PARLIAMENT | PARTY | GRASSROOTS

Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘Steven Joyce’

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

NZTE Focussed; Joyce Not.

Posted by David Cunliffe 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, Investment, international
23 Comments

Steven Joyce Can’t Count

Posted by David Cunliffe 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 David Cunliffe 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 Development, Uncategorized, economic, economy
23 Comments

Rena and Leadership

Posted by Grant Robertson 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: Health and Safety, conservation, transport
15 Comments

Shipwreck

Posted by Darien Fenton 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 Phil Twyford 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 Clare Curran 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 Phil Twyford 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 Clare Curran 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

The fight to keep Kiwi rail workshops alive

Posted by Clare Curran on August 9th, 2011

Hillside petition 9

Hillside petition 5

Today nearly 14,000 signatures were presented to me at parliament  in a petition calling on the government to retain the Hillside and Woburn rail Workshops.

They represent more than a quarter of Dunedin’s households. The petition was put together in a pretty short time frame. The loss of jobs at Hillside and Woburn cuts deep into our Kiwi ethos. The rail workshops are an important manufacturing base for our country.

This government doesn’t care about that and would rather spend taxpayers money overseas purchasing rolling stock, than use Kiwi skills to build them here.

This government will not do an analysis of the economic benefits of spending our money inside our economy, because they know they’ll be proven wrong. So they keep the real figures secret and make them up.

I challenge Steven Joyce to release the bid costings on the rail wagons contract bids. Was Kiwirail 3rd our of 9 bids? If so what was the cost differential and how was it measured.  And why can they not factor in the economic benefits to our economy.

Our trading partners do.

Now if the time to be investing in our economy. In our skills. Losing this industry is a tragedy for our country.

Labour will fight. And our policy will use major government contracts to back New Zealand firms instead of exporting jobs offshore.

Here’s what the union representing these workers said today.

13,854 Kiwis want to save Hillside and Hutt rail workshops

Lower Hutt rail workers whose jobs are at risk say the government needs to listen to the 12,000 people have signed a petition calling for trains to be made at home.

The workers’ petition was presented to Dunedin South MP Clare Curran at Parliament a short time ago by workers from Hillside and Hutt rail Workshops. Clare Curran was flanked at Parliament by Green Party Transport Spokesperson Gareth Hughes

“Up to 30 positions at Lower Hutt’s workshop are now at risk.  This follows the redundancies of 44 Dunedin workers last month, both a result of KiwiRail purchasing rail rolling stock and electric units overseas” said Wayne Butson.

“This was despite a comprehensive BERL report for Chambers of Commerce, unions and local government, proving the case for a local build,” he said.

“This followed 40 Diesel Locomotives for the North Island being ordered and built in China, and making matters worse, the job for 600 new container flat top wagons also went to an overseas firm.”

(more…)

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: #ownourfuture, Rail, Skills, jobs
8 Comments

Integrity of parliament

Posted by Clare Curran on August 3rd, 2011

Simon Cunliffe’s piece in the ODT today is worth a read.

None of us are perfect but I reckon the integrity of the parliament is something to be valued.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, parliament
7 Comments

Joyce caught red handed

Posted by Clare Curran on August 2nd, 2011

Steven Joyce has been caught red handed and is now attempting to worm his way out of reference to privileges committee.

I hope Speaker of the House, Lockwood Smith, who is a straight shooter, can see though Joyce’s ploy.

Yesterday I laid a complaint with Lockwood over whether Steven Joyce deliberately misled Parliament by not revealing the existence of a crucial letter from Telecom CEO Paul Reynolds on the ultrafast broadband project. The letter made reference to the possible structural separation of Telecom. He denied seeing any correspondence on the issue.

This morning, two years after that letter was sent and 21 months after he responded in the negative to a written question by me, he issued a corrected reply.

What a coincidence that his corrected response comes just a day after I laid the complaint with the Speaker.

I find it breath-taking that Steven Joyce can show such cynical disregard for accountability and transparency for Parliamentary procedure. He is treating the entire process with contempt. Whether it’s the Labour Opposition’s right to receive a truthful answer to a question, or the parliamentary process to take its course once a complaint has been laid.

