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

Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘Steven Joyce’

Novopay shambles continues

Posted by on March 18th, 2013

Two months after Steven Joyce was brought in to fix the failing Novopay system, the problems are getting worse not better. Over the weekend we found out that hundreds of teachers have been unilaterally given the sack by the government’s payroll provider. That news came as a shock to them and to the schools they’re employed by. It’s a total disgrace.

This latest shambles follows news last week that Novopay provider Talent2 was using debt collectors to recover money from those who had been overpaid. It’s shocking that with thousands of people still being overpaid, underpaid and not paid at all, the government deemed this heavy-handed approach acceptable. Responsibility for this mess now rests with Steven Joyce. He either didn’t ask what steps Talent2 were taking to recover the overpaid money, in which case he is incompetent, or he signed it off, in which case he shows absolutely no understanding of the extent of the Novopay debacle.

Steven Joyce speaks of technical reviews and long-term solutions, but he needs to urgently deal with the massive problems Novopay is causing in schools right now. Despite seven months of chaos, schools still aren’t being compensated for all the extra work and stress Novopay is causing. I’ve had reports of schools taking on extra staff just to deal with payroll issues, not hiring relieving teachers when someone is sick because they don’t have the funds left, and cancelling equipment orders because they aren’t confident they’ll be able to pay for them. Yet still Steven Joyce does nothing.

Of course we need a long-term solution, but Steven Joyce can’t keep turning a blind eye to the turmoil Novopay is causing in the meantime. A comprehensive remediation and compensation package is long overdue. It’s time ‘Mr Fix-it” delivered one.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: education
11 Comments

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.

Tags: , , , , ,
Filed under: Economic Development, economy, Revenue
5 Comments

Newsflash – there’s a Novopay backlog!

Posted by on March 11th, 2013

At long last the government have finally gotten something to do with Novopay right. Yesterday on Q+A Steven Joyce announced that he is beefing up the Novopay Backlog Clearance Unit (BCU). This is something principals and school administrators have been calling for.

One of the common frustrations that I’ve been hearing from those trying to sort out the Novopay shambles is that the problems keep compounding. Schools don’t have time to get on top of the problems from one pay round and then another one rolls along and a whole lot more problems are created. Clearing the backlog will ease a lot of pressure, and I’m sure schools will welcome that.

I’m sure schools will also welcome Steven Joyce’s commitment to getting Novopay fixed within 3 months. People have been calling for a timeframe, and now Joyce has given them one. If he fails to live up to that commitment, the responsibility for that will fall squarely on his shoulders.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: education
4 Comments

School staff stress = non-compliance

Posted by on March 3rd, 2013

Hundreds if not thousands of schools up and down the country will have fallen foul of a Ministry of Education requirement for them to submit school charters by last Friday. The reason? Novopay!

In most schools, the same staff who deal with the payroll will also be dealing with compliance issues like charters. Given the choice between making sure people get paid or meeting Ministry compliance requirements, many schools have rightly focused on getting people paid.

Principals and schools tell me they’ve written to Ministers pleading for lenience on charters, but they’ve completely ignored them. Hekia Parata’s absolute arrogance and unwillingness to show lenience on already over-stressed school staff once again shows how out of touch and out of her depth she is as Minister of Education.

The Novo-shambles rolls on yet still the government refuses to do anything to relieve the massive pressure school administrators are under. Vague promises of a solution somewhere in the future just don’t cut it. Schools desperately need help and support now. Parata and Joyce should get off their backsides and start providing it.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: education
7 Comments

In the public interest

Posted by on July 2nd, 2012

Auckland’s integrated ticketing saga might seem like just another IT boondoggle with delays and cost blow outs.

But when the progress of Auckland’s public transport system is at stake, not to mention $98 million of public money, it is inevitable the public will want someone held accountable.

The Herald has pointed the finger at Snapper, saying the company should make its smart card compatible with the new integrated ticketing system or face the consequences.

Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee has threatened NZ Bus (which like Snapper, is owned by Infratil) could be “off the run”, losing the $70 million subsidy it gets for running 70% of Auckland’s buses if it can’t get the Snapper machines on its buses to work with the new system.

Back story: in 2009 Snapper lost out to French technology giant Thales in a competitive tender for the integrated ticketing system designed to be set up in Auckland and then rolled out in other centres. About a year later NZTA and Auckland Transport decided to allow Snapper to roll out its card on the NZ Bus fleet as long as it could guarantee compatibility with the new Thales-built system. There have been successive delays and things came to a head last week with a leaked lawyer’s letter from Auckland Transport to Snapper asserting the November 30 deadline would not be met and that Snapper was in breach of contract, with hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra costs piling up by the month. (For more history on this see Rudman, or Transport Blog if you are really keen.)

Snapper have been painted as the bad guy: losing out in a competitive tender, then sneaking back into the marketplace, and trying to use their dominant market position in Auckland to establish their card alongside instead of within the main system. The commercial incentive is obvious. If NZ Bus uses Snapper they get access to a sizeable cash float as public transport users charge up their Snapper cards. They also get a treasure trove of data about public transport journeys and consumption patterns that would help them wipe out competitors.

I think having a go at Snapper is too easy.  We shouldn’t be surprised that a company aggressively competes for market dominance.

But we should expect our politicians to make decisions in the public interest, and not screw the scrum on behalf of private interest which seems to be what happened here. I’ve been told by former board members of both agencies that then transport minister Steven Joyce intervened on behalf of Infratil, putting pressure on both boards to let Snapper roll out their card in advance of the new system.

Last week in the House Gerry Brownlee denied his predecessor had any role in the decision making, saying it was a decision for Auckland Transport and NZTA.

Both Mike Lee, former chairman of Auckland Regional Council, and Michael Barnett, also a former elected member of the ARC, have publicly said that lobbying of and by central government politicians led to what has turned out to be a very unwise decision.

That is why I have asked the Auditor General, who is already investigating Auckland’s integrated ticketing project, to include an examination of the role of central and local government politicians in the decision making around Snapper’s early roll out.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Auckland, transport, Uncategorized
14 Comments

Nanny Phobia Costing Lives

Posted by on June 24th, 2012

National’s irrational fear of being tagged with the ‘Nanny State’ label they successfully over-hyped against Labour has just jumped the shark.

3 News reported tonight that optics man Steven Joyce pulled a last minute flip-flop on making life jackets compulsory on small boats.

Associate Transport Minister Simon Bridges, sounding like he was on morphine, gave National’s reasoning as not wanting to over-regulate.

What the hell? We have tragedies like  this happening all the time because our laws are inadequate and wearing of life jackets is unenforceable.

Frankly, this is even worse than National’s refusal to change the drink-drive limit.

It’s an utterly irresponsible decision from a Government more worried about the ‘optics’ than human lives.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: Transport Safety
29 Comments

Asking the questions

Posted by on June 18th, 2012

You might remember a couple of months ago there was a flurry of public scrutiny on the National Government’s stonewalling on what it knew about the Chinese company Huawei’s involvement in the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband.

The Australian Govt had blocked Huawei from bidding for contracts to supply services to its massive ultrafast broadband scheme claiming issues of national security. In contrast, the NZ Govt turned a blind eye to Huawei’s involvement here. And refused to comment. Much.

Then a few weeks’ ago, Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce announced a whole of govt deal to save money on mobile phone costs across multiple departments. It included the involvement of 2 Degrees, NZ’s reputable third mobile phone provider, but which has equipment and services provided by Huawei.

Meanwhile, in the US Senate last week, questions continued to be raised about Huawei. Please explain letters have been written to Huawei’s CEO and Chair.

I think it’s valid to continue to ask the questions of the New Zealand Govt. Here’s what I asked Amy Adams (the current ICT Minister) in parliament last week:

Clare Curran: Is she aware of concerns raised by members of the United States House of Representatives Intelligence Committee this week regarding the possible national security threat posed by the potential expansion of Huawei into the US telecommunications infrastructure; if so, has she received any reports about the national security implications of the all-of-Government mobile phone procurement contract recently signed by Steven Joyce, which includes services provided by Huawei?

