« February 2012 | Main | April 2012 »
March 2012
30 March 2012
22 March 2012
NZ Politics Daily: 22 March
John Key has put the Nick Smith ACC scandal behind him, and he wants everyone else to do likewise. However, serious questions remain about corruption, cronyism, the Prime Minister’s own involvement, how Smith could have made such a mistake and whether an independent inquiry is needed. These questions are being widely discussed in the media today, and are surveyed below.
1) What is corruption, and did Nick Smith have to resign due to his corrupt actions as a Minister in the National Government?
‘Corruption’ is generally defined in political science as the use of power by government officials or politicians for illegitimate private gain. Note that ‘corruption’ does not necessarily have to involve illegal activity – it can merely involve breaching public expectations of how officials and politicians should operate.
So, did Nick Smith’s actions cross the line into ‘corruption’? There seems to be a consensus that, in writing a ministerial letter to help his friend Bronwyn Pullar in her negotiations with his own government department, Smith attempted to use his ministerial position to obtain private gain for a friend. Nick Smith’s ACC letters are now available online here, here, here and here.
Vernon Small says that ‘it is difficult to see what Dr Smith's reference would achieve, other than to flex political muscle and indicate she had friends in high places…. From that moment, it was known within ACC that she was a friend of the minister. However professional ACC staff were, it would have been at the back of their minds when dealing with her’ – see: Inquiry inevitable into lapse of judgment by a smart minister.
Newspaper editorials today seem clear that such actions are wrong – for example the ODT: ‘ministers of the Crown should not use their influence to assist friends or family’ (A failure of judgement). TVNZ blogger, Tim Watkin puts it clearly too: ‘Minister's don't get to do favours for friends. Especially not on letterhead…. Whether she's an old friend or an old lover is irrelevant. Minister's can't act for friends’ – see: Nick Smith – A Greek Tragedy of his own making. See also: the Timaru Herald editorial, The right thing to do.
Of course Smith’s resignation due to ‘improper behaviour’ is not this Government’s first ministerial departure: there have now been four serious cases of ministers resigning their warrants due to ‘misuse of their position or improper conduct’ – the others being Richard Worth, Phil Heatley and Pansy Wong – see: Adam Bennett and Amelia Romanos’ Nick Smith resigns over ACC fiasco and the Herald’s Key's Cabinet Hall of Shame.
Key’s Government is in real danger of being tarnished with the reputation for ‘political sleaze’, and labels of ‘cronyism and sleaze’ can be incredibly damaging to a government – as argued today in John Armstrong’s very good column: National's image and ratings take a big hit.
The situation is made worse by the ‘friend’ in question being a former Auckland National Party publicity director, and someone closely connected with the party elite. So if it is not corruption, then Smith’s actions certainly appear to involve cronyism, which the ODT defines today as: ‘being prepared to pull strings to help either friends or politically like-minded individuals’. As Tim Watkin points out, this will be very badly received by others that are not so well-connected with National Party and its ministers: ‘Tens of thousands of New Zealanders have had to wade through ACC claims. A fair chunk of those will have had to fight for one thing or another. They don't get to email their old pal the minister for help, or take their case to several Cabinet ministers, or get meetings with senior managers, or lobby board members. Pullar shouldn't have received any special assistance or access just because she's well-connected. And clearly she did. Indeed, I reckon that happens quite a lot in this small country and it's not good’.
Incidents like this ACC scandal will not only tarnish this Government’s reputation, but also potentially impact on the country’s international image of being corruption-free. Currently the international anti-corruption agency Transparency International places New Zealand at number one in its global corruption index – a position that is jealously protected by all politicians. Yet it’s clear that a political fight is now in full swing over issues of corruption, and a lot of mud will be thrown as the competition escalates and becomes nastier. Labour, the Greens and New Zealand First are pushing hard on National, but they’ll need to be aware that their own parties might come to suffer from the greater focus on political and personal behaviour.
2) Did the Prime Minister act appropriately over the affair?
John Key clearly attempted to protect Nick Smith and avoid a resignation, which has led to widespread criticism that he failed to deal properly with the scandal as it developed. John Armstrong says that Key has ‘mishandled’ the scandal, as he ‘initially valued loyalty ahead of precaution’. Similarly, Newstalk ZB’s article, Push for inquiry into Smith ACC scandal, outlines the criticisms being made, including that of Labour MP Chris Hipkins: ‘John Key has never been good at managing conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest are rife in this government and John Key doesn't care about that’. See also, Peter Wilson’s Newswire story, Key in the gun over Smith's resignation, in which Metiria Turei is quoted as saying, ‘John Key delayed until he was trapped and that's not good leadership’.
3) Why would a minister make such a ‘mistake’?
To many commentators it is curious that a senior government minister would take such a risk, or be blind to such a misguided and inappropriate action. For example, Vernon Small, has said, ‘It is simply gob-smacking that Dr Smith would let his guard down and provide the reference after so staunchly and correctly refusing to intercede on her behalf before’. The answer for many seems to relate to the type of relationship that Smith had with Pullar. There’s a number of good articles dealing with her today: Stuff’s The 'friend' and activist linked to Smith's demise, Andrew Koubaridis and Adam Bennett’s Smith scandal: Woman in the storm, and Adam Bennett and Amelia Romanos’ Nick Smith resigns over ACC fiasco. But it is Adam Bennett’s Fresh letter proves last straw for minister that provides the strongest hint or speculation about the nature of the relationship: ‘Commenting later on the events that led to his resignation, Dr Smith did little to dispel speculation that his relationship with Ms Pullar was more than platonic…. Mr Key said he'd had a brief discussion with Dr Smith about his friendship with Ms Pullar. "I don't need to know the details of that friendship. You either have a conflict of interest or you don't, and he clearly did ... and the nature of the relationship is not really material."’
Clearly if the relationship was an intimate one, then this might go some way to explaining how Smith might have acted so inappropriately. People don’t always act rationally when strong emotions are involved.
4) Should there be an independent inquiry into the ACC scandal?
John Armstrong says ‘Smith's departure will effectively allow Key to shut the door on any kind of inquiry into Smith's behaviour which might embarrass National’. But others disagree – and not just the Opposition parties. Vernon Small says that an inquiry seems ‘inevitable’, and today’s Dominion Post editorial calls for further investigations, as ‘Too many questions remain unanswered’ – see: Govt minister fell short of standards.
There are also calls for an inquiry from some surprising corners: David Farrar says that although an inquiry ‘may not be an attractive option to the Government’, ‘I am now of the view that an independent inquiry, at a minimum, is necessary’ – see: More on the ACC saga. And even Nick Smith is calling for an inquiry (to ‘clear his name’) – this is detailed in the most thorough account and analysis of the scandal: Tracy Watkins and Vernon Small’s Ex-Minister Nick Smith fights to clear name.
The other must-read item on the scandal is the Dim-Post blog, Smith’s bad dream. In his own highly succinct manner, Danyl Mclauchlan puts forward a very plausible summary of exactly what has occurred in the scandal: ‘Smith had a relationship with Pullar, who then devoted herself to a vendetta against ACC, a department Smith then became the Minister of, which then sent Pullar thousands of confidential case files (under circumstances that are still very murky), which Pullar evidently confronted Smith with in an attempt to reach a settlement. The settlement obviously didn’t happen, so Pullar leaked the patient files to the media. Pullar’s name was leaked to the media as punishment, either by ACC or their new Minister, Judith Collins, and it’s not hard to guess which of the two is more likely to dish out this sort of punitive vengeance. Presumably Collins was unaware that Smith had intervened in Pullar’s case’.
For a humourous account of the media furore over the scandal, see Scott Yorke’s The ACC Scandal: Live Updates, for discussion of who might eventually replace Nick Smith, see Cameron Slater’s Who should replace Nick Smith?, and for backgrounders on the career of Nick Smith, see the following: Nick Smith: This is your life, Nick Smith's political ups and downs, Nick Smith's chequered political career, Powerful brat pack get back together for wake, and ACC debacle not Smith's first controversy. Finally on this topic, the Greens’ Kevin Hague also asks some important questions about the scandal in his Frogblog post, ACC: what we really need to ask.
Other important items today include: Bernard Orsman’s Port u-turn: Wharfies back to work, Andrea Vance’s McCully presses Foreign Affairs chief, Bryan Gould’s Tougher approach hints this term is Key's last, Chris Trotter’s Is Key descending the same staircase as Muldoon?, and Claire Trevett’s Bright future for political jousting.
NZ Politics Daily: 21 March 2012
This afternoon Nick Smith told Parliament that he resigned all of his ministerial portfolios this morning following two errors of judgement regarding Bronwyn Pullar’s ACC case.
In delaying Smith’s resignation, did John Key risk making the same mistake with Nick Smith that Phil Goff made with Darren Hughes? Only this morning, Adam Bennett reported that Key was backing Smith, although the Prime Minister had said ‘that may change’ – see: Key backing Nick Smith – for now.
Pressure was rapidly mounting on Smith over his reference for his friend Bronwyn Pullar and Tracy Watkins argued that Key’s continued backing of Smith would come back to haunt him, particularly as there is the possibility of further revelations – see: Nick Smith's letter a step too far.
