The Standard 2.02

on February 29, 2008

in im/migration and national

. 26 Comments

National likes to talk down New Zealand, to portray this great country as underperforming, to exaggerate our problems, and to cast our unique traits and values as barriers to ‘success’ (success is becoming a more homogenised off-shoot of American capitalism). A great way to further the message is wailing about people leaving for Australia - without providing any policy to stem the flow, of course (clue: pay cuts won’t help, John). So, predictably National was full of false outrage over the latest migration figures: net emigration to Australia last year of 28,615. But is this really a big deal?

First, what is migration? It is when a person moves from one country to another intending to leave for longer than a year and when a person who has been away longer than a year returns. A German who was here for a year and leaves counts as an emigrant from New Zealand in the headline figures. If you go on a 2 year OE to Sydney, you are counted as an emigrant even though you haven’t left for good. So, an increase in emigration doesn’t have to mean more people are leaving forever. It can be that more people are doing OEs, and that’s down partially to demographics and economics. If (as currently) there are more young adults and they are more likely to have jobs with decent pay to save for travel, you have more OEs.

Second, is the country emptying out? No. 28,615 people would be a lot of people to have at a party but its only 0.67% of the population. Plus, we receive more immigrants than we lose emigrants every year.

Third, is this an unprecedented level of net emigration? No, it’s within historical norms. Migration is cyclical; the last peak was 2000 (at a higher level than today), the last trough, 2003.

Last year, 99.33% of Kiwis liked their country so much they stayed. Some left for short periods, and some left forever but they were more than replaced by new New Zealanders who also think this is a great place to live. If only National felt the same way.

Winston tears Paul Henry a new one

Published

on February 29, 2008

in election funding, media and nz first

. 30 Comments

I’m as sick of the Owen Glenn saga as the next guy, but Winston Peters’ tussle with failed National Party candidate and Close Up presenter Paul Henry last night was highly entertaining. There’s been a bit of comment about the interview around the blogs, so here it is for those who missed it:

Talleys in trouble again

Published

on February 29, 2008

in workers' rights

. 47 Comments

NZPA reports that Hollow Men the Talley brothers have been fined $110,000 after eleven workers at their Blenheim plant were subjected to carbon monoxide poisoning from forklift fumes.

The company was found guilty of eleven charges of failing to take all practical steps to ensure employee safety by exposing them to the hazard of carbon monoxide fumes.

This is not the first time the Talley brothers have been up before the authorities for their appalling labour standards. Last year the Talleys lost a landmark sexual discrimination case over their refusal to let a woman work as a fish-filleter because she wasn’t a man. Andrew Talley decribed this ruling as “pathetic” and a “joke” and suggested women were better suited to being pole dancers.

More recently the Talleys have hit the headlines for trying to make the taxpayer foot their $1 million contractual obligation to provide for one of their workers who was shot on the job.

Perhaps if the Talleys spent more time looking out for their workers’ safety and a little less trying to corrupt our electoral system they wouldn’t find themselves in so much trouble.

How would Key make wages drop?

Published

on February 28, 2008

in john key, national and workers' rights

. 45 Comments

Having read our coverage of John Key’s “we would love to see wages drop” line my brother asked “but how can a government make wages drop?” The answer is obvious to those of us who know about this kind of stuff but my brother’s question, along with Colin Espiner’s naïve statement that “[a PM] has no control over wages”, made me realise that how a government would make wages drop if it were so inclined is not clear to everyone. So, for my brother, Colin, and anyone else, an explanation of how a government can bring down wages:

The first thing to realise is that inflation will do most of the work for you. As a wage dropping government you don’t actually have to bring down wages in nominal terms. You just hold them still or have them increase at less than the rate of inflation. The number of dollars in people’s back pockets stays the same, it may even rise, but the purchasing power of those dollars will be gradually eroded.

How could Key make incomes increase below inflation? Well, he could follow the example of the last National government:

Cut benefits or don’t adjust them for inflation;
Hold the minimum wage steady, that will not only make the incomes of those earning the minimum wage decrease after inflation but will also help hold down the incomes of those on wages near the minimum wage;
Hold down public sector wages by cutting funding, this will also hold down wages in similar private sector jobs (National frequently complains about public sector pay increases);
Weaken labour law, say, by weakening employees’ ability to pool their power in unions to balance the inherent power the employer has in the work relationship (as National did in 1991 with the Employment Contracts Act) or by giving employers the ability to ‘fire at will’ (as National now wants to introduce with its 90 Day No-Rights policy);
And, through public spending cuts and the flow-on drop in consumer demand from the reduction in people’s wages, create higher unemployment, putting further downward pressure on wages through labour competition (this is exactly what happened in the 1990s)

For these changes, you need to manufacture the consent of the public, you need a threat that needs defeating.