Hon AMY ADAMS: As that member is well aware, we do not comment on matters of national security, but I can assure her that we take network security very seriously.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table an article published on 13 June in Computerworld , titled “US lawmakers quiz ZTE, Huawei over spying concerns”.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table a media release by representatives from the US intelligence committee about concerns about the investigation of Huawei and ZTE.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table the correspondence between the US House of Representatives select committee on intelligence, and the chairman and senior vice-president of Huawei Technologies.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

  • Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You would have heard the Minister’s answer. She said: “we do not comment on issues of national security”. However, the very point that the member is asking about is that given Steven Joyce has signed a document that says it is not a matter of national security, why, then, can the Minister not answer the question? Mr Joyce and National have assured us that Huawei’s involvement is not a matter of national security. Therefore, why can the Minister not answer the question she has been asked?

(more…)

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT
2 Comments

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.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: #ownourfuture, broadcasting, democracy
1 Comment

Spin, damned spin, and Steven Joyce

Posted by on May 30th, 2012

In response to parliamentary oral question 7 today, economic development Minister Steven Joyce tried to deflect today’s announced cut to New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) 2012 growth forecast to a “stagnant” 1.5%, by saying this was all due to the supposed increase in the domestic savings rate.

Perhaps he was hoping that, as the NZIER publication is subscription-only, it was not going to be available to the Opposition, or to the public, and we would be unaware of his spin.

The problem for him, though, is I had the report in my hand and then I sought to table it.

National withheld leave for me to do so, to prevent you from judging for yourself.

In the report, under the heading “Half way through seven years of famine”, the overview states:

“The economy is stagnant. There is little economic growth and the outlook is challenging…”

NZIER ascribes this to six main drivers:

  1. No interest rate increases – due to growing global risks – resulting in possible Reserve Bank of New Zealand rate cuts if Europe’s crisis worsens. (NB: lower interest rates are not normally seen as an impediment to growth);
  2. Fiscal headwinds – the Government is “withdrawing stimulus” and this will “slow the pace of economic growth”;
  3. Slowing global growth – arguing the Government is over-banking on optimistic growth scenarios in Australia and China;
  4. Migration drain – noting the “net (e)migration is a persistent drain. This is hollowing out ..young people.. and will get worse as baby boomers age”;
  5. Household saving – “For households the economic picture will remain drearily similar. There will be few new jobs and wages will eke out small gains compared to living costs”;
  6. Businesses need to tread cautiously – “Because the economy will be flat, growth in sales must be from increased market share. (NB: by definition, this is a zero-sum game).

The NZIER report is cogent and sobering. It shows that the long-promised recovery is still just as far away as ever.

What it does not say is that the stagnant economy results from increased saving, or even substantially so.

To say New Zealanders are saving their way to recession is also sickeningly out of touch with the vast bulk of New Zealanders who are doing it too tough at the moment to be able to put much away.

All in all a case of spin, damned spin – and what Mr Joyce thinks he can get away with in Question Time if no one is checking.

Tags:
Filed under: Economic Development, economy
14 Comments

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Filed under: Budget, Economic Development, economy
35 Comments

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.”

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

NZTE Focussed; Joyce Not.

Posted by on March 1st, 2012

NZTE has just presented a stellar annual report to the Commerce Select Committee. The new CEO Peter Chrisp and Chair John Mayson deserve credit.

Costs are down, focus is up, strategy is sharper. Performance measures are more rigorous.

NZTE’s emerging success gives the lie, however, to Bill English’s comment that there is nothing to be done about economic growth “it is what it is”.

And NZTE’s focussed success contrasts with the haphazard approach taken by Economic Development Minister Joyce’s to doing shady deals with individual corporates.

None of media (Canwest); Casinos (SkyCity) international film giants (Warner Bros) feature within NZTE’s strategy for target clients.

So if they are not prioirities for the experts, why is their Minister treating them so?

Likewise on FDI, NZTE is focussed on high-spillover investment that adds value to NZ, NOT selling farmland or assets that already exist. So why are National politicians doing the opposite?

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: Economic Development, Films, international, Investment
23 Comments

Steven Joyce Can’t Count

Posted by on February 29th, 2012

An embarrassing slip occurred by Steven Joyce in the House today.

When I asked in a supplementary to his own patsy question by how many billion the current account defict was forecast to deteriorate over the next four years, he said “less than 5″ and said he based the estimate on the PREFU (Treasury’s pre-election fiscal update).

The actual number in the PREFU is down to $17.6 billion. Nowhere close to sub $5 bn. He then blamed the earthquake for the deterioration. In fact, the PREFU forecasts estimate only a quarter of the deterioration as eathquake related.