The issue had taken on all the ingredients of a classic political scandal which, as Vernon Small reports, Winston Peters was taking full advantage of. In parliament yesterday Peters described it as ‘a shabby little case, involving blackmail, sex, a minister with a conflict of interest’ – see: Calls for Nick Smith's head over ACC. That prompted media to further question Smith on the exact nature of his relationship with Bronwyn Pullar, which he has so far refused to elaborate on.
Smith’s mistakes are bad enough, but the involvement of Pullar – a former National party official – and high-profile ex-party president Michelle Boag, add to the perception that the National Party is involved in cronyism or even corruption. This is the word that John Armstrong uses when he suggests that Smith should have at least offered to resign yesterday – see: Nats left wide open on ACC fiasco.
The chorus calling for Smith to resign, or at least be stood down pending an investigation, extended beyond the usual suspects on the Opposition benches. The Herald editorial (see: Apology not enough for Smith's folly) points out that a minister was suspended during the first term for charging two bottles of wine to a ministerial credit card.
Duncan Garner argues the 20-year veteran minister should have known better and advised Key to Sack Smith Now (http://bit.ly/GEJEEJ). Right-wing blogger Cathy Odgers knows Pullar personally and has a very sympathetic analysis of the situation but is nevertheless adamant that Smith had to go. She said that with Winston Peters having so much ammunition ‘something has to give’ – see: Another Reason To Privatise ACC.
The task of defending Smith and Key seems to fall solely on David Farrar (see: The ACC saga), who also praised David Shearer for not immediately demanding Smith’s resignation. Patrick Gower, however, has a different take, saying that Shearer mistakenly allowed other Opposition spokespeople, including other Labour MPs, to make the running in the twelve hours after the Herald broke the story. Gower argues that, despite Shearer trying to cultivate an anti-politician image, sometimes being Opposition leader ‘means putting a bullet in the gun. And firing it. Or someone else – one of the other Opposition leaders – will do the job’ – see: Shearer's shocker on Nick Smith scandal.
Scandals like this not only impact on those directly involved, but can tarnish a party’s image and, as Phil Goff found last year, dent a leader’s credibility if they are seen as indecisive and only responding to political fallout, rather than doing the right thing in the first place.
The verdicts in the Urewera case have enabled some commentary and analysis to be published. Marika Hill has a well-written piece looking at Tame Iti's place in the Maori revolution. Ian Steward looks at the difficulty the police had in using the Terrorism Suppression Act or even the Crimes Act and thinks it will be an ongoing problem despite law changes – see: Complicated terrorism act lacks firepower.
While the prosecution is not ruling out a retrial on the criminal conspiracy charges, and says cost should not be the major factor in the decision, Amelia Wade reports the trial is the most expensive in New Zealand history with the Law Society estimating the total bill at around $2.5 million.
The Greens, Mana, and the Maori Party have all criticised the prosecution, particularly the impact of the police raids in Ruatoki and on the Tuhoe people. Stuff has an interesting Tuhoe struggle timeline which looks at the tribe’s relationship with authorities over the last 140 years – something which Maori commentators have said is essential to understanding the impact of the case.
Russell Brown takes a balanced look at the actions of the accused, the police and the media. He concludes that those running the training camps ‘weren’t heroes and they weren’t terrorists. They were dickheads’. He wonders what happened to evidence of napalm bombs and assassination plans that the media – particularly the Dominion Post – were fed by police sources in 2007 – see: Time to move on.
Questions are already being asked about the real impact of local body reforms, announced only a few days ago. (Former) Local Government Minister Nick Smith has acknowledged that councils would still be allowed to provide ‘the things their community wanted’ – see: Local government reforms being watered down. The Auckland Council will continue to be involved in social issues, despite the proposed reforms aiming to cut back much of that activity. Bernard Orsman reports that Social Development Minister Paula Bennett is not planning to axe the Auckland Social Policy forum that she, herself, chairs and which was set up by the Government – see: Council keeps 'social' interests.
The Timaru Herald sums up the quandary the Government will face in trying to define exactly which services and events councils will be allowed to provide (see: Questions, questions, although the Taranaki Daily News (see: Timely move on rates by Smith and Key ) and the Press (see: Council renovation) both back the need for changes. Some councils feel (off the record) that without resorting to detailed central government monitoring, the reforms will change very little – see: TVNZ’s New council rules will be ignored – insider.
NZ Politics Daily: 19 March 2012
The lack of meat in David Shearer’s political positioning speech last Thursday has not stopped commentators picking over the bones in the last few days. A tentative but definite move to the centre seems clear to nearly all observers. For the left, the big questions seem to be 1) Can Shearer successfully go head-to-head with John Key and win over swinging voters? 2) Is the move smart MMP politics that will ensure centre-left governments? Or 3) Does it concede a further acceptance of neo-liberal policies that pushes the whole political spectrum to the right?
Tracy Watkins has a good analysis (see: Rookie Shearer hedges his bets), comparing Shearer’s task with that facing another rookie Opposition leader – John Key in 2006. Watkins concludes that Shearer lacks Key’s natural political gifts and has more work to do in uniting his caucus and grassroots activists behind him. They do have one factor in common – the political tide shifting against the incumbent government. Watkins accepts that it is counterproductive for Labour to win votes back off the Greens and that, just as Key’s 2008 campaign platform was characterised as ‘Labour-lite’, Shearer’s strategy looks likely to be ‘National-lite’ in 2014. The blurring of the policy differences means, of course, that the next election will be reduced to a contest of leadership. It is by no means certain that Shearer can come out on top in that contest, although Paul Holmes says that Shearer’s presentation has dramatically improved over the summer and that he and other panelists on Q+A were impressed with Shearer’s fluency and wiliness on camera – see: Hesitant Shearer is now Mr Fluent.
At the weekend, Matt McCarten argued that the shift to the right is smart politics for Labour, and that it actually reflects the political reality in any case – see: Centrist Shearer a let-down for lefties? No way. McCarten says that National and Labour ‘long ago gave up pretending they had different routes to get there. The economic model they both follow is free-market, neo-liberal dogma’. He sees Shearer’s move as opening up space on the left, particularly for the Greens and Mana, and ensuring those parties can grow.
Chris Trotter sees danger in that strategy and disagrees with McCarten’s position. He says a more rightwing Labour Party will reinforce the right’s overall ideological dominance, that the Greens are more likely to shadow Labour’s drift than risk becoming labeled as a radical left party and that Mana is unlikely to be able to mobilise disillusioned voters on the left – see: Saying "No" To Labour's Right-Turn: A Reply To Matt McCarten.
Brian Edwards’ response is interesting (see: I find myself wondering…), as his disappointment with the new direction may be evidence that the strategy will work. Edwards is happy to describe himself as ‘a socialist’ and says he is considering shifting his support to the Greens. If losing the votes of self-proclaimed socialists like Edwards to the Greens can be offset by gains in the centre it will be reasonably straightforward to make up the few percentage points needed to wrest power from National.
As a number of commentators, including McCarten and Danyl Mclauchlan (see: The paranoid style in left-wing New Zealand politics) point out, repositioning Labour’s image in the centre is more about style than substance as, in reality, Labour has occupied the centre of the New Zealand political spectrum for a long time.
All the clever political strategising and justifications won’t stop debate on the left about the rights and wrongs of the policies themselves. Tapu Misa argues against Labour’s ditching of extending Working for Families to beneficiaries, pointing out that many low-paid workers receive almost as much in state support as those on a benefit – see: Shearer has to remember children of beneficiaries.
Scott Yorke finds some darker inferences in Shearer’s speech and sends a warning to the Greens about their dress sense (see: Shearer's Move To The Far Right), while Steve Braunius looks at the Labour leader’s big week in a very funny and perceptive Secret Diary Of David Shearer.
Ongoing reaction to Key’s announcement of a super ministry and public sector targets has also been mixed. Fran O’Sullivan says Key scored points by giving measurable goals, but she criticises Key for ignoring some big issues – particularly youth unemployment and a ‘gaping structural hole in the government finances because of an obvious lack of tax revenue’ – see: Super Thursday scorecard: both can do a lot better.
Key realistically shouldn’t expect his desired third term to eventuate, according to Matthew Hooton, as the refusal to reinstate interest on student loans on political grounds displays an unwillingness on the part of National to back themselves to sell policies. Hooton describes a new ‘super-bureaucracy’ as coming from 1970s Poland and cites Tony Blair’s experience in the UK during the 1990s as demonstrating that setting targets without fundamental restructuring in the public sector is doomed – see: Key follows failed Blairite formula.
Dave Armstrong is not particularly impressed with either leader. David Shearer has failed to transform himself into 'Action Man' with a lack of detail. He hopes ‘Mr Shearer's charter schools will be slightly more caring than Banksie's’. Meanwhile John Key is described as having 'all the vision of a retired Hastings motelier'. Armstrong concludes that soon we will have to choose between an action man with little vision and a vision man with little action – see: Stop being 'Mr Wiffly-Woffly' Mr Shearer.
The ACC privacy leak saga has taken a dramatic twist with ACC referring Bronwyn Pullar, the recipient of the emailed file and an ACC client herself, to the police for alleged blackmail – see: ACC refers whistleblower to police. The involvement of ex-National Party President Michelle Boag and her presence at a crucial meeting has heightened interest, with Cameron Slater releasing correspondence relating to Pullar who is also an ex-National Party official – see: Boag involved in ACC privacy standover.
In light of recent leaks from ACC and the Ports of Auckland, Sean Plunket asks How much privacy can we expect? and wonders if we are in danger of being too precious in a world where so much privacy has already been given up.