A good one is ‘welfare dependency’: there are all those ‘bludgers’ (0.3% of adults have been on the unemployment benefit longer than a year, and falling) if we cut benefits dependency won’t be so ‘comfortable’ (apparently, $180 a week is comfortable).

Another is the bugbear of the unions: paint them as ‘third parties’ trying to interfere in otherwise harmonious employer-employee relationships, rather than the voluntary, democratic workers’ organisations they are.

But Key seems to be setting up inflation as the threat (listen to his interview with Havoc and look at that full “we would love to see wages drop” quote again). Wage rises are inflationary is the line. The solution will be to not increase benefits and the minimum wage to match inflation, and to refuse public sector pay increases; which means less consumer demand across the economy. This does mean less inflation; it also means ordinary kiwis are poorer. Unions will naturally protest. Strike action will increase. The answer to this ‘union militancy’ will be to limit union power through legislation.

They did it in 1990 and nine years later most people’s incomes were lower after inflation. Key just needs to repeat the formula (in more moderate form, naturally) and ‘hey, presto!’ he’s delivered on his promise and dropped wages. Pretty simple, really.

For the record

Published

on February 28, 2008

in john key, wages and workers' rights

. 98 Comments

Like most of his policy positions John Key’s story on his comment “we would love to see wages drop” just keeps on changing.

First he was “misrepresented”, then his comment was “lighthearted”, and now he’s claiming he never said it. Which is it John?

In an interview today with Mickey Havoc, Key now denies ever having made the comment (”I did not say that quote”), claims he never took part in an interview, asserts that the reporter was “eavesdropping”, implies the reporter is lying, and states rather ominously - “there’s more to this than meets the eye” and “we’re taking our own issues with it”. He even loses it a bit at the end under pressure from Havoc and throws in a “don’t give me that crap”.

Anyone remember that advice (see image) from Richard Long to Brash in The Hollow Men in relation to accusations about foreknowledge of the Brethren campaign to ‘try to dodge further questions by feigning irritation’?

You could almost be forgiven for thinking Key and Brash had been coached by the same guy. On the other hand, maybe Mr Key’s just not as friendly underneath all the gloss as some may have supposed.

The audio’s four minutes long but I reckon worth having on the record:

Cutting out the middle man

Published

on February 28, 2008

in media

. 38 Comments

The Herald reports that after questioning by the media,

“Prime Minister Helen Clark says her criticisms of the New Zealand Herald bear no similarity to the ejection a newspaper publisher from Fiji by that country’s military regime.”

That the Herald believes this is in need of clarification, or is even worthy of publication in a respectable newspaper, shows just how much they’ve fallen for their own spin.

You have to wonder whether they’ve finally cut out the middle man and handed editorial control to the extremists at the Free Speech Coalition:

UPDATE: David Farrar has a cry over at his blog, taking literally our joke that perhaps the Herald is letting him decide their editorial line.

He also claims that because it was a story from the NZPA newswire the Herald isn’t to blame. Now let’s make this clear: the Herald has made an editorial decision to pick this story up when other media wisely ignored it. They have chosen to run it hard with front-page billing in a way that no other media outlet has. And they have chosen to file it in their ‘democracy under attack’ category and title it in a sensationalist manner to provoke a reaction. These are all deliberate editorial decisions that reveal the Herald’s bias.

What’s the future of Working for Families?

Published

Dancer

on February 28, 2008

in inoculation, john key, national and tax

. 13 Comments

One consquence of the expectations around tax cuts is an examination of some of the policies already have in place - Working for Families for example.

This was the topic of a recent article from Ruth Laugesen in the Sunday Star Times.

“Coopers chairman John Shewan said that under Working for Families, many households effectively paid no tax at all.” (See table to left - click to enlarge).

So how does this “no tax” situation sit alongside what National plans to deliver? Is the roll-over of Working for Families the next dead rat for Mr Key? The ground appears to be being prepared for this “no change” outcome according to comments from Lockwood Smith in the SSTimes article. At first it reads like standard National avoidance of a policy position:

“National’s revenue spokesman, Dr Lockwood Smith, said National still had criticisms of the [Working for Families] policy, but it may be too difficult to redesign it before the election. He said National had so far failed to develop any policy “at all” on Working for Families.”

But further into the article Dr Smith goes onto say:

Dr Smith: “Clearly we won’t be dispensing with Working for Families or anything like that. I wouldn’t for one moment say the tax treatment of people with dependent children is unfairly generous.”

So is it reasonable to expect National to just adopt the Working for Families policy “as is”? Unfortunately previous criticisms of the scheme raised by Mr Key do imply that there will have to be change as some point:

Key: “National doesn’t support the current Government’s “Working for Families’ package… Policies that turn every second family with children into state dependents might be a result the Labour Party is comfortable with, but simply put, National is not.”

And this:

Key: “I personally think, of Working For Families, it seems far too high up in the income bracket… I think you should use the tax system where you can….”

And when debating legislation that extended Working for Families in 2005 (Hansard, November 16, 2005):

Key: “I want to finish by talking about the Working for Families adjustments… National members will be opposing this legislation with every bone in our bodies.”

But fortunately he has told us they will be clear about their intentions:

Key: “We’re not going to go into an election without complete and clear transparency of how we’ll handle everything from Working For Families, KiwiSaver and tax but we’ll do that within plenty of time” (RNZ, 23 May 2007)

So as we move toward announcements regarding tax policy it is clear that we should also be seeking guidance on future directions for Working for Families.

Perhaps someone should let Lockwood know.

Joining the (blue) dots

Published

Eddie

on February 27, 2008

in same old national

. 41 Comments

Perhaps you’ve heard about the Blue Chip blues?

The company is in the news again today, and not just for allegedly breaking a sting of laws.

The couple featured in the article have lost their home and hundreds of further ‘mum and dad’ investors may still lose their savings.

The photo at left (no, it’s not from Lockwood’s infamous calendar) is of Blue Chip chairman Jock Irvine, Greg Turner, Blue Chip Managing Director Mark Bryers, Larry Graham and the Honorable Lockwood Smith.

Blue chips associations with the National Party don’t end with Lockwood though. It turns out that Blue Chip has more than its fair share of National Party connections - and not just casual ones forged over a couple of rounds of golf by the looks of things.

I wonder how much knowledge Burqa Bob had of Blue Chip’s dodgy investment practices when they sponsored his stadium. We’d certainly see his crocodile tears in a different light.

And I wonder how all these National Party connections were made… Perhaps an introduction by former National Party politician and Deputy Prime Minister Wyatt Creech who was once an independant director of the board (PDF)? Or perhaps it was former National Party cabinet minister John Luxton who served in the same position (PDF)?

I wonder if Blue Chip or the people associated with them ever donated to National Party campaign funds by way of an anonymous trust?

I wonder if they ever donated to any individual candidates?

Given National’s recent apoplexy over the non-issue of a fully disclosed donation of $8000 by Owen Glenn it would be good for the sake of transparency if National MPs came out and said what kind of contacts they have had with the Blue Chip board members.

For the sake of completeness it might also be good if the ex-National Party MPs outlined their roles in the events leading up to the collapse of the company.

The investors who have lost money are at least owed that.

someoneorotherisyournewbicycle.com

Published

on February 27, 2008

in interweb

. 0 Comments

I bookmarked barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com last week but forgot to post on it in amongst the (not over yet) story of John Key’s admission that: “we would love to see wages drop“.

When you hit reload the web site displays a new complimentary message about Mr Obama.

The Chicago Tribune has the full story on the site, which it turns out was set up by Mathew Honan, a contributing editor to Wired magazine:

I came up with the idea for the site last week, on [Wednesday, Feb.]13, while riding the bus up Market Street on my way home for the day. My wife is an avid cyclist, and loves to talk about bikes and cycling. Recently, she’s gotten really active in the Obama campaign, and I had been kidding her that “Barack Obama is your new bicycle.” There seem to be a lot of people who feel that way.

I told one of my friends about it, and it made him laugh too. And then the idea just sort of fell into place. I got home, registered the domain, and had everything up just as it is now four hours or so after I thought of the idea. Needless to say, I’m pretty surprised at how it took off.

I thought it was something my wife and friends would get a kick out of, but I had no clue it would be all over the blogs and news sites. There are even sites in Italy, the Netherlands, and France linking to it.

Now there’s a site up for Hillary Clinton too, but the messages aren’t quite as nice.

Just found stevejobsisyournewbicycle.com too.

Bill’s Wikipedia edits

Published

on February 27, 2008

in inoculation and national

. 39 Comments

Again from a Parliamentary address, the following passage was deleted from Bill English’s Wikipedia entry in June last year:

He married a Catholic GP, Mary, and they now have six children - five boys: Luke, Thomas, Rory, Bartholemew and Xavier; and one daughter, Maria. He is a devout Catholic himself, and upholds his churches opposition to [[abortion]], [[voluntary euthanasia]] and [[physician assisted suicide]], [[civil unions in New Zealand]] and [[prostitution in New Zealand]].

His wife Mary edited the newsletter of an anti-abortion medical practitioners group, “Doctors for Life,” and served as President of a conservative Christian women’s group known as the Family Education Network, before stepping down when her husband was elected Leader of the Opposition. Both organisations are now defunct.

It’s well known that John Key is cagey about his views on most things, preferring instead to tell people whatever it is that they most want to hear - I sometimes think of him as kind of our very own walking, talking Mirror of Erised.

I did think that at the very least we could rely on Bill to be straight with us about what he really believes though, mainstream or not.

Instead, it looks like their political consultants have got National rolling out systematic inoculations caucus-wide.

Lucky last

Published

on February 27, 2008

in minnows and workers' rights

. 15 Comments

When we published the results of our MP survey on John Key’s “we would love to see wages drop” quote last week, we knew that we would not be getting any more responses. The MPs, especially the National ones, would to told in no uncertain terms not to reply by their media people. But there’s one MP who is always a little behind the play and just responded today. Since he made the effort, here is Gordon Copeland’s reply in full:

“I strongly disagree. In fact it will be a core Kiwi Party policy to lift wages in NZ considerably.”

I don’t want to be churlish, but note there is no mention of how the Kiwi Party would actually lift wages, which reminds me of the National responses. The Labour, NZF, Maori, United Future, and Green responses nearly all included some mention of how wages had been and should be lifted, whereas National’s MPs either didn’t say wages should be lifted or offered no detail on how they would lift them.

Maybe National and the Kiwi Party should consider campaigning as an alliance with an appropriate name: ‘The Warm Platitudes Coalition’ maybe? Or ‘The Policy Vacuum Front’? Any more ideas?

Turnout suppression

Published

on February 27, 2008

in international

. 6 Comments

Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the conservative US think tank The Heritage Foundation (which has links to our very own Maxim Institute) once famously remarked:

“I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our [the right's] leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

Around the world the right has tried a range of measures to suppress turnout: legislating to limit early voting, database matching, literacy tests and restrictions on late enrollment.

Until recently, some of these limits on democratic participation were the norm here in New Zealand. Prior to 1999, for example, enrollments closed on Writ Day, around a month before the date of the election (you can now enrol up to the day before the election) and enrollment was not continuous meaning that electors were periodically deleted from the roll.

Ruralvotes.com has this on a recent example of Republican-led turnout suppression in the US:

Texas Republicans have worked overtime to make it harder for key Democratic voting groups to vote and be represented fairly. The redistricting games they’ve played are infamous. And for the Prairie View A&M University precincts, they put the early-polling place more than seven miles from the school.

So what did the students in this video do? They shut down the highway as they marched seven miles to cast their votes on the first day of early voting.

Peas in a pod: Family Fist, National, DPF

Published

on February 26, 2008

in child discipline and dpf

. 55 Comments

National Party blogger David Farrar points to a criticism of the repeal of s59 by Sacha Coburn (”a Christchurch businesswoman, lawyer and mother”):

The Government should read this column and be afraid… The whole column is worth a read. And Sacha Coburn will not be an exception - there will be many more like her - left leaning liberals who don’t like this law.

I’m sure there will left leaning liberals who don’t like this law but what about being true to principles every once in a while? You might think this is an especially good idea when kids are being beaten to death rather more frequently than we’d like. Perhaps political pragmatism is all National does now.

Of course Farrar is free to peddle the party issue of the day, but it’s worth noting his selective reporting - conveniently ignoring this from last Thursday where Professor Yanghee Lee (not a Christchurch businesswoman, probably not a lawyer and I’m not sure whether she’s a mother or not), the United Nations’ new Chairperson of the Committee on the Rights of the Child congratulates New Zealand on our stand against violence to children.

“I applaud all politicians who supported the new law and thank you for your excellent leadership and example to other countries,” Professor Lee says.

“New Zealand’s pioneering tradition in advancing human rights is well known.

“I believe its influence on other countries in the region and throughout the world in bringing about the new legislation will be considerable.”

National’s history of rewriting history

Published

on February 26, 2008

in flip-flop, national and same old national

. 16 Comments

You think they’d learn.

Wikiscanner reports that someone in Parliament has been busy - busy expunging potentially embarassing facts about a variety of MPs.

This one’s about Allan Peachey. You might remember Allan from such debacles as the Peachey/Rich bulk funding controversy and also the little number above that he’d evidently rather history forgot - his infamous “Knife in the back” email from December 2005.

The Herald reported at the time:

Mr Peachey, a first-term politician, sent an email to Selwyn College’s co-principal, Carol White, declining an invitation to the school’s prizegiving ceremony in his Tamaki electorate.

At the bottom of the email he wrote: “P.S. Yes, I do have a knife in your back, so be careful!”

The historically accurate Wikipedia account of the incident, complete with supporting media references (pictured above), was deleted at 11:16pm on March 7 2007 from an IP address in the parliament.govt.nz range. Amusingly, the original entry was reinstated a moment or two later by a Wikipedia moderator, presumably as no reason for deletion was provided by the late-night parliamentary editor. The entry was re-erased shortly after with the justification: “Deleted untrue comments”.

I can understand Peachey’s desire to distance himself from his past statements - particularly ones that show his true colours. And after all, his party’s tried to do the same thing on the war in Iraq, KiwiSaver, workers rights’, climate change, Working for Families, paid parental leave, interest free student loans, minimum wage, air force combat wing, four weeks’ leave, cheaper docors visits, nuclear free policy, income related rents for state house tenants, the “Cullen” superannuation fund, Kyoto… the list goes on. I guess it shows he’s in good company.

Perhaps there’s a more charitable interpretation of the Peachey edits though…

Perhaps it’s not so much about protecting his back as making others feel better about theirs.

(Hat-tip: original sauce)

Rod Oram: Insight into 2008

Published

Dancer

on February 26, 2008

in john key and labour

. 6 Comments

For those who are looking to the Beehive to bring some single minded focus to the current situation Labour finds themselves in, this article from Rod Oram at the begining of the month reads like a good starting point (SSTimes, 3 Feb 2008). He raises what the challenges for Labour are:

If it wants to be credible enough to win a fourth term, Labour has to be more objective in its analysis, more persuasive about what it has achieved, more honest about what it hasn’t and more articulate about what it would hope to do for the economy.

but he also highlights some of the weaknesses in National’s positioning:

In his state of the nation speech, John Key asked nine questions which he said the prime minister should answer before asking voters for another three years in power. They are all good questions to ask and, indeed, to fight the election on, as Key said he would. But in doing so he has dug his own deep economic hole. He has tabled some issues that no government regardless of ideology, policies or competence can hope to have much impact on.

While policies such as greater investment in infrastructure and Kiwisaver go some way to addressing the long term issues he goes onto say:

…progress is nowhere as big, fast, wide-scale or confident as it has to be to address the issues Key raised. So the onus is on him and his party to make a compelling case that they can do better. Their work to date, however, is disappointing…hopefully English and Key will start giving more and better speeches on the economy as they try to make the case they should be New Zealand’s next finance minister and prime minister.

We keep hearing that Mr Key says what people want to hear. Maybe we need a louder chorus asking for some concrete “how to” plans.

Rod Oram’s full text is here.

Nader standing

Published

on February 26, 2008

in international

. 12 Comments

Last night Ralph Nader announced his candidacy for President of the United States on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Many Democrats see Nader as a ’spoiler’ candidate and blame him for losing them the 2000 election, but in his announcement he came out swinging, attacking the two-party system and pointing out that “If the Democrats can’t landslide the election this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down.”

Good on him, I say.

Key’s shameful attack on journalist

Published

on February 26, 2008

in john key, national and workers' rights

. 81 Comments

One of the more unsavoury aspects of Key’s “we would love wages to drop” saga is the unwarranted attacks by Key and his allies on the journalist who quoted him, Greg Robertson.

Key referred to Robertson as some “young guy who was taking notes“. Key said Robertson’s quote was wrong, or that he was joking, or that he was talking about Australia. All of Key’s excuses attack Robertson’s credibility as a journalist. For reasons known only to themselves, the senior political journalists seem happy to believe Key’s contradictory tales, rather than their colleague.

So, is Robertson just “some young guy”, an inexperienced country reporter? I did some digging:

Greg Robertson is 35 years old. He has been a journalist for 10 years, 5 years as editor of The New Zealand Hardware Journal. He has been published in the NZ Herald, Northern Advocate, as well as trade magazines in New Zealand and abroad.

“Some young guy”, indeed. This is an experienced journalist who knows how to transcribe a quote. No wonder both the Northern Advocate and the Bay Report are standing behind their man on this issue. One has to wonder why others haven’t.

Key needs to apologise for his shameful attack on an experienced journalist and come clean on his wages policy.

Espiner on National’s hypocrisy

Published