For these reasons I am releasing both my letter to the Speaker and Steven Joyce’s corrected answer (see below).

I hope the Speaker holds Steven Joyce to account for his deliberate obfuscation.

Subject: 15840 (2009) Published – Communications and Information Technology – Corrected Reply

Question: What correspondence, if any, has he received or sent, listed by correspondent and date, about possible structural separation of Telecom?

Portfolio: Communications and Information Technology
Minister: Hon Steven Joyce
Date Lodged:23/10/2009

Answer Text: I have not sent any correspondence about the possible structural separation of Telecom. I have received one letter from Telecom dated 6 August 2009 where Telecom indicated they understood the Government had a preference for Telecom to structurally separate. Officials advised Telecom at the time that this was not the case.

Date Received:02/08/2011

Here’s his original response to the same question:

15840 (2009). Clare Curran to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology (23 Oct 2009): What correspondence, if any, has he recieved or sent, listed by correspondent and date, about possible structural separation of Telecom

Hon Steven Joyce (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) replied: I have not received or sent any correspondence about possible structural separation of Telecom

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

It doesn’t stack up

Posted by Clare Curran on July 28th, 2011

Steven Joyce was reported in this morning’s DomPost as saying he “overlooked” a letter sent to him by Telecom chief Paul Reynolds when telling me that he had not got any correspondence on Telecom’s structural separation.

The letter from Reynolds was sent to Joyce on 6 August 2009. In October 2009 I requested an answer from Joyce on whether he had received or been sent any correspondence on structural separation. His answer was NO.

Joyce then spent a year and a half trying to suppress the release of this letter amongst other things to the DomPost.

The DomPost first discovered there was a letter in around November 2009. Joyce went to great lengths to suppress it. It was referred to the Ombudsman and it’s my understanding that there were dozens of contacts between the Ombudsman’s office, the DomPost and Joyce’s office that went on until the Minister decided to release the letter early this week.

It’s also my understanding that Telecom knew the letter’s significance at the time. I would imagine that Joyce knew the letter’s significance too. He got his officials (allegedly) to contact Reynolds after he received the letter and inform him that he was “incorrect”.

It therefore doesn’t stack up that he “overlooked” this letter when I subsequently wrote to him.

Since the letter has emerged, Joyce has done two things. He’s told the DomPost that Paul Reynolds was “incorrect” in his claim that he understood officials had suggested the Government had a preference for Telecom to voluntarily offer to structurally separate, and called for a meeting to discuss the matter.

And then he’s said he “overlooked” the existence of the letter when I asked him whether he’d received any correspondence on this important issue.

This is despite fighting to keep it secret for a year and a half.

It doesn’t stack up.

I’d like to know what other material has been with-held on discussions between Steven Joyce, John Key and Telecom over structural separation in the last two years and when those meetings were held.

I, and others, have questioned whether the government had a pre-determined position on Telecom undertaking the ultrafast broadband scheme and that structural separation was the price. This was before the contracting process had even begun.

There are other parties to the contracting process who can rightfully be aggrieved should it be revealed this is the case.

Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, broadband
17 Comments

Steven Joyce has lied

Posted by Clare Curran on July 27th, 2011

Steven Joyce has lied.

Will it get brushed under the carpet this time and ignored?

I put in a set of written questions to Steven Joyce in late 2009 about his, and his govt’s intentions, re the structural separation of Telecom regarding the ultrafast broadband scheme. In October 2009 he responded.

The questions and answers are here.

This answer is particularly interesting:

15840 (2009). Clare Curran to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology (23 Oct 2009): What correspondence, if any, has he recieved or sent, listed by correspondent and date, about possible structural separation of Telecom

Hon Steven Joyce (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) replied: I have not received or sent any correspondence about possible structural separation of Telecom.

Yet two months earlier, in August 2009, Joyce received a letter from Telecom CEO Paul Reynolds referring to previous meetings with the Minister between himself and Telecom regarding the UFB, referring to Telecom’s potential involvement in the project, referring to constructive discussions and his “understanding that the government has a preference for Telecom to voluntarily offer to structurally separate”

The letter is here

Dr Reynolds sought a further discussion with Steven Joyce on this issue which he described as “extremely significant for us”.