In other articles of interest, Ports of Auckland chairperson Richard Pearson sat down with Michele Hewitson for an interview that obviously had a few tense moments (see Michele Hewitson interview: Richard Pearson), and the ODT reports on a study that shows a Grim picture painted of young Maori health with poor quality housing clearly identified as a major contributor.
Finally, Morgan Godfery slams iwi leaders over putting profit before principles in their fisheries businesses: ‘If iwi leaders fail to move on this issue, then they’re morally bankrupt. They are, in other words, complicit in slavery. If this was Maori getting, say, raped at sea you can bet that iwi leaders would be encouraging Maori to blow up Parliament’ – see: Iwi back slavery on our seas.
20 March 2012
NZ Politics Daily: 19 March 2012
The lack of meat in David Shearer's political positioning speech last Thursday has not stopped commentators picking over the bones in the last few days. A tentative but definite move to the centre seems clear to nearly all observers. For the left, the big questions seem to be 1) Can Shearer successfully go head-to-head with John Key and win over swinging voters? 2) Is the move smart MMP politics that will ensure centre-left governments? Or 3) Does it concede a further acceptance of neo-liberal policies that pushes the whole political spectrum to the right?
Tracy Watkins has a good analysis (see: Rookie Shearer hedges his bets), comparing Shearer's task with that facing another rookie Opposition leader - John Key in 2006. Watkins concludes that Shearer lacks Key's natural political gifts and has more work to do in uniting his caucus and grassroots activists behind him. They do have one factor in common - the political tide shifting against the incumbent government. Watkins accepts that it is counterproductive for Labour to win votes back off the Greens and that, just as Key's 2008 campaign platform was characterised as 'Labour-lite', Shearer's strategy looks likely to be 'National-lite' in 2014. The blurring of the policy differences means, of course, that the next election will be reduced to a contest of leadership.
At the weekend, Matt McCarten argued that the shift to the right is smart politics for Labour, and that it actually reflects the political reality in any case - see: Centrist Shearer a let-down for lefties? No way. McCarten says that National and Labour 'long ago gave up pretending they had different routes to get there. The economic model they both follow is free-market, neo-liberal dogma'. He sees Shearer's move as opening up space on the left, particularly for the Greens and Mana, and ensuring those parties can grow.
Chris Trotter sees danger in that strategy and disagrees with McCarten's position. He says a more rightwing Labour Party will reinforce the right's overall ideological dominance, that the Greens are more likely to shadow Labour's drift than risk becoming labeled as a radical left party and that Mana is unlikely to be able to mobilise disillusioned voters on the left - see: Saying "No" To Labour's Right-Turn: A Reply To Matt McCarten.
Brian Edwards' response is interesting, as his disappointment with the new direction may be evidence that the strategy will work. Edwards is happy to describe himself as 'a socialist' and says he is considering shifting his support to the Greens. If losing the votes of self-proclaimed socialists like Edwards to the Greens can be offset by gains in the centre it will be reasonably straightforward to make up the few percentage points needed to wrest power from National. I find myself wondering....
As a number of commentators, including McCarten and Danyl Mclauchlan (see: The paranoid style in left-wing New Zealand politics) point out, repositioning Labour's image in the centre is more about style than substance as, in reality, Labour has occupied the centre of the New Zealand political spectrum for a long time.
All the clever political strategising and justifications won't stop debate on the left about the rights and wrongs of the policies themselves. Tapu Misa argues against Labour's ditching of extending Working for Families to beneficiaries, pointing out that many low-paid workers receive almost as much in state support as those on a benefit - see: Shearer has to remember children of beneficiaries).
Scott Yorke finds some darker inferences in Shearer's speech and sends a warning to the Greens about their dress sense (see: Shearer's Move To The Far Right), while Steve Braunius looks at the Labour leader's big week in a very funny and perceptive Secret Diary Of David Shearer.
Ongoing reaction to Key's announcement of a super ministry and public sector targets has also been mixed. Fran O'Sullivan says Key scored points by giving measurable goals, but she criticises Key for ignoring some big issues - particularly youth unemployment and a 'gaping structural hole in the government finances because of an obvious lack of tax revenue' - see: Super Thursday scorecard: both can do a lot better).
Key realistically shouldn't expect his desired third term to eventuate, according to Matthew Hooton, as the refusal to reinstate interest on student loans on political grounds displays an unwillingness on the part of National to back themselves to sell policies. Hooton describes a new 'super-bureaucracy' as coming from 1970s Poland and cites Tony Blair's experience in the UK during the 1990s as demonstrating that setting targets without fundamental restructuring in the public sector is doomed - see: Key follows failed Blairite formula.
Dave Armstrong is not particularly impressed with either leader. David Shearer has failed to transform himself into 'Action Man' with a lack of detail. He hopes 'Mr Shearer's charter schools will be slightly more caring than Banksie's'. Meanwhile John Key is described as having 'all the vision of a retired Hastings motelier'. Armstrong concludes that soon we will have to choose between an action man with little vision and a vision man with little action - see: Stop being 'Mr Wiffly-Woffly' Mr Shearer.
Finally, the ACC privacy leak saga has taken a dramatic twist with ACC referring Bronwyn Pullar, the recipient of the emailed file and an ACC client herself, to the police for alleged blackmail - see: ACC refers whistleblower to police. The involvement of ex-National Party President Michelle Boag and her presence at a crucial meeting has heightened interest, with Cameron Slater releasing correspondence relating to Pullar who is also an ex-National Party official - see: Boag involved in ACC privacy standover.
In light of recent leaks from ACC and the Ports of Auckland, Sean Plunket asks How much privacy can we expect? and wonders if we are in danger of being too precious in a world where so much privacy has already been given up.
In other articles of interest, Ports of Auckland chairperson Richard Pearson sat down with Michele Hewitson for an interview that obviously had a few tense moments (see Michele Hewitson interview: Richard Pearson), and the ODT reports on a study that shows a Grim picture painted of young Maori health with poor quality housing clearly identified as a major contributor.
Finally, Morgan Godfery slams iwi leaders over putting profit before principles in their fisheries businesses: 'If iwi leaders fail to move on this issue, then they're morally bankrupt. They are, in other words, complicit in slavery. If this was Maori getting, say, raped at sea you can bet that iwi leaders would be encouraging Maori to blow up Parliament' - see: Iwi back slavery on our seas.
16 March 2012
NZ Politics Daily: 16 March
Many journalists and commentators have had some difficulty in getting to grips with John Key and David Shearer’s speeches yesterday, mainly because there wasn’t a lot to grab onto. John Key seems to be the points winner on that score as he put up ten specific targets for the public sector to meet, although the five year timeframe for achievement means that current ministers and departmental CEOs are likely to have moved on before any day of reckoning.
Key ‘easily trumped’ the newbie Opposition leader with targets that can’t really be argued against, according to John Hartevelt. He notes the challenges involved in bringing together four government departments in three months, particularly given the struggle National has had with the internal restructuring of one department with Mfat – see:Key draws first blood in battle of the speeches (http://bit.ly/xS3q5q). John Armstrong picks a winner from yesterday and it’s Steven Joyce, the new ‘super minister’. Armstrong notes a distinct change of tack by the Prime Minister from even a few weeks ago, saying that his ‘willingness to talk about job cuts in the public service has been exhausted’ – see: And who emerges brightest star of all (http://bit.ly/AiIAfg).
Hard targets and specific commitments were missing from David Shearer’s speech yesterday, but there is a consensus from those reading the entrails that he is pointing Labour, albeit gingerly, on a centrist path. Derek Cheng says that not only is the tax-free policy for the chop, but also likely to go are the higher tax on incomes over $150,000, the extension of Working for Families to beneficiaries, and the no-GST on fruit and vegetables – see:Policy faces axe as Shearer moves to centre (http://bit.ly/yA5nFT). The Herald editorial nods approvingly, particularly at Shearer’s ‘tilting at previously sacred cows’ - specifically bad teachers and welfare reform - Little detail, but Labour makes a start (http://bit.ly/zkZwO3).
Shearer talked a lot about Finland yesterday so Gordon Campbell took a detailed look at Finland’s track record, particularly with regard to inequality and says: ‘Finland? It may be time for Labour to officially retire Finland as a role model. In citing Finland as an inspiration, Shearer was – lets hope, accidentally – eerily channelling Roger Douglas in his heyday’ – see: On the speeches by John Key and David Shearer (http://bit.ly/zKfSoD).
Down at the port the time for the ‘vision thing’ is long gone. Yesterday the union gained a temporary legal reprieve from restructuring (see - Nick Krause Port decision on hearing; http://bit.ly/AAvVPh) while the Auckland Council debated what it can and can’t do. Brian Rudman is scathing of the majority of councilors and the mayor who voted down any resolutions urging the ports company to keep directly employing their workforce. Rudman concludes: ‘Rhetoric to one side, you have to agree. Auckland's rulers surrendered power to the unelected yesterday with hardly a whimper’– see: Feeble city leaders surrender right to a say on port(http://bit.ly/wEj0BV). Greg Presland thinks that Rodney Hide must be grinning from ear to ear (http://bit.ly/yrdxAV). Denise Roche, the Greens' industrial relations spokesperson, has a 'why can't we all get along’ moment, saying the Ports dispute 'could be resolved next week' (http://bit.ly/AF2EEr) if ‘cool heads prevail’.
