.

The question the whole country wants to know is whether you will. So do it today Mr Dunne.


IRD computer crisis

Posted by on October 2nd, 2012

Crazy to think the effective collection of tens of billions of our tax dollars every year is dependent on museum-grade technology.

The Inland Revenue Department has been pleading for a new computer system for years. Its current one (known as FIRST) was built in 1992 when the Internet was still in nappies.  Google didn’t exist and Facebook was more than a decade away.

In February this year, the Prime Minister said tax policy was being held back because the computer systems “can’t actually support radical changes from Government.”  He also said “You don’t want to be in a position where Parliament is held hostage to a lack of technology.”

But New Zealand is being held hostage to this technology. Well placed sources tell me that the Government couldn’t currently implement a capital gains tax - even if it woke up to the need for pro-growth tax reform to support our exporters - and actually wanted to follow the advice of tax experts including Treasury officials, the World Bank, the OECD, and others.

This Government has tinkered with tax-thresholds and it gave tax cuts to the most wealthy in 2010, but it hasn’t made the big structural changes necessary to get our economy on track.  Perhaps it is afraid of getting burnt again after an attempt at building a new system to cope with Student Loan changes was abandoned with $21 million spent last year.  Certainly development plans have gone quiet since.

Despite Key’s statements in February, no credible timeline for the necessary comprehensive replacement system has been ventured by the Government.

Meanwhile the legacy FIRST system creaks on. Unlike in modern IT, changes made in one part of the FIRST system do not flow through to others. Consequently even mild changes are time-consuming to implement.  A limited budget means resources supporting the antiquated system are not available in the same measure to support other core activities. Resources are stretched - and so more and more mistakes are being made.

Yesterday, Peter Dunne responded to my press release concerning the urgent need for upgrade, by defending IRD’s most recent performance lapses as the result of human error and poor forecasting (leaving the personal slights aside). Well and good, but with all due respect – those are precisely the kinds of errors that are made when an organisation is stretched.  And to those could be added around $7 Billion in outstanding debt and a surprisingly high number of unprocessed tax returns.

What is urgently needed is commitment from the Government to a system upgrade, accompanied by project details including a credible timeline for implementation.  Any response prominently featuring the word ‘relaxed’ and speaking of 5-10 years simply won’t cut the mustard.

Updating our IT shouldn’t be that hard. We can learn from others. After all, we’re not the only country in the Western World with a tax system.


Genuine consultation – yeah right!

Posted by on September 28th, 2012

Yesterday John Key tried to ease the concerns of Cantabrians by saying that final decisions hasn’t been made about school mergers and closures in Christchurch. Today Hekia Parata formally wrote to school boards of trustees to formally begin the closure/merger process. Cantabrians can be forgiven for thinking that the fate of their local schools has already been sealed.

Schools have been given until 7 December to provide feedback on proposals for closures and mergers, the first two weeks of that time will be school holidays and for senior students, exams will dominate the rest of the school year. In that time boards are expected to run a formal consultation process with parents, students, and others with an interest. It’s a sham.

We know from the Dotcom case that John Key and Bill English have a breakdown in communication. It’s clear now that the Prime Minister and his Minister of Education are also completely out of step. John Key is out there trying to tell Cantabrians that the consultation process is a genuine one, yet his Minister of forging ahead with the legal process to implement decisions that appear to have already been made.

This consultation charade would be funny if it wasn’t about something so incredibly important to the families of Canterbury. The Government needs to get this right but it’s a turning it into a bigger shambles than their plan to increase class sizes.


National’s latest targets

Posted by on July 1st, 2012

Is it possible for the government to set out a list of targets for the public service that are both worthy and meaningless at the same time? That seems to have been the tone of debate around National’s latest Better Public Services announcement. There aren’t really any targets in there that anyone would disagree with, but it ain’t the ambitious ‘brighter future’ government John Key promised us 4 years ago. Where is the goal to close the wage gap with Australia? Where is the goal to reduce our overseas debt? Where is the goal to lift wages and create more highly paid jobs?

National’s latest set of targets also look pretty hollow and meaningless in the context of what they’ve actually been doing since they took office. So let’s look at the actual targets and how the rhetoric matches the reality.

1. Reduce the number of people who have been on a working age benefit for more than 12 months

Yet National cut the training incentive allowance to make it difficult for DPB mums to get higher education. 50,000 people have lost their jobs under National, and unemployment has been persistently high. Access to Student Loans has been restricted and they’re contemplating putting interest back on student loans. Lack of jobs is the key reason why people are on the benefit and the Government’s response is “it is what it is” with no sign of the 170,000 jobs they promised.

As my colleague Jacinda Ardern pointed out during question time, National’s goal to reduce the number of people on job-seeker benefits for more than 12 months by 30% means they’re still banking on there being 20,000 more people in that group than there were when they took office. Hardly an ambitious target…

2. Increase the number of young children in ECE

National’s cuts to ECE subsidies mean parents now have to pay higher fees for a lower quality service, hardly a plan to increase participation. In 2010 Key’s Government cut $400 million from the ECE budget which saw more than 2,000 ECE centres have their funding reduced. If parents are to believe Key’s commitment to ECE then he needs to immediately rule out the controversial recommendation from his ECE Taskforce to cut the universal subsidy for 20 hours ECE.

Increasing participation shouldn’t be the only goal for ECE. More bums on seats is good but we also need to ensure that ECE teachers are qualified and skilled enough to give children the best learning environment possible. Nationals ditching of the target of 100% qualified staff in teacher-led ECE services is will reduce the quality of ECE learning and the potentially transformational benefits children can get from it.

3. Increase infant immunisation rates and reduce the incidence of rheumatic fever.

Under National we’ve seen more children going to hospital with poverty related diseases, including rheumatic fever. Overall, hospital admissions are up by 4800 in the past 3-4 years. New Zealand’s rate of rheumatic fever is 14 times higher than the OECD average. Medical experts have blamed the rise on damp houses, poverty and a lack of primary healthcare. This is not a problem the healthcare sector alone can solve.

4. Reduce the number of assaults on children.

On 1 April 2011 Tariana Turia announced that funding from the following programmes had been ‘reallocated’:

  • Te Rito Collaborative Community Family Violence Prevention Fund
  • Advocates for Children and Young People Who Witness Family Violence programme
  • Family Violence Education Services

5. Increase the proportion of 18 year olds with NCEA level 2 or equivalent qualification

This is a long-term goal and a good one, although I would question the assumptions made in the analysis of the current trend data, which seems to assume on current trends growth in the number of 18 year olds hitting the target will diminish. Why do I call it a long-term goal? Because to achieve it we need to look at things like early childhood education (see above), improving student engagement (technology teaching anyone?) and teacher professional development (funding cut under National).

6. Increase the proportion of 25-34 year olds with advanced trade qualifications, diplomas and degrees

Where to begin? National cut the successful Skill Enhancement programme in Budget 2010. The Skill Enhancement programme provided vocational training for young Māori and Pasifika, had run since 1993 and achieved 82% positive outcomes. The number of Modern Apprenticeships has declined 10% in the past two years without any attempt of intervention or support from National.

National has cut $145 million out of Industry Training, money which could be invested into up-skilling young people, but most of which has gone elsewhere. The $40 million Community Max scheme failed to get people into jobs and in many cases created little more than pumpkins. Access to Student Loans has been restricted as well.

7. Reduce the rates of total crime, violent crime and youth crime.

Well, I guess cutting funding for the police is one way of reducing the rates of reported crimes.

8. Reduce re-offending

Prioritised funding to build more prisons (Wiri) instead of rehabilitation programs. 1.1% increase in spending on prisoner employment, rehabilitation and reintegration last year is insufficient address the recidivism rates given the reconviction rate has gone up under this Government to over 62%.

9 & 10. New Zealanders can complete their transactions with the Government easily in a digital environment.

Hardly ground-breaking stuff is it? If anything this is just the government catching up with the private sector.


National’s priorities

Posted by on June 20th, 2012

This morning I’m at the Government Administration Select Committee. We’re currently holding a public hearing on the Estimates for Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet. Officials have just confirmed that this year’s Budget has allocated about $6.5 million of new money for a new IT system that will allow Ministers to get their Cabinet papers online.

I asked whether they had been asked by the PM to find this money by ‘reprioritising’ their existing spending. Apparently not. It seems DPMC are subject to a different standard of accountability than the rest of the public sector.

Not a great look for the PM to find $6.5 m of taxpayers money to fund a new filing system for cabinet papers in the same Budget they hiked up taxes for paperboys, a move that is only going to raise $14 million over the next 4 years. Shows where John Key’s priorities lie…


John Key’s “ghost followers” Part 2

Posted by on June 17th, 2012

Further to the previous post which analysed John Key’s Twitter followers and found an astounding 57% were not “real” followers, Boolean undertook a further analysis.

This time he analysed  John Key, myself, Russel Norman, Metiria Turei, David Shearer and Gareth Hughes. The results are here

They show pretty clearly that we all have followers who are questionable. But the percentages for all, except Key are pretty standard. More than half of John Key’s followers don’t stack up.

I reckon that’s a bit odd. I’ll be undertaking a cleanout of my followers. And expect a bit of scrutiny of them.

I think the question that remains is how did John Key acquire nearly 30,000 bogus  followers?


26 more days to Save TVNZ 7

Posted by on June 4th, 2012

Last week, Danya Levy in the DomPost reported that:

Labour is accusing former broadcasting minister Jonathan Coleman of deliberately misleading the public over the audience size of the soon-to-be-defunct TVNZ7 and claims the reason for scrapping the free-to-air channel is flawed.

However, Dr Coleman says there was no attempt to manipulate the audience figures.

On Monday he admitted that he incorrectly said last year that TVNZ7 had a weekly audience of 207,000.

It came just after the Government decided not to extend its $79 million funding to the channel over six years, $70m of which came from a special dividend from TVNZ.

Coleman said he made no attempt to manipulate the figures. This is wrong. He either doesn’t read his Cabinet papers,  he was lying, or  he undertook some disingenuous maths. He certainly did manipulate the figures.

On 23 February 2011 a Cabinet paper to him on Revised Options for the Future of TVNZ7 said:

“Unlike TV ONE and TV2, the channels (6 & 7) are not reliant on commercial advertising revenue and are therefore able to schedule a range of content aimed at audiences outside of the demographic cohorts targeted by advertisers.

The channels’ combined average cumulative audience (individuals accessing at least one programme) is around 2.1 million. This compares with a monthly figure of approximately 1.6 million for Maori Television Service and 2.2 million for the combined Radio New Zealand National and Concert audiences. Currently 6 and 7 can be accessed by around 70% of the population on the Freeview and SKY platforms.”

The Cabinet paper (produced by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage) recommended no further funding be made available to continue TVNZ 7 when the current appropriation ended in 2012.

This recommendation came just days after a meeting attended by John Key, Jonathan Coleman, Steven Joyce and the TVNZ CEO and senior executives where a clear proposal to keep TVNZ 7 was laid out. I understand that Key warmed to the idea. Steven Joyce however, didn’t.

The result is that funding for TVNZ 7 ceases in just 26 days.

The Save TVNZ 7 campaign has organised two public meetings this week.

  • Wednesday night in Palmerston North All Saints Church Hall, cnr The Square & Church St
  • Thursday night in Dunedin at the Colquhoun Theatre, at the hospital.

Make the effort and come if you can. And support the campaign.


The real John Key

Posted by on May 31st, 2012

listener

Have a read of the piece Joanne Black wrote in The Listener in 2005 where she laid out Key’s back story and portrayed him as an egalitarian hero.

The reality has turned out somewhat differently. Perhaps the fact that he chose to send his kids to private schools should have rung warning bells then for our public education system.


The credibility cut

Posted by on May 29th, 2012

John Key has a problem.

In four long years National has failed to meet almost every economic target it has set for itself.

New Zealand’s economy is shattered. Unemployment is up sharply. 1,000 Kiwis are leaving every week for Australia. Exported goods have just collapsed by a horrific 17%. Now, apparently, students, the sick and the elderly are going to have their pockets picked by the government too.

Yet while some writers have always seen through the spin – economists Bernard Hickey and Gareth Morgan deserve particular mention – Key has kept much of the commentariat on-side by endlessly promising he has a plan for sustained economic growth.

Well no more, because the prime minister’s had a long-overdue credibility cut.

Historians will say Budget 2012 marked a watershed for this National government. They’ll say it’s when John Key lost his cheerleaders in the press; when opinion leaders began to concede National never had any economic literacy, any vision, or any plan. The scribes will write Key off as a typical National prime minister who burdened the poorest and most vulnerable with new taxes, and who slashed every public service he could, for no deeper reason than to fund tax cuts and special deals for the rich. They’ll record how, just like Rob Muldoon, Key lumbered the next Labour government with a destroyed economy and how every New Zealander was the loser from National’s economic vandalism.

Of course I don’t agree with everything the commentators are writing now. Far from it. But what’s changed is they are really testing Key’s spin and reporting their findings unvarnished – and I applaud the country’s journalists for their professionalism.

Take a look for yourself:

  1. “The major problem is that there is no clear economic growth agenda”, Fran O’Sullivan, New Zealand Herald.
  2. “The Budget delivered yesterday by the Minister of Finance, Bill English, had a distinctly underwhelming feel”, New Zealand Herald editorial.
  3. “It was billed as a Zero Budget, and that’s what we got”, Tim Hunter, Fairfax.
  4. “The Budget is contradictory. Fiscal policy will subtract from demand and from growth not just next year but for the next four years”, Brian Fallow, New Zealand Herald.
  5. “As far as ambitious measures to growth the economy, this Budget is a little light”, Corin Dann, TVNZ.
  6. “A fiscal surplus is not a growth strategy. While the Budget does allocate more money to science and innovation, the restraint on spending has meant the Government is unable to make the kind of quantum leap in industry assistance that would have justified the amalgamation of several Government departments into the new ‘super’ economic development ministry”,  John Armstrong, New Zealand Herald.
  7. “The figures are essentially meaningless… It is still forecasting growth of more than 3 per cent by early 2014. Growth has not been that high for four years and is now at a meagre 1.1 per cent. The growth rate is crucial. A single percentage point under the required rate and a $200 million surplus can be a $2 billion deficit before you can say ‘Standard & Poors’. On such flimsy foundations is the central political component of this Budget built”, John Armstrong, New Zealand Herald.
  8. “In the face of the negative realities – which are causing misery in households up and down the country – what English had to offer was a series of tweakings and Peter-to-Paul transfers that plugged a few holes here, and scratched an ideological itch there”, Gordon Campbell, Scoop.
  9. “There has been much speculation over the last 12 months on the merits of a capital gains tax and the anomaly that its absence presents from a tax policy perspective. New Zealand is unique among OECD countries in this regard… if there was ever a time to introduce a CGT it is now”, Greg Thompson, National Business Review.
  10. “Bill English’s fourth Budget pinches the pennies, raids nearly every piggy bank and even plunders the Government’s rainy-day fund. No-one, it seems, is safe – even kids with an after-school job have been frisked for extra revenue to help fill Government coffers”, Tracey Watkins, Fairfax.

So all in all it’s a thumbs-down for Key.

Please tell us what Budget 2012 has meant for your family.


Urgently taxing toddlers

Posted by 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.


Four Years of Failed Promises

Posted by on May 24th, 2012


Good point

Posted by 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.


Show us your cards, John

Posted by 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.


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

Posted by 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.”


Herald gutless but suspect should out himself

Posted by 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.


Black Friday Date for Asset Sell Off Submissions

Posted by 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.


Nick Smith to go..?

Posted by 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

Reflections on Key’s speech

Posted by 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.