So in August 2009, well before the tender was announced for the UFB, Telecom was raising structural separation with the government, which it understood was the government’s preference.

Meanwhile, Steven Joyce maintained there were no such discussions. He maintained that pretence for two years, right throughout the legislative changes which will preside over the structural separation. He got his spokesperson yesterday to say that Paul Reynolds was incorrect.

Joyce only released the letter this week after consistent pressure from the Dompost. Good on them.

But for how long will he get away with lying? Why are there not more questions being asked?

What else did he cover up? What other discussions were there with telecom about structural separation and how it would work?

The UFB tender process is a fraud and should be investigated.

Lying is not okay by government ministers.

Or is it?

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, broadband
39 Comments

Lies, Damned Lies and … Steven Joyce.

Posted by David Cunliffe on July 19th, 2011

Our opponents have been tied all in knots as they attempt to rebut the obvious – that Labour’s CGT is an idea whose time has come.

First the leader of the National Party, John Key, shrilly claimed it would be a “dagger through the heart” of western capitalism – or as Bomber Bradbury put it “aliens were coming to eat our pets”.

Then Bill English said it was a good idea in theory – but wasn’t comprehensive enough.

So with tweedles dee and dumb at cross-purposes, they called in the “cavalry” on Sunday – a Steven Joyce press release with some bodgied numbers from his Beehive hacks.

It tried very hard to construct a strawman and then shoot it down.   Trouble was, the strawman bore no resemblance to Labour’s policy.

First, Mr Joyce alleged that our tax plan had not replaced the capital value of the non-sale of SOEs:  “You see Labour done a big lie, and said it is a choice of asset sales or their tax package. But they have not calculated for any increased borrowing through no sales”.

John Armstrong made the same mistake in his Herald column: ”In May’s Budget, National cunningly “booked” the money from its planned post-election sell-off of such shares even though the money has yet to be realised.  Some of that “money” has been set aside for $900 million in capital spending.  Labour has exacted revenge for this trickery by simply ignoring it” .

Sorry John, our numbers do incorporate the asset sales revenue because it’s in National’s net debt track and our net debt track is based on theirs. Not getting that revenue is essentially the sole reason why our net debt track is above National’s in the first few years.

Second Mr Joyce  tried the line that we had not modelled in the cost of interest on debt.  Wrong again.  Interest costs are fully included.

Third, he argued we would achieve “$0″ on our tax avoidance crackdown.  Wrong again:  IRD says there is $3.5 bn in colleectable tax debt (of $5.5 bn total); and over $300m p.a. in avoidance through trust structures; as well as -$500m on the $200 bn invested in property.   Bill English says there is $5 back for every extra $1 in IRD tax collection.  IRD says 30:1.  It all makes our provosion that rises over 5 years up to $300m look pretty modest.

Three strikes and your credibility is out, Steven.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: Budget, Capital Gains Tax, asset sales, debt, economic, economy, finance
37 Comments

Yet another reason not to put money into the Holiday Highway

Posted by David Shearer on July 18th, 2011

Here is yet another reason not to put money into the Holiday Highway – the land won’t support it. The NZ Transport Agency calls it “geological challenges”. That’s bureaucracy speak for very expensive. I get the feeling that Joyce is getting cold feet on his white elephant.

For around one-tenth the cost we could upgrade the current State Highway 1 meet the efficiency needs and improve the safety. Check out Auckland Transport Blog for a better solution. They do some excellent, thoughtful stuff.

How can Joyce explain this highway to the people of Christchurch? Building this new highway is simply wrong when we look at what this country needs.

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

A compelling case for local investment

Posted by Clare Curran on July 17th, 2011

“…it is completely inappropriate for the New Zealand Government to prefer New Zealand companies over international companies. If we did, we would be a very, very small trading nation, because countries would not want to trade with us.”

So says Steven Joyce (on behalf of the Prime Minister) in response to a question by Annette King on 23 June about why the govt would not consider seriously the economic flow on effects of building railway wagons at Hillside workshops in Dunedin and Hutt workshops in Lower Hutt.

Let’s have a look at what other countries do. Many of these we trade with. And unpick the lies that Joyce and his government have been telling NZ about why they can’t possibly support Kiwi industry and Kiwi jobs when it comes to procuring big contracts.