Cool heads have been in short supply in a heated blog war triggered by Cameron Slater’s accusation that Duncan Garner was using union-supplied footage to attack the Prime Minister. Those who like blood sports can follow the action in the following posts: Cameron Slater’s On Duncan Garner (http://bit.ly/zViTYT), Martyn Bradbury’sDuncan Garner vs Whaleoil over John Key footage (http://bit.ly/zjgiaa), Cathy Odgers’ Can't Even Pull Off An Insult Properly (http://bit.ly/AhcIJ8), and the Jackal’s Odgers vs Bomber (http://bit.ly/xd7DaT).
In other articles of interest Jane Clifton asks Does National have a mandate to sell assets?(http://bit.ly/whVk8a), saying the Government may be justified in taking umbrage at claims it doesn’t have the right to proceed, and Tim Parke, a clinical director at Auckland hospital, looks at why private hospitals are more expensive in the long term and why they actually undermine the more efficient public system – see: Private healthcare threatens public (http://bit.ly/wWTNph). Finally, Chris Trotter has a eureka moment listening to an interview on Radio New Zealand’s Nine-to-Noon (listen here http://bit.ly/FOCMPz) with Nigel Harworth, ex Ports of Auckland Director and now an HR lecturer at Auckland University. Harworth talks about the entry of China, Eastern Europe, Russia and India into the global economy over the last forty years which saw a doubling of the global workforce. Trotter draws a direct line between that and the struggles workers have currently have to maintain wages and conditions – see: Capitalism's astonishing victory hurts most of us (http://bit.ly/xOlivn).
15 March 2012
NZ Politics Daily: 15 March
So, ‘SuperThursday’ (http://bit.ly/wjORW3) is finally here. How was it for you? Having both Shearer and Key making much anticipated keynote speeches on the same day has clearly led to over-hyped expectations. Shearer’s first major positioning speech as Labour leader is getting predictable responses from the usual suspects on the left and the right – mandatory behaviour where instant online analysis is almost as influential as the original content.
The best initial sympathetic, but critical, analysis comes from Danyl Mclauchlan at the Dim-Post blog. He agrees with the few specifics Shearer does lay out - the retention of the capital gains tax and the ditching of a uniform tax cut for all – but makes a good point about Shearer’s focus on educational achievement and use of Finland as a role model. He notes that our education system is rated closely behind Finland but the difference is that our child poverty rates are far worse and this may be the key factor in limiting improvement for those who most need it – seeShearer’s speech (http://bit.ly/yqAN1P). Russell Brown calls it a ‘decent’ speech rather than ‘classic’ and seems most relieved about what wasn’t in it rather than what was: ‘this is a speech of easy things to say, albeit largely the right things’ – see: The Vision Thing (http://bit.ly/wLDxEa)
Shearer hit exactly the right note according to John Armstrong who thinks the Labour leader is clearly heading his party towards the centre. Armstrong argues that references to putting ‘badly run schools on notice’ and putting pressure on work-shy beneficiaries mark a clear break with the tone of previous Labour leaders – see: It's game on for Labour (http://bit.ly/znijsI).
In terms of economic growth, Shearer makes the case that almost all political leaders have made for the last 30 years – that our economy is dependent on raw primary produce and that this is a major limit on potential economic growth. Many words were devoted to making reassuring noises about Labour being ‘responsible’, ‘thrifty’ and able to be trusted to ‘manage the books’. Sounds like just the sort of person you want sitting next to you at your West Auckland kitchen table while you’re doing your GST return. You can read the full speech here(http://bit.ly/yHbO2Y).
With John Key having just delivered his big announcement, it seems that there is nothing that hasn’t been well signaled in advance: a new ‘super ministry’, caps on public servant numbers and a list of worthy targets – see: Dan Satherley’s New ministry, public service caps announced (http://bit.ly/yiyPKl).
It’s a case of ‘spot the difference’ as far as rightwing libertarian blogger Peter Cresswell is concerned, as he challenges readers to work out which leader belongs to which ‘vision’. He concludes: ‘The fact is, however, it doesn’t matter which one said what. It’s the same brand of paternalist bullshit on both sides’ – see: Spot the Platitudes (http://bit.ly/wHTtUZ).
Following John Key’s frank admission that he was allowing politics to trump economics over student loans interest, ACC Minister Judith Collins is clearly signaling a pragmatic retreat from full competition with workplace accident insurance. In this case it’s the reverse, however, as economics triumphs over a political commitment given to Act in coalition negotiations. Adam Bennett quotes a ‘well-placed source’ as saying ‘The political bottom line is it wasn't going to be possible to introduce competition on a basis that was level playing field between private sector and public without substantial increases in premiums or levies, particularly for small and medium employers’ – see: Bennett’s Govt set to backtrack on ACC competition plan (http://bit.ly/wPvfLX).
On the same day that the Prime Minister is pushing ahead with state sector reforms, it’s an interesting admission that private companies cannot provide services as cost-effectively as the public sector. It appears now that the reforms will be limited to an expansion of the already existing Accredited Employers Programme for larger enterprises.
Political flip-flops are usually a bad look and Duncan Garner has unearthed footage from 2008 in which John Key appears to contradict the rationale behind some of his current core policies, particularly cutting public servant numbers and selling assets – see: Labour: Key promised no job cuts, asset sales in 2008 speech(http://bit.ly/wmr0Bm). Garner hits back hard at Cameron Slater who incorrectly claimed on his Whaleoil blog that the PSA provided the video to TV3 (http://bit.ly/AoNPrz).
David Farrar makes the legitimate point that the speech pre-dates the global economic crisis and the rapid growth of government deficit and that the Government has since been re-elected with an explicit policy of selling the assets – see: Non story of the week (http://bit.ly/A7BIhR). However, Key’s 2008 logic appears markedly different from the 2012 version: “Nor am I hell bent on selling assets, actually in the world of making the boat go faster, actually, I don’t think selling assets actually makes the boat go faster.” We can expect to see that video on TV a lot more over the next year.
As the Auckland Council debates whether to ask the ports company to resume negotiations with the union, the Council’s investment agency is refuting claims that the 12% return is unrealistic and that it has contributed directly to the industrial dispute – see: RNZ: Port financial return demand realistic, says agency (http://bit.ly/xtkXQb).Tim Watkin effectively dismantles their argument, particularly their selective use of figures – see: Solving the Ports of Auckland dispute (http://bit.ly/zj0NQ4).
Nelson Mandela has been the subject of some strange comparisons as both Tame Iti and Jock Hobbs have been likened to him in the last few days. Scott Yorke has a very funny post examining some other unlikely candidates to bask in Mandela’s reflected glory – see: New Zealand's Next Top Mandela http://bit.ly/xGr2dt.
It would be interesting to know what Mandela thinks of the Jock Hobbs comparison as he recalls sitting in his Robben Island prison cell listening to match commentary as the Jock Hobbs-led Cavaliers defied anti-apartheid sanctions and played the Springboks. Cathy Odgers, as usual, goes where angels fear to tread and asks whether Hobbs’ involvement in the collapsed Strategic Finance means his estate will be frozen by regulators - see: FMA v "Mandela"? (http://bit.ly/yIRahZ).
In other articles of interest, Keith Rankin argues that publicly owned companies demanding productivity gains are effectively A tax by another name (http://bit.ly/xakdNM), Fran O’Sullivan says that dairy farmers need to get over their skepticism about capital restructuring at Fonterra (see: Fonterra can't keep putting clock backhttp://bit.ly/zrlg6c) and the Timaru Herald thinks there is a whiff of hypocrisy in Local Government Minister Nick Smith pointing the finger at councils about their high level of debt – see: Pot calling kettle black?(http://bit.ly/wcAvBo). Finally, Joe Bennett translates a Ministry of Education job advertisement into plain English but finds there is not much left when he has finished – see: Ministry talks piffle - or words to that effect (http://bit.ly/znPueX).
09 March 2012
NZ Politics Daily: 9 March
Is the Government too cocky by half? The National Party had a great election result in 2011, but with a one seat majority to support its key policies, as well as a bumbling start to 2012, John Hartevelt asks if ministers are full of ‘misguided bravado’ – see: Opposition met by Government swagger. Hartevelt concludes that even if their confidence is misplaced it does enable them to keep moving forward with the reforms.
In Welfare carrots and sticks, Jane Clifton looks at the minefield politicians tread when they are seen to make judgements about mothers choosing or being forced to take up work when they have young children. She also looks at David Shearer’s refusal to play politics, labeling it ‘Oppositional Compliant Disorder’ as opposed to the usual ‘Oppositional Defiant Disorder’.
Ex-Labour minister Steve Maharey has some advice for the Government. Although he tries to stay clear of critiquing their welfare policy, he can’t stop himself trumpeting the success the previous Labour government had in reducing the number of beneficiaries – see: Steve Maharey’s Out with old and in with new not the best policy. His questioning of why the policy needed to be changed at all ignores the obvious point that other critics of the welfare reforms have made, namely reducing welfare expenditure is easy when there are plenty of jobs but a lot harder when times are tough.
The Government’s own job-shedding programme continues, although with the defence forces it seems they may have been too successful. Derek Cheng reports that defence bosses are calling a halt to the civilianization programme, as it has caused a record low in morale and prompted large numbers of staff to leave of their own accord – see: 'Change fatigue' floors Defence Force staff. There’s a big difference of course between selecting staff you could do without and losing highly skilled and trained personnel. Cheng also reports that the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, Rear Admiral Jack Steer, seems to have told a parliamentary select committee about halting the programme before he told Minister of Defence Jonathan Coleman. The minister is reported as saying he thought the changes had ‘gone through pretty smoothly overall’ – see: TV3’s Defence Force changes 'smooth' – government.
Meanwhile the internal battle at Mfat goes on, with the Government trying to stem the flow of leaks – see Vernon Small’s Ambassadors told not to cable cutback criticisms – Goff. The level of resistance amongst staff is made starkly obvious when the cables sent by ambassadors to Wellington are no longer seen as secure.
Winston Peters is in classic form at the moment, making numerous claims of conspiracy and corruption – see for example, TVNZ’s Yarrows demise caused by 'corporate thugs' – Peters, and Bernard Orsman’s Boss denies US trip paid for by Deloitte. This prompts David Farrar – no fan of Peters – to look at the NZ First leader’s use and abuse of the protection he has as an MP – see: The protection of parliamentary privilege.
David Slack has a particularly funny and illuminating parody of Peters in the March edition of Metro magazine. His fictional sketch (‘New life in the old parrot’) has Peters providing advice to the earnest newcomer David Shearer. When Shearer objects that his advice makes no sense, Peters replies, ‘It doesn't have to. You just look fierce and say 'disastrous' and 'selling out' and 'traitors'. And if it doesn't work you threaten legal action’. Also in the latest Metro Martyn Bradbury has an open letter to the new Minister of Broadcasting with some relatively intelligent ideas for saving public broadcasting, Steve Braunias has a feature story on the ‘strange, troubled life of former Act MP David Garrett’ (‘Mr Angry’), there’s an ‘exclusive’ interview with @drbrash (the incredibly clever parody of Don Brash on Twitter), Simon Wilson writes a strong editorial on the Ports of Auckland dispute, and most promising of all, Metro has launched a new regular two-page feature called Power, which covers political ups and downs – in this issue it covers the Auckland Plan with specific reference to the port, the fall of Pita Sharples and rise of Hekia Parata.
News that green energy company Windflow has teamed up with an American company that also make nuclear submarines has prompted the Dominion Post to ask Wellington’s Green mayor Celia Wade-brown about her ongoing personal ownership of shares in the company – see: Mayor unfazed by link to nuclear submarines. The Green mayor said that she would hold on to the shares as, regardless of what companies associated with Windflow produced, it was encouraging that they used renewable energy. David Farrar points that Windflow has been the ‘darling’ of the Greens for years and that in the past Green MPs and their superannuation fund may have owned shares – see: Windflow and nuclear. Despite Wade-brown’s stance, the parliamentary Greens may have a more difficult position if they continue to own shares, as leader Russel Norman has regularly demanded the New Zealand Super Fund disinvest from companies on ethical grounds.
Leftwing councilor Mike Lee has finally spoken out on the Ports of Auckland dispute, but in doing so says the workers should never have gone on strike (see William Mace’s Ex ARC chair 'sick' about port sackings), and David Farrar blogs about The Mayor for all of Auckland, explaining why Len Brown has done the right thing in ignoring calls by the left to side with the port workers. But the must-read item on the ports dispute today is Brian Rudman’s Mayor’s paralysis in port dispute leaves role of leader vacant.
Other articles worth a look today include Lockwood shows Mojo the money, John Key looks at things ... it's a thing, apparently, Knighthoods and crony capitalism, and Chris Trotter’s When the Government is no longer afraid of its people. Finally, Gordon Campbell previews the task ahead of David Shearer as he prepares to make some major announcements. He says that Shearer will still have to confront the role of the state in the economy as, despite three decades of free market policy, the domestic economy has become dominated by former state-owned organisations or near monopolies – see: Shearer faces tricky balancing act.
08 March 2012
NZ Politics Daily: 8 March
‘Which side are you on?’ asks the old union ballad, and that’s the question commentators and activists on the left have been asking Len Brown and David Shearer throughout the ports dispute. Many have not been impressed with the response – or lack of it – and are saying this will have direct political repercussions for the Mayor and the Labour Party. There’s a suggestion that both men might have their political careers cut short as a result.
Len Brown has finally broken his silence on the issue, and is suddenly making numerous media appearances – for example, watch TV3’s John Campbell ask Len Brown where he stands and listen to RNZ’s interview, Auckland mayor defends his role in port dispute. While making sympathetic noises, both Brown and Councilor Richard Northey (listen to RNZ’s Councillor supportive of union position) are pretty clear that they will not be siding with the workforce. The voices of leftwing councilors such as Mike Lee and Cathy Casey have also been conspicuously muted. One presumes there was intense behind-the-scenes attempts to lobby Brown and other councilors, but as it seems to have come to nothing it will be interesting to see if they are now more vocal in their support for the port workers.
The left’s assessment of Brown’s performance has been scathing – see for example, Danyl Mclauchlan’s two posts, ‘We’re going on a journey . . .’ and Destroying the village to make it more efficient, The Standard’s Dear Len letter, and No Right Turn’s Sacked. But the most illuminating responses have come from Auckland Labour Party activist and blogger, Robert Winter, who as a rank-and-file member provides an important insight into what Labour activists are thinking. His post, Awful, Mr Brown leaves no doubt about who the Mayor has sided with. His latest blog post, is even more interesting – see: The Political repercussions for Labour of doing nothing on the Ports, - says there is ‘deep concern, even anger at Mr Shearer’s ambivalence on this issue and concern that Labour is being presented as toothless’.
Dene Mackenzie of the ODT also looks at Shearer’s role in the dispute, and he contrasts the Greens’ consistent backing of the union with Shearer’s hesitant approach: ‘Mr Shearer has to front up to voters or lose another round to the Greens and others. He needs to also abandon Mr Brown, if that is what it takes, to keep the faith with Auckland voters’ – see: Port dispute web of loyalties takes wide catch. Up until now, Brown has taken most of the political heat, rather than Shearer, but with the Auckland Mayor effectively being written off as an ally of the workers, Shearer will now come under pressure to be the workers’ political champion. His vacillating on the dispute is analysed by Chris Trotter on TVNZ’s Breakfast – watch here.
Political solutions may be the union’s only hope according to legal experts. Employment lawyer Peter Cullen says ‘the company is entitled to contract out work and, legally, there is not much the workers can do.’ Cullen says their best option now is to seek political support from the Government and Auckland Council, although even Len Brown concedes that his council's demand for bigger dividends has directly contributed to the lay offs – see RNZ’s Council dividend considered a factor in port layoffs.
Auckland University law professor Bill Hodge says the Maritime Union now has very few options left – watch his TVNZ interview: Union have 'no cards to play' – expert. Chris Trotter thinks the opposite – see his blog post, Steady, Comrades, Steady. He argues that the POAL has sacked the workers out of desperation, not strength, and that the company will struggle to make the port work again if the Maritime Union workers are able to hold out. Trotter predicts that the workers will now not rest until Gibson and the board of directors are sacked. He also has a very strong view on Len Browns political future: ‘nothing will save Auckland’s mayor’. Now, it seems, there will be plenty of activism around the dispute, including a rally in Auckland on Saturday, and a Facebook page created by journalist Peter Malcouronne: 'Sack Tony Gibson, the Three Quarters of a Million Dollar Man'.
The biggest pressure on the Ports of Auckland will be the mounting costs, which ultimately the ratepayers of Auckland will wear. Not only will the redundancy payouts be substantial (see: Port company faces $11.5m payout), but the loss of revenue to date, plus the impact of future disruption, will total many millions of dollars that will take years to recover even if the port achieves the increased dividend target set by the council.
It will all be worth it in the end, according to today’s Dominion Post editorial, which puts the case against the port workers and sympathises with Labour leader David Shearer who they say has been put in a ‘difficult position’ – see: Times change in workplace relations. Cathy Odgers also hails the ports management – see: Dedicated to POAL Chairman Richard Pearson. She, interestingly, lashes out at the Labour Party for not backing the union, likening it to herself advocating for higher taxes and more welfare – i.e. a betrayal of core principles.
Combined with looming state sector cuts (see: Andrea Vance’s 2400 more state sector jobs could go) it looks as if the next few months will signal a ‘winter of discontent’ for many workers - see Michael Fox and Andrea Vance’s Mass workers' rights protest may erupt.
Hone Harawira is attempting to prevent the sale of assets by scaring off foreign investors – see: Alastair Reith’s Harawira declares war on ‘corporate takeover’ of NZ. Political journalist Gordon Campbell was at a meeting with Harawira where he disagreed with this tactic of economic sabotage, suggesting that it would ultimately hurt taxpayers. This apparently resulted in him being ‘subjected to a barrage of swear words by Mr Harawira’. See also Danya Levy’s Hone Harawira to foreign investors - steer clear.
The Government may be locked in a vicious circle as, despite further massive cuts to the state sector, dreams of slashing the deficit are receding daily according to Vernon Small’s column, Key may be only one in on the joke. Small notes that ‘during the election campaign, Mr Key and Finance Minister Bill English talked of their plans to halve the $18b deficit to about $9b this year and halve it again next year. On the current trend they will not even be close’.
Today is International Working Women’s Day and there’s plenty of commentary around this (see: Women still have a long way to go and Women under-represented as leaders in New Zealand - so what to do?), although most is concerned with the lack of women in elite business and leadership positions rather than the daily struggles most working women face, for example with childcare which according to at least one account is still woefully inadequate – see Michelle Duff’s Unborn babies on childcare wait lists.
Other interesting items today include TVNZ’s Racial inequality 'entrenched' in NZ – commission, Shane Cowlishaw’s Tau-tally devoted: MP's quick 'I do', and the Herald’s editorial Bill goes too far in curbing right to silence. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]
07 March 2012
NZ Politics Daily: 7 March
The showdown between workers and bosses on the Auckland’s wharves has finally arrived. The sacking of all the wharfies today ensures that this industrial dispute has just become the most confrontational of our times. There will now be all sorts of court action – by employers to prevent other workers supporting their Auckland colleagues with strike action, and by the Maritime Union to challenge the Ports of Auckland restructuring process – but the real action will be decided by raw industrial muscle. Which side has the most industrial strength?
Radio New Zealand reports that Auckland has been declared a ‘port of convenience’ which marks it for international unions as one of the worst ports in the world for industrial relations and employer behaviour – see: RNZ’s Industrial action spreading to another port. Time is money, as they say, and delays caused by support action at other ports will already be costing shipping companies caught up in the dispute – see: Mathew Dearnaley’s Ships caught in dispute depart with goods to keep to their schedules and Kurt Bayer’s Christchurch port workers to strike in solidarity.
Time is running out for a negotiated settlement and the stakes really couldn’t be higher for the union, its members and the management of the Ports of Auckland. Politically, this will rapidly increase the pressure on Auckland Mayor Len Brown. Seeing him standing on the sidelines and watching the Council-owned company lay into the union will infuriate the political networks that got him elected – listen, for example, the CTU’s Helen Kelly on RNZ this morning complaining that Brown has ‘had his time to get his shit together on this, and he’s let us down’. See also, TVNZ’s Len Brown accused of 'absolutely disgusting' attitude. On top of that there seems to be broader concern in Auckland about the management of the ports company, not just in terms of industrial relations, but also its expansion plans.
If the dispute is ‘class war’, then some Auckland employers haven’t got the memo. Jenny Keown reports that a union and business coalition, including Mainfreight, Bell Gully, and Simpson Grierson is asking to meet with Brown and has drafted a charter for the ports that includes more progressive environmental and labour relations – see: Union, business groups meet over Auckland port.
John Minto looks at the broader trend of employer demands for greater flexibility and contracting out in Workers made to pay the price. Minto currently works for Unite union, which represents fast food and hospitality workers who have worked for many years under the conditions being proposed at the Ports of Auckland. He warns that ‘There is a lot at stake on the Auckland port. It's not just 300 permanent jobs because other employers are watching carefully to see if they can use the same approach to add more to their profits at the expense of workers’.
Government employees under pressure from austerity measures are also starting to get militant. One of the increasingly popular weapons in the public servant’s arsenal is the use of leaks, as evidenced in Matthew Backhouse’s article, Senior diplomat slams Mfat cuts in leaked cable. Public servants have taken to Twitter and there is talk of protest marches, social media activism, and creative street performances – see Andrea Vance’s must-read article, Public servants plan to bite back against cuts.
David Farrar does the Government’s work in replying to this, with his blog post, Will the Empire strike back. Farrar says that such austerity requirements are a simple fact that opponents cannot escape: ‘The deficit has been running at around $10b a year. That is several times larger than the cost of the entire civil service’. He effectively challenges Labour and any other opposition to come up with an alternative credible plan to deal with the growing deficit.
Chris Trotter answers that challenge – see his blog post, Intensifying The Vicious Circle. As well as putting forward some social democratic policy proposals for dealing with the economic downturn, Trotter warns against the Government’s fiscally austere response, suggesting it will make things much worse: ‘New Zealand is thus caught in a vicious circle, with falling revenues necessitating further cuts in spending, triggering more economic contraction, more unemployment, reduced consumer spending, lower profits and falling real wages. The Government’s tax-take will fall correspondingly, depressing its revenues still further’.
In a must-read opinion piece – Harder to smile in face of second term-itis - Vernon Small says there has been a clear mood shift against the Government since the election and the asset sales, ongoing leaks, deteriorating financial forecasts and cost cutting are challenging John Key now, let alone in a few weeks when rumoured radical state sector changes may be announced. Small makes what is likely to be a dreaded comparison with National in the early-1990s: ‘Watching the House yesterday was like a blast from the past, circa the Bolger-Shipley government; leaks from public servants, unpopular asset sales, economic woes, and tough cost cutting.’
There certainly seems to an almost daily release or leak about state sector cuts and restructuring – see: TVNZ’s All police jobs at threat in budget squeeze – association, John Hartevelt’s Defence bill about making cuts, says Goff and TV3’s MAF to be renamed Ministry for Primary Industries.
Other interesting reads today include David Farrar’s Should List MPs be able to stand in by-elections?, Nicholas Jones’ John Key's teapot fetches $6000 and The Political Scientist’s What ground is ‘left’ when it comes to land, assets – and nationalism?. Finally the Herald acknowledges the death of Owen McShane in Respected planning consultant, adviser dies, and you can read McShane’s final column for the NBR: The economy is no greater than its parts. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]
06 March 2012
NZ Politics Daily: 6 March
Just how high the stakes are in the Ports of Auckland dispute is evidenced by the secondary action taking place in other New Zealand ports and, potentially, in other countries. Not only have Maritime Union members refused to unload the Maersk Aberdeen in Wellington after it was handled by non-union labour in Auckland, members of the separate Rail and Maritime Union have also protested and refused to handle ships in Tauranga and Wellington. Such secondary action, or blacklisting, was banned under National’s 1991 Employment Contracts Act and also in 2000 under Labour’s Employment Relations Act. That means these actions expose the unions to legal action and potentially even being sued for damages. Matthew Dearnaley, in Port strike backed in NZ and beyond, reports that there is also international interest and support from unions around the world. He quotes Ray Familathe, a Vice Chairperson in the International Transport Federation which has 42,000 members in the US and Canada. Familathe says ‘this is really a battle about the working class in New Zealand – you can see the same attack taking place in ports throughout the world’. So striking workers will do without pay, and the port company will struggle to find shipping companies willing to run the gauntlet, and this is where the dispute will be won or lost. Public relations will be important, but secondary to this very traditional class struggle.
The two other major industrial disputes continue to escalate with 200 more meatworkers locked out at Affco’s Rangiuru plant in the Bay of Plenty and with up to 1500 caregivers, nurses and service workers due to strike against Oceania Group tomorrow – see Paloma Migone’s Care workers to strike again. TVNZ quotes Dr Stephen Blumenfeld from Victoria University saying that it’s the number of people involved in the strikes, rather than the number of strikes that has attracted media attention. He notes that the disputes are not really about straight pay rates, but mainly involve attempts by employers to claw back conditions achieved over many years of collective bargaining – see TVNZ’s Affco workers face lock out today.
In revealing the legislation required for the partial sale of assets, the Government has not dampened any of the criticism of the process from the opposition parties. It has, however, appeared to placate its coalition partner, the Maori Party, despite the exclusion of private shareholders from Treaty obligations. The party says it is satisfied with the outcome despite its threat to walk if Treaty protections were not included. On TV3’s Firstline this morning Pita Sharples went so far as to describe the coalition as a ‘first class relationship. It’s a relationship with integrity’ – see: National, Maori Party relationship 'first class' – Sharples. Tariana Turia has admitted that although they initially wanted Section 9 to apply to private investors and that this was the message from the consultation hui, the party was not aware that these investors could never be bound by the Treaty. Mana Leader Hone Harawira has, of course, called for the Maori Party to honour their pledge to walk from Government because of the private shareholder exclusion. He is backed up by iwi leader Haami Piripi of Te Rarawa, who says ‘There's nothing here for Maori. It's a sleight of hand. It cuts us out of the 49 per cent’ – see Adam Bennett’s Push for referendum on asset sales.
Morgan Godfery agrees and sees it as one of the final nails in the Maori Party’s coffin. It’s a 51 per cent win for the Maori Party according to John Armstrong, but he says that the threat to walk will open them up to accusations of crying wolf the next time they use it. He also wonders how exactly one group of shareholders can be ‘immune from the effects of decisions impacting on other shareholders’ and says the process has a feeling of déjà vu – the Fourth Labour Government was also ‘flying blind’ when it established SOEs in the first place.
There are two rearguard actions being fought against the asset sales. The New Zealand Maori Council want an urgent hearing with the Waitangi Tribunal to stop the process – see Yvonne Tahana’s Crown asks tribunal to dismiss SOE sale claim. And an alliance of groups including opposition parties are looking to force a Citizens Initiated Referendum on the sales, although it is likely that many will be sold before a referendum is actually held.
The next big issue will undoubtedly be who will get to buy the shares (see: John Hartevelt’s Law won't give Kiwis first rights to shares), with the Government having promised small kiwi investors will be prioritised but the legislation itself having no mechanism to guarantee this. John Key has said that officials are still working on how this will be done in practice. The Government will be keen to avoid a repeat of the last time National sold off a public energy company. Contact Energy Shares were initially bought by hundreds of thousands of small investors, but within a few years the spread of shareholding had dramatically reduced and the company is now largely overseas owned and run.
The question of the SOE sale price is discussed today by Gordon Campbell in his column On the mixed-ownership model for state assets. He argues that foreign ownership is a distraction from the real issue, namely that the Government’s attempts to make the policy politically palatable will substantially reduce the sale price taxpayers will receive for these assets, already under pressure in a depressed international economy.
In other recommended articles for today, Guyon Espiner has an interesting interview with Grant Robertson where Labour’s Deputy Leader tries to shake off his reputation as a ‘cautious politician’, Derek Cheng looks at the savings the Government is looking to make in the broader justice system (Public service cuts: Big changes to win savings in justice), Colin James says that the state sector reforms are about more than cuts but that the Government has yet to get that message across to voters (Think national, act local – change is coming), and Chris Trotter explains the public’s desire for reactionary welfare reform (Living In One Dimension). [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]
NZ Politics Daily: 5 March
State sector reform is one of the most boring topics in politics. That is, until, you start being affected by it. The Public Service Association – the union for most public service workers – has been trying for the past three years to build awareness amongst voters about the Government’s reforms and cuts in the state sector. They have had very limited success to date as, until now, National has trodden carefully, ensuring that cutbacks wouldn’t have too much of a direct impact on the public. Like the late 1980s and early 90s, the pace and scale of reform seems to set to be significantly increased for National’s second term. This will inevitably start to impact on the delivery of public services - but will it be for the better or for worse? John Armstrong and Andrea Vance both have must-read analyses of what may be coming in the Government’s renewed push for reform – see Andrea Vance’s New model in store for state sector and John Armstrong’s Public service cuts: The big stretch. Writing in the Sunday Star Times, John Hartevelt also paints the new push as a major change in approach from John Key, saying that the PM is about to ‘cross into the void’. Hartevelt argues that National’s masterplan acknowledges that the Government will take some hits next year, but bounce back in time for the next election. But the difficulty in actually realising significant savings with restructuring is highlighted by Andrea Vance in another article, 2500 jobs gone but state service saves only $20m.
It’s timely that an academic book entitled Future State: Directions for Public Management in New Zealand has just been launched. Colin James, a commentator with a longtime interest in public services has explained why the book should be read in his comments from the launch – see: The next public service.
Having the right personnel to implement wide-ranging reforms is crucial and Adam Bennett profiles Director-General of Health Kevin Woods and Kevin Snee, CEO of Hawke’s Bay DHB, who both have a record of slashing public health spending in Britain, including large cuts to nursing staff.An independent review subsequently found that that Dr Snee had put cutting costs ahead of patient interests – see: UK health slashers on NZ's case.
There are those who see the need for changes to go further, such as Matthew Hooton who says Mfat needs a major overhaul in attitudes, as well as scale and structure – see: Right-sizing just first step for Mfat. For a biting parody of Mfat diplomatic cables purporting to show why the Ministry needs a large budget, see Martin van Beynen’s ‘Kiwileaks’ expose, Send cash urgently, NZ's honour at stake.
But the genuine ‘Wikileak’ story from the weekend is a must-read –see: WikiLeaks proves brutal US diplomacy. In this, Anthony Hubbard and Nicky Hager dig through the just-leaked details of what senior US policy analysts really think about New Zealand and our importance in the world.
Other articles of interest today include Matt McCarten looking at the heightened ‘class war’ currently occurring in New Zealand’s workplaces, identifying the end of the cold war as a turning point that enabled capitalists to confidently strip away workers’ rights and conditions – see: Corporate sadists free to drive workers into dirt.
John Armstrong has a very interesting column on Winston Peters’ latest political re-incarnation and he warns Labour that the good relations they currently enjoy with him will not last – see: New-look Winston drops the Mr Angry. Anthony Hubbard looks at the funny side of Peters and the use of humour by past political leaders – see: Winston Peters still bringing the house down.
Stephen Church looks at the much-unexplored issue of list MPs and whether MMP is disadvantaged by New Zealand’s very strong embrace of ‘dual candidacy’ in elections – see: The identity crisis of list.
The other political items worth reading today are: Tracy Watkins’ At home with Mai Chen, Toby Manhire’s Revealed: the election day social media comments referred to police, Lois Cairns’ A new house of pain for Dunedin, Lincoln Tan’s Plan to favour wealthy immigrants, Hamish Rutherford’s Predictions website in talks with polling firm, and Seamus Boyer’s He has to live here just 44 days a year. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]
02 March 2012
NZ Politics Daily: 2 March
At first glance there appears to be a strong multi-party consensus and response to the just-released ministerial inquiry into New Zealand’s ‘slave fishing’ industry. But while endorsing or condoning slavery is an obvious political no-no, the question of what should be done about it, and why, gets a much more varied political response.
The National Government is – for the moment – only picking up 6 of the 15 recommendations in the report – see Amelia Romanos’ Govt agrees action to end abuse on foreign trawlers. TVNZ notes that ‘recommended law changes that would ensure New Zealand criminal law applies on the ships won't be implemented any time soon. And nor will the recommendation that New Zealand companies be the employer of the foreign crew, therefore ensuring better wages and conditions’ – see: Korean fishing boats 'damaging NZ's reputation'.
The recommendations that the Government have agreed to implement are at the easier end of the scale – they mostly rely on the companies themselves and the Ministry of Fisheries monitoring compliance of the 2006 code of practice. Some legislative changes will be required, but these are unlikely to be a priority in the Government’s already backlogged parliamentary programme. On top of that, Labour has pointed out that the ministries involved will receive no extra funding to increase their monitoring. It’s hard to imagine there being too many volunteers at the Ministry of Fisheries to spend months at sea observing and sharing the conditions that these workers endure.
The lawyer for the Slave Free Seas group, Craig Tuck – see RNZ’s Recommendations seen as not sufficient - fears the response is not enough and will take far too long. And according to researcher Glenn Simmons some of the fishing company business models are actually built on the low wages and poor conditions, and these companies could fold if all the recommendations are adopted – see: RNZ’s Small fishing companies threatened by changes to employment law.
The Greens want all 15 recommendations adopted and argue that the Government should phase out foreign charter vessels altogether in favour of New Zealand businesses and workers – see: Govt urged to move fast on foreign ships. Once again the Green Party is raising the ‘nationalist flag’ that will resonate with many voters. On the left – as evidenced by the demands from the Maritime Union - the preferred solution is for foreign crews to be subject to New Zealand industrial laws, which would mean they would receive something like $60,000 to $80,000 instead of the current ‘$6700 to $11,600 a year’.
Many submitters to the inquiry asked why locals weren’t employed to do the work, particularly Maori workers who were supposed to see the benefits of the original Sealord deal giving iwi groups substantial fishing quota. Shane Jones makes the same point (see: Fishing jobs for Maori a priority – Jones) but given his involvement in the original fisheries settlement and his role as a Cabinet minister while all this was occurring during the last Labour Government, he may well be asked the same question. The question might also be asked of the many iwi leaders who clearly prefer higher profits and cheap foreign labour over employment for Maori.
The No Right Turn blog identifies the problem as being that the police, despite having received complaints about serious human rights abuses, have approached the issue as if it’s merely a contractual and employment dispute – see: Slave-fishing: The core problem. This post also draws a comparison between the police’s massive deployment of resources to arrest Kim Dotcom for potential copyright infringement with their lack of interest in tackling slavery in New Zealand waters. See also, National does nothing about slave-fishing. And David Farrar also gives an overview of the issues in his Herald blogpost, Slavery on our seas.
The allegations made by mostly Indonesian workers against Korean employers working for New Zealand fishing companies were disturbing enough in themselves, but it seems that for many, the motivation for condemning the state of the industry and regulations is simply embarrassment over what overseas customers may think and the damage that it might cause to exports – see, for example, today’s Herald editorial, Time to halt exploitation on high seas.
Both Jane Clifton and Chris Trotter are today questioning National’s instincts for self-preservation. Clifton says ‘evidence is stacking up so mightily against the partial floats of the four electricity companies, it’s beginning to look like an act of bizarre political martyrdom on National’s part to persevere with them’. She suggests National’s keenness is partly motivated because state-owned energy companies have the expertise and potential for expansion in overseas markets, but the Government can’t afford to fund such business opportunities – see: Asset sales: is the Government mad?
Trotter contrasts the relative pragmatism of National’s first term with its current pursuit of unpopular policies, and asks Is this Government trying to kill itself? He believes that National is in suicidal mode, swinging to the right as a response to the lobbying of elite vested interests: ‘The clamour for neoliberal "reforms" has always come from a tiny minority of New Zealanders…. The National Party's problem is that they're the sort of people it's always felt obliged to pay attention to: CEOs of powerful corporations; Rich Listers; right-wing media commentators’.
It’s been a long-time coming, but it now seems a certainty that New Zealand’s only ad-free public broadcasting TV channel is to be closed down in a few months – see: No eleventh hour reprieve for TVNZ7. The so-called ‘house Tory’ at the Public Address blogsite, Craig Ranapia mourns this news in Freakanomics (TVNZ Edition).
William Mace says that Maori Television may be looking to expand its operations to replace TVNZ7, quoting Chief Executive Jim Mather: ‘the reality is the money’s already there…but because it’s spread over the television landscape you’re not getting the critical mass a dedicated channel can provide - see: The media week that was. Nicely underlining the contradiction between public good and commercial imperative is the allegation from Labour MP Clare Curran that TVNZ has been pressuring Fair Go reporters to tread lightly on advertisers – see Adam Bennett’s TV boss denies instruction to protect advertisers. TVNZ denies the allegations but Steven Price, who has done legal work for the programme in the past, isn’t convinced and unequivocally tells TVNZ’s Jeff Latch where (not) to go – see: Doesn’t sound like a fair go to me. John Drinnan also comments on the ‘dumbing down of Fair Go over the past two years’.