Mr Joyce has not corrected the errors – which is required under standing orders at the earliest opportuity.

His problem is that reducing the current account deficit is one of the most basic goals of economic development policy. Not knowingthe headline numbers is embarrasssing. Just making it up is downright risky.

This is the same minister busily negotiating “deals” with corporates, casinos and media moguls. I wonder how many Kiwis would trust his financial nous if he keeps fluffing the numbers?

Bill English is smiling inside.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: Economic Development, economy, trade
11 Comments

The Growth Gap

Posted by on February 23rd, 2012

In my last post I indicated that I would be doing a series of posts on growth and jobs, reflecting my portfolio work in economic development.  Here’s the first – and I want to begin with the Government’s results (or lack of).

By way of context, as a country we need to create and export value in order to pay for imports and good wages.  Sustainable economic growth is not at odds with social democracy, but a necessary component of making it work.  Growth is not an end in itself but a means to families and communities getting ahead.  For modern social democrats,  it should occur within a framework that ensures good social and enironmental outcomes.

The trouble is, despite repeated promises from the current government that economic growth is “just around the corner”, it just hasn’t happened.  

After Budget 2011, I posted a graph showing how the economy had actually performed under National compared to the growth forecasts since they came to office. With the latest downgrading of the growth outlook in the recent Budget Policy Statement, I’ve received a few requests for an updated version, so here it is:
 

Government GDP vs Reality

Government GDP vs Reality

(sources: Treasury Fiscal and Economic Updates, and Stats NZ GDP series)
 
What do we see? Well, under National the economy has under-performed each set of growth projections since they came to office by a long way.    The sole exception is BEFU 11, which assumed an immediate GDP hit from the Canterbury earthquakes that didn’t eventuate. It raises the question, is the problem with Treasury’s forecasting models or with National’s economic management?
 
Take a closer look at the 2 oldest sets of projections.
 
DEFU 08 came out immediate after National become government, at the height of the global economic crisis. It predicted that the economy would now be over 6% larger than it is – that’s $12 billion a year.
 
BEFU 09 came out with Budget 2009 – this was Treasury’s ‘doomsday’ predictions written at the peak of the Great Recession (although, ironically, it was released after the recession officially ended). BEFU 09 saw a further two questers of recession that didn’t happen and a gradual return to slow growth.

In the jargon of finance, it’s called a “hockey stick”  – a graph that always starts by going down in each set of forecasts, but is always predicted to curve up in the future.  If  ”NZ inc” was a company with accounts like these, the board would be asking hard questions of the managers.  

In fact,  look where the economy should be now according to that ‘doomsday’ scenario. That’s right, ahead of where it actually is. The recession didn’t get as bad as Treasury thought in BEFU 09 but the recovery under National has been so anaemic that we are now below the level of GDP forecast at the gloomiest period of the Great Recession and falling further behind every day.
 
Here’s how over-optimistic each set of predictions has proven: 

Government Projections Over-optimistic by:

Government Projections Over-optimistic by:

 There is a huge mismatch between what Treasury predicts and what National delivers.
 
So, what needs fixing: Treasury’s forecasting, which serves as the basis for government and opposition policy decisions, or National’s economic growth agenda and “120-point plan” ?
 
Both are the responsibility of Mssrs Key, English and Joyce.

More on why the Govt’s 120-point ‘laundry list’ is not a real plan, and what a real economic growth plan ought to look like, in future posts.

Tags: ,
Filed under: economic, Economic Development, economy, Uncategorized
23 Comments

Rena and Leadership

Posted by on October 16th, 2011

When I was doing Vote Chat with Bryce Edwards at Otago University on Friday he raised the good question of the political balancing act that surrounds how opposition political parties respond to a disaster, in this case the Rena. As an Opposition there is the risk that people will see criticism of the government as politicising the situation, being opportunistic etc. Equally part of the role of an Opposition is to hold the government to account, whatever the horrendous circumstances might be.

To get one thing out of the way straight up, no one is saying the Government is to blame for the Rena hitting the reef. I am also sure that John Key, Steven Joyce and Nick Smith are as disturbed as I am by the images of the oil on beaches and the death and injury of wildlife. Every New Zealander will want to see the damage from the accident mitigated and the environment cleaned up. What is a legitimate question though is whether faced with the incident the government showed the leadership that we should expect of them and acted as swiftly and effectively as they should have.