China’s Government Procurement Law (GPL) issued in 2002 states that government agencies and entities must purchase domestic goods, works and services except in rare circumstances when:

the required items cannot be obtained within China under “reasonable commercial terms” defined as 20 per cent more expensive than foreign products.

Though the GPL provides for a wide variery of ways to procure goods and services – open and selective tendering, competitive negotiation, single-source procurement, and request for quotation – few foreign enterprises have been able to compete successfully in China’s public procurement market. For more see here

The Buy American provision in the stimulus package became law in 2009. Section 1605 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) requires that all of the iron and steel and manufactured goods used in ARRA funded projects for construction, alteration, maintenance and repair of a public building or public works be produced in the United States. For more see here

This provision can be waived under certain circumstances, only when buying American would increase by 25%, not merely for the cost for the specific input, but the cost of the total project. The differential is considered so large, that in practical terms it is unlikely that the exception would be invoked.

The Indian government allows a price preference for local suppliers in government contracts and generally discriminates against foreign suppliers. In international purchases and competitive bids, domestic companies get a price preference in govt contracts and purchases.

Although over 20 countries have signed onto the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Agreement on General Procurement (China has not) it is scarely followed at all. This article is worth a read

Norway: the most recent statistics are from 2005. Of the USD 1.215 million procured, only 1.3% of supply, 6.9% of services and 1.3% of works contracts went to foreign companies

Japan: 98% was procured domestically in 2008.

South Korea: In 2004 (most recent data) procurement contracts were valued at USD 25 billion. Less than 1% wnt to foreign-based firms.

Australia. In June 2009 the NSW Govt released its revised govt procurement plan setting out its intention for procurement to be used to develop local industry capability and support local economic activity while achieving value for money.

It says substantial economic benefits are said to “flow from buying Australian or NZ goods and services and maximising opportunities for local service providers to compete for Govt business on the basis of value for money.”

It said value for money is about broader economic benefits and not just lowest price.

Couldn’t have put it better myself. What the hell is wrong with this National-Act government and what game are they playing with our local productive economy?

Tags: , ,
Filed under: economy, jobs
15 Comments

Kiwi jobs. Kiwi skills. Too important to sell overseas

Posted by Clare Curran on July 9th, 2011

Hillsiderally2

Hillsiderally1

Hillsiderally3

Some photos from today’s rally for Hillside jobs in Dunedin. (Not quite sure what I was laughing about, or what on earth Pete is doing in the second pic).

More than a thousand people turned out on a bitterly cold Saturday to voice their disgust at the government and Kiwirail’s actions and attitudes in procuring lower quality, cheaper rolling stock from overseas, rather than having it made at home. Keeping skilled workers employed, and an important manufacturing industry sustainable.

The city is united on this issue. The Mayor, the Chamber of Commerce chair, three MPs, the union, Greenpeace and a Green candidate spoke.

My message was essentially that we have to fight for our city. For Dunedin’s future. Because this government won’t. We need these jobs, we needs these skills, we need this industry and it’s economic good sense. I also read out a strong message from Phil Goff.

The government and Kiwirail are telling lies about the cost of Kiwi trains. It’s time they were unmasked.

Our country is not a corporation. And this government can’t decide that parts of our country aren’t worth bothering about because our population base is lower than other parts, and because it’s a Labour town. Dunedin will fight back.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: Green Jobs, Manufacturing, Rail, jobs
6 Comments

Not news

Posted by Grant Robertson on July 5th, 2011

The National Party did a bit of prep work on their great infrastructure announcement yesterday. The morning papers had the preview story, so the press secretaries must have been doing their jobs well in the weekend. The big announcement came last night, and well, it was not really an announcement at all as summed up by the NBR story

Bill English has admitted the government infrastructure plan released today does not contain detail on any infrastructure project that had not already been announced over the past 2-3 years.

That’s right this is actually a non-news story. The article goes on to say how there was little in the way of specifics or detail in the announcement. I am getting more and more feedback from all parts of the political spectrum of real concern that the National Party has no plan to lift the NZ economy out of its current state. This non-news announcement just adds to that.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: economy, infrastructure
11 Comments

« Older Entries