Toby Manhire in his blog post, Election day “comments” on social media referred to police, tries to get to the bottom of the Electoral Commission’s police referrals of alleged election day breaches on social media, but he doesn’t get far. Manhire has been investigating the issue of the social media election day ‘blackout’ for some time now and he concludes that such heavy regulation is too problematic, saying ‘While I rather like the spirit of the election day blackout, it might be better framed as a convention, rather than a legal ban’.
In other articles, Matthew Dearnaley has a good summary of where the widespread industrial action is at (New strikes threaten autumn of discontent), and Susan St John provides a reality check about who is actually better off when beneficiaries move into work: ‘The Minimum Family Tax Credit is effectively a subsidy to employers. They can get away with paying only the minimum wage as they know a higher hourly rate will not give any more in the hand to someone receiving the Minimum Family Tax Credit’ – see: Achilles heel of National's welfare reform.
Finally, Trevor Mallard continues to embarrass Labour, according to Cameron Slater, as the long-serving MP publicly boasts about a taxpayer-funded European trip for a course designed for newly-elected MPs – see: Remedial MP course for Trademe Trevor. Jane Clifton in her Listener column also has a crack at Mallard, noting ‘if you’re a habitual scrapper with a history of lobbing dirty bombs at opponents, you need to be especially careful, making this a most bewildering fall from grace for such an experienced, thorough and tough political operator.’ [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]
NZ Politics Daily: 1 March
Is it ‘class war’? New Zealand is now experiencing the highest level of industrial action for many years, with port, freezing and rest-home workers all taking action. The question is what, if anything, should politicians do to try and resolve these disputes? That question will be weighing on Len Brown most heavily, as his support base on the left becomes increasingly impatient with his passive approach to the ports dispute and the company his council owns. Greg Presland has some advice about What Len Brown should do about the POAL dispute. He looks in detail at what options Brown and councilors have to put pressure on their port company and concludes that removing directors, or threatening to do so, is the only direct lever they have. He suggests progressive Auckland councilors should try to pass a resolution urging a return to mediation and good-faith bargaining.
Yesterday Labour MP Phil Twyford called for Brown to take action and today Hone Harawira is calling for the Labour, NZ First and the Greens leaders to join him in meeting the mayor on the issue – see: Harawira calls on mayor to settle Ports dispute.
Chris Trotter looks at both the AFFCO and ports dispute and concludes that: ‘It’s class war – pure and simple’ – see: Equal and Opposite. He calls the disputes ‘a naked bid for unbridled employer power’, providing a Marxist-style analysis of struggles over industrial relations law. He warns employers that they are over-reaching themselves in their attempts to crush workers rights and livelihoods, and that the ultimate response will be workers eventually seeking to more than reverse this balance of power. Not that you will read about it in the media, according to Trotter – he claims that middle-class journalists won’t call it like it is, and that they implicitly accept the employer’s assumption that workers cannot own and defend their jobs and conditions. See also, Denise Roche’s Frogblog post, Employer militancy is the new black.
If it is indeed class war, then no one should have any doubt whose side Cameron Slater is on. In his Whaleoil blog post, 61 years, Slater hails the unloading of a container ship with 100% non-union labour as a ‘watershed’. Ports CEO Tony Gibson is also trumpeting the unloading of the Maersk Aberdeen as proof the port can minimise delays and losses due to the strike. Meanwhile, opposition parties are accusing the Government of taking sides and encouraging employers in their new hard-line actions. But John Key denies any responsibility and says changes to industrial relations legislation will be limited to what was flagged at the election. For more on this, see: Government accused of encouraging employer militancy. And for more on all the disputes, see William Mace’s Meatworkers fight for conditions and Danya Levy’s MPs, residents join aged care workers' strike.
There are very different aspects of the ‘class war’ going on in terms of the proposed shakeup of Mfat, but there’s unlikely to be a strike or lockout of the diplomats. Instead the ministry staff are making noises about resigning over the cuts that will make their postings less attractive – see Tracy Watkins’ Exodus threat over proposed MFAT cuts. She says that diplomatic allowances ‘can swell the size of a foreign-based diplomat's pay packet to as much as $500,000’. This is a bit of a problem for Labour, as the workers that Phil Goff is seeking to defend are not exactly at subsistence levels and conditions. Jane Clifton expands on this point in her report on yesterday in Parliament (Finger-pointing MPs jab themselves in the eye): ‘Phil Goff was sawing a violin for the pending heavy job losses among Foreign Affairs officials while at the same time deploring the extravagant spending plans those same officials had dreamed up to optimise their personal comforts while abroad’.
Revelations about lavish spending at Mfat won’t actually hurt the government as it looks to slash costs in the department. Duncan Garner quotes ‘one senior Government Minister’ as saying ‘the gold plated and lavish tastes of these self important bureaucrats are finally coming to an end’ – see: $1.3m upgrade to Niue MFAT residence stopped.
Brian Fallow continues to attack John Key over his claim that there are plenty of jobs for beneficiaries forced to seek work – see: Tough job market awaits beneficiaries. His parting shot is ‘In the end there is no substitute for a brisk rate of job creation from a strongly growing economy. With that, welfare reform is largely redundant. Without it, it is futile’. See also, Danyl Mclauchlan's Timing and the $130 million.
Peter Dunne’s crucial vote required to pass asset sales legislation will have the Government listening very carefully to his concerns. The latest is the possibility that individual assets (such as stand-alone power stations) could be hocked off if there was a buck to be made and it was in the interest of the minority private shareholders. Greens co-leader Russell Norman spelt out the possibility clearly, and Peter Dunne wants such an ‘asset stripping’ possibility to be prohibited under the legislation – listen to the Radio NZ story here. National will have to take note, as failure to implement the policy would be a major political humiliation. But it will be a challenge to address the political issues without scaring off private buyers.
Today’s parliamentary competition revolves more than ever around allegations about political finance and corruption – with parties readily using these weapons as the most effective form of partisan debate – often without much merit. Personal attacks tend to serve as a substitute for debate about genuine policy differences – there is a general rule of thumb in which the smaller the policy differences are between political parties, the more they are likely to resort of what might be seen as aggressive personal politics. The latest example comes from Trevor Mallard in his Red Alert blog post, Mapp to Law Commission – Cronyism. Such allegations are condemned by partisans of both the right (David Farrar: More nastiness from Labour) and the left (Robert Winter: On Mr Mapp's appointment).
Perhaps a more valid attack on National can be made over its continued poor handling of the NZ On Air saga – see No Right Turn’s Craig Foss lied to Parliament. Finally today, see Isaac Davison’s Auckland Council's Occupy bill lists spy firm payout and Duncan Garner’s In defence of Bennett’s welfare shakeup. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]
Categories
- 2008 election
- Act party
- Alliance party
- Australia
- Books
- business
- class in NZ
- culture
- democracy
- democratic discourse
- economics
- economy
- elections
- electoral law
- environment
- ePolitics
- ethnicity
- Europe
- events
- Film
- France
- Green Party
- health
- housing
- immigration
- imperialism
- inequality
- international
- international left
- Labour Party
- Latin America
- liberal-conservative
- Maori Party
- Maori Politics
- media
- Middle East
- Music
- National Party
- new politics
- NZ First
- NZ foreign policy
- NZ Left
- NZ Political Parties
- NZ Politics Daily
- NZ society
- Pacific Islands
- party membership
- political art
- political communications
- political finance
- Progressives
- Religion
- religions
- research material
- sexual politics
- social democracy
- Sports
- the left
- the right
- UK
- unions
- United Future
- USA
- voting behaviour
- Weblogs
- Who runs New Zealand?
Search
Become a Fan
Categories
- 2008 election
- Act party
- Alliance party
- Australia
- Books
- business
- class in NZ
- culture
- democracy
- democratic discourse
- economics
- economy
- elections
- electoral law
- environment
- ePolitics
- ethnicity
- Europe
- events
- Film
- France
- Green Party
- health
- housing
- immigration
- imperialism
- inequality
- international
- international left
- Labour Party
- Latin America
- liberal-conservative
- Maori Party
- Maori Politics
- media
- Middle East
- Music
- National Party
- new politics
- NZ First
- NZ foreign policy
- NZ Left
- NZ Political Parties
- NZ Politics Daily
- NZ society
- Pacific Islands
- party membership
- political art
- political communications
- political finance
- Progressives
- Religion
- religions
- research material
- sexual politics
- social democracy
- Sports
- the left
- the right
- UK
- unions
- United Future
- USA
- voting behaviour
- Weblogs
- Who runs New Zealand?
Recent Posts
- Cartoons about Budget 2021
- Cartoons about public sector worker and CEO pay
- Cartoons about National Party leader Todd Muller
- John Moore: Podcast on the Politics of the Coronavirus crisis
- John Moore: Podcast on International Working Women's Day
- John Moore: Podcast on FGM
- Cartoons about the politics of law and order in NZ
- Cartoons about the NZ First donations scandal
- Cartoons about #MeTooLabour