My take is that the government were flat footed and to keen to sheet blame and responsibility elsewhere rather than take the leadership role we want our government to take in times of crisis. Someone I worked with once said that people mostly want the government out of their way when things are going well, but they want them there yesterday when things go wrong. I think National got that wrong in the first few days of the Rena incident.

And criticism of this is not just coming from Labour, but also from people who might normally be described as friends of the government like John Roughan, Paul Holmes and even Matthew Hooten. Here is part of Hooten’s NBR column which is not on-line. (h/t Liberation)

Joyce failed totally to comprehend what the Rena grounding meant to the Bay of Plenty’, and ‘He did not see that, as transport minister and arguably the most powerful figure in the government after Mr Key, his role was to lead and improve the quality of the response, and ensure it was sufficiently empowered and resourced. When he spoke publicly, he demonstrated little empathy with locals, telling them there was no point going to the beach to clean up the oil, saying more was on its way and that it could take years to resolve anyway

Then there is the question of whether the government had done the work over the last three years to have us planned for a disaster like this. There are questions here too, with the freeze on funding for Maritime NZ and the failure to put in place the mechanism that would see more of the costs of dealing with the disaster fall on the ship company and less on you and me.

So, in the face of this disaster, we join with all New Zealanders in wanting to protect our beautiful coastline and all those, human and animal who inhabit it. But we also take our role seriously to raise the question- Where was the leadership?, and in this case it was sadly lacking.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: conservation, Health and Safety, transport
15 Comments

Shipwreck

Posted by on October 15th, 2011

The people of Tauranga are heartbroken about what is happening to their beautiful coastline, the wildlife and kaimoana. They’re helping wherever they can and where they are allowed, but the questions are coming thick and fast.

I’ve been a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee since I entered parliament in 2005. In mid 2008, our committee examined the International Treaty on amending the Convention of Limitation of Liability for Marine Claims. The Select Committee was chaired by the Hon Mark Gosche, who left parliament in the 2008 election. Maurice Williamson and Kate Wilkinson, who are now both government Ministers were also part of that committee.

The Committee recommended that the Convention should be passed into legislation, so that it could be enforced by New Zealand courts. This would have doubled the $12 million liability limit in the case of the Rena and funded compensation for businesses and property adversely affected.

A briefing to the incoming minister in 2008 noted that the Ministry was preparing to introduce legislation to update the Maritime Transport Act.

Guess what? Legislation was never introduced. Meanwhile, Maritime NZ was engaged on pointless value for money exercises demanded by the government.

This is sloppy work by Steven Joyce.  And I reckon that Maurice and Kate were so excited about becoming Ministers they forgot to brief Minister Joyce. Ironical that Kate Wilkinson is now the Minister for Conservation and Maurice Williamson has been dealing with leaky homes.  This is most definitely the leaky homes crisis of the sea, and Maurice Williamson started it all in 1992 with the deregulation of coastal shipping.

I feel for the people of Tauranga Moana and they can quite rightly ask why the National Party has let them down so badly.

Tags: ,
Filed under: Rena
6 Comments

Why bother with a super city when you want to rule Ak from Wgtn?

Posted by on September 7th, 2011

The impasse between the Government and Auckland Council over transport and urban planning makes a mockery of all the effort that went into creating the super city.

In the House today Transport Minister Steven Joyce was talking weasel words about his attitude to the draft Auckland Plan even though the Government is implacably opposed to Mayor Len Brown’s city rail link, and the plans to restrain Auckland’s sprawl.

The draft spatial plan hasn’t been released yet but cabinet ministers and the Council have been working away on the plan together for months now.

Differences came to a head at a joint meeting between Cabinet Ministers and the Council on August 26 reported by Brian Rudman in the Herald. Sources in the Auckland Council were quoted saying in a discussion on the issue of urban intensification National Ministers “couldn’t stop browbeating … councillors over the error of their ways”, and were “quite intimidating”.

Ministers at the meeting included Phil Heatley (Housing), Rodney Hide (Local Government), Nick Smith (Environment), Paula Bennett (Social Development) but undoubtedly the Colossus of Roads Steven Joyce would have been calling the shots on the Government side.

He won’t support the city rail link because he is hell bent on spending the transport budget on his Roads of National Party Significance. He won’t support Auckland Council’s plan for a compact city because he is an apostle of the motorways and sprawl model of urban development. On both these issues he is in open conflict with the aspirations of Aucklanders.

Mr Joyce pretended in the House today that he didn’t have a view about the draft Auckland Plan.

It all begs the question of why you would bother to set up a unified Auckland, supposedly so Auckland could speak with one voice,  and then block your ears because you don’t like what the city’s elected leaders are calling for?

I guess the answer is that from the National Party’s point of view the wrong guy won the mayoral election.

Tags: , , , , ,
Filed under: Auckland
22 Comments

A matter of privilege

Posted by on September 5th, 2011

At the beginning of August I laid a complaint with the Speaker Lockwood Smith asking him to refer Steven Joyce to the parliamentary Privileges Committee for having deliberately misled (ie lied to) parliament in answering a written question more than two years ago.

The complaint was that he had deliberately misled the House. It’s a very serious matter. I take it seriously. I hope all MPs and Ministers do. You can lose your Ministerial portfolio and even your job for doing so.

The Speaker has since replied to me saying that he has determined that no question of privilege is involved.

He doesn’t have to give reasons.

For an understanding of why I laid the complaint and the seriousness of the issue read here and here. And here.

The letter that Joyce lied about was important because it implied the government held opinions on the  structural separation of Telecom and that they were being communicated to Telecom well before the tender process had begun on the ultrafast broadband project.

Well before Telecom had been named as being the successful bidder for the broadband project. Well before Telecom had announced it would structurally separate if it won the UFB; and well before pre-emptive legislation was brought before parliament on that issue (before the contract was announced).

Sound weird? And suspicious? Well yes it is.

This is a very big government project. A large amount of taxpayers money is involved. Steven Joyce has not been straight with the public throughout the process.

He has a track record of negotiating government contracts in great secrecy and getting the outcomes he wants with little or no transparency for the taxpayers. He fought for two years to keep that letter from the public arena once the DomPost discovered it existed.

I can’t challenge the Speaker’s decision. My concern is that if it’s okay to mislead (lie to) parliament about an issue this important, what else is it okay for this government to lie about? And get away with?

I have lodged a Notice of Motion  with the Clerk of the House to refer the issue to the Privileges Committee which I will attempt to move next Tuesday in the House.

Tags: ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, broadband, comms & IT, democracy, parliament
17 Comments

Absent guest

Posted by on August 22nd, 2011

The Minister of Transport declined an invitation to the Smart Transport conference co-hosted by Labour and the Greens on the weekend, but his policies were much discussed.

58 StevenJoyce Traffic 9Aug11

Tags: ,
Filed under: transport
4 Comments

Is this true?

Posted by on August 15th, 2011

The process of awarding the ultrafast broadband contract to Telecom has been shrouded in secrecy and dubious process from day one.

I think there’s pretty general agreement about that. The problem has been working out what actually went on.

A letter recently came to light between Telecom CEO Paul Reynolds and Communications Minister Steven Joyce which indicated pretty strongly that the structural separation of Telecom was being discussed way back two years ago before the contract tenders had been announced.

If so, then it would appear that a plan was put in place and an outcome determined before the tenders were put to the public.

If so, that makes a complete mockery of the tender process and the other tendering parties who would be right to feel very aggrieved.

I’ve been told (by a very strong source) that around that time (2009), the Ministry of Economic Development head in charge of broadband Bruce Parkes, used emissaries to go and talk to the Telecom boss and verbally explain that if Telecom agreed to voluntarily separate, there would be “regulatory relief” (and by implication the ultrafast broadband contract would follow).

One of those emissaries has said that when speaking to Reynolds, he/she was told “you’re not the only one they’ve sent to tell us that”.

I’ve also been told, from within Telecom, that the letter written by Reynolds back to Joyce was deliberate, to put it on the record so to speak.

This smells.

I have a request before the Speaker of the House Lockwood Smith referring Steven Joyce to the privileges committee for denying any letters existed on this issue. The letter I’ve referred to above clearly did exist. He has fought to keep it from the public eye since Octover 2009.

I’m waiting for the Speaker’s response.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, broadband, comms & IT
15 Comments

« Older Entries