Archive for the 'kremlinology' Category

Between the lines: Nats’ outdoor rec policy

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on July 23, 2008
in environment, kremlinology and national
. 28 Comments

The ‘policies’ National is releasing are nothing more than bullet points but we know from a number of slips that these vague one-pagers only scrape the surface. When they’re talking to friendly audiences without the media around, National’s MPs tend to be more forthcoming and rightwing when discussing policy. Clues can also be found in the coded language of their ‘policies’. The trick is that often only specialists can see the implications of what National is suggesting. So, we’re talking to a number of specialists in relevant areas to help us read between the lines. Today - Outdoor Recreation:

• Change the focus of Conservation Boards and rename them Conservation & Recreation Boards (or similar). Membership of these boards will reflect the diversity of recreation pursuits. • Ensure that public access is achieved through negotiated agreements between landowners and local Conservation & Recreation Boards. • Create new affordable campsites for New Zealand families where there is demand.
= open up National parks to more invasive and damaging activities and opening marine reserves to fishing. That’s bad for our native animals and plants, the sustainability of our fisheries, and traditional users of National parks like trampers.

• Recognise the status of hunters as important stakeholders in the outdoor environment. • Establish recreation areas managed by hunters on conservation land using a framework that protects conservation values. • Include hunters in the decision-making process for the management of game animals.
= as hunters already have input these changes mean putting hunters ahead of conservation and other users of DoC land.

• Give Fish & Game the option to charge a differential licence fee for foreign anglers. • Develop management plans with stakeholders in fragile and iconic trout fisheries. • Oppose the introduction of recreational sea fishing licences. • Encourage local management of local fisheries.
= put anglers’ interests ahead of other members of the community and conservation.

Context: These changes seem designed to sacrifice conservation for recreation. The big beneficiaries: hunting and fishing tourist operators. Also, the Outdoor Recreation Party left its coalition with UnitedFuture last year, National may see money and votes in securing the support of the people between ORP.

If you can provide more specialist information on National’s ‘policies‘, such as broadband or early childhood education, flick us an email at thestandard@gmail.com.

Kremlinology: National on ACC

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on June 16, 2008
in election funding, kremlinology, same old national and workers' rights
. 41 Comments

In most countries, accident insurance is big business. Insurers and lawyers make billions off premiums, claims, and court cases but many people don’t actually get any cover if they are injured. The Third Labour Government set up ACC to ensure everyone would have cover if they were injured. It also freed up the court system for more important things. Studies show ACC provides top-notch cover and is cost-effective.

Of course, the insurance companies lost a great money spinner and have wanted it back ever since. So, they have donated heavily to National to get ACC privatised. National did that in its dying days in 1999 but Labour reversed privatisation in 2000 – just in time, as one of the major workplace insurance providers, HIH, later collapsed owing $1 billion. Privatisation of ACC remained a policy into the 2005 election, when the insurance industry gave National $1 million. National and the insurance industry agreed to keep the policy secret. But this memo leaked.

So, what’s their policy now? The hints are privatisation is still on the cards. National is still in secret talks with big business about policy. In recent days, both Bill English and Pansy Wong have been quoted talking about wanting ‘competition’. Allowing private companies to compete with ACC would see the insurers siphon off the most profitable, low-risk businesses and workers and put the principle of universal cover in jeopardy. But, hey, at least the insurers will make big bucks.

There would be no waiting until the last minute this time, either. Having learnt their lesson from 1999, National would rush through privatisation at the start of their term this time in an effort to make it harder to reverse later.

Notional Policy: Kiwisaver

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on May 30, 2008
in kremlinology, national and workers' rights
. 23 Comments

Tracy Watkins reported yesterday that National’s weakening of the employer contribution to Kiwisaver may take a different path to the one we envisaged. Rather than limiting employer contributions to a lower level Watkins reports businesses want to be able to dock or cut wages to compensate for the Kiwisaver contributions they make. This is currently illegal.

Now, an employer is already compensated by a tax credit on the first $20 a week they contribute to a worker’s Kiwisaver and tax deductibility on contributions in excess of that. So, hopefully, National wouldn’t allow wages to be lowered by the whole amount of contributions, only the part not covered by the Government.

So, time for some Notional Party Policy:

- Employers will be allowed to dock wages by the amount they pay into their employee’s Kiwisaver, less Government compensation.

What’s the effect of this? The worker loses out because their wages are lower.

Someone on the average wage would lose $48,000 over a working life, and the benefit would go entirely to businesses, who will no longer have to contribute anything – all their ‘contributions’ being covered by the Government or the worker.

Stories like this stress how important it is for National to come clean on its plans for Kiwisaver. There are hundreds of thousands of Kiwis trying to save for their retirements here, and they deserve some security.

Why didn’t Kate know Nats’ Kiwisaver policy?

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on May 29, 2008
in kremlinology and national
. 33 Comments

The most surprising thing to come of the National’s Kiwisaver fiasco is not that they want to undermine the scheme and get employers out of paying their part (this is the party of big business, after all). No, the real shock is to learn that Kate Wilkinson, National’s Industrial Relations spokesperson, is not involved in developing National’s policy on the biggest new work rights issue of the past year and “ignorant”, in Key’s words, of the policy.

This is just incredible: National spokespeople not developing policy in the major issues under their portfolio and not even informed by the leadership of what that policy is. It fits though, with what a couple of drunk National backbenchers told a reader one night “John doesn’t really know what he wants to do if (when, hah!) he becomes Prime Minister and he certainly hasn’t told us!”

Policy development is in the hands of a few senior Nats (assuming that someone is developing National policy). The fact that National is not sharing the load as normal can only have one explanation – the leadership does not trust the caucus because the caucus is opposed to Key’s policy direction. That certainly meshes with the stories of internal ructions we keep hearing. Like the Rogernome faction that controlled Labour in the 1980s, a small band within National is controlling policy, keeping the rest of the party and the country in the dark.

The results of such cabal politics were disastrous for Labour in the 1980s, and it looks like it’s starting to damage National too.

[incidentally, what a world where a party is scared to announce its own policy and its opposition is keen for it to see the public light. Both National and its opponents believe that if people know what National wants to do in government it will cost the party support]

Kremlinology: National and Kiwisaver

Published
by
Tane
on May 28, 2008
in kremlinology, national, slippery and workers' rights
. 15 Comments

National’s refusal to say what it stands for is becoming so ridiculous we have resorted to the Cold War art of Kremlinology. Today, we look at Kiwisaver.

National has had a tortured relationship with Kiwisaver. When it was first introduced in 2005 John Key described it as a “terribly designed system” and spent the next year deriding the scheme as a “glorified Christmas Club” that “won’t work” because it is “fundamentally flawed.”

By the time Michael Cullen released Kiwisaver Mark II in last year’s Budget Key had changed his tune, attacking the new turbo-charged version but describing the old version with fondness: “we think, um, the first mark I version of it worked very, you know, was probably gonna be successful and not too bad.”

Then came the unedifying spectacle of Bill English at the Kiwisaver conference in March refusing to give National’s policy on the scheme. In a media scrum afterwards, he let slip that National would keep the Government matching contributions but refused to comment on the employer contributions.

National does not like Kiwisaver and the employer contributions in particular. So, it was plausible when National’s employment spokesperson, Kate Wilkinson, said National was against compulsory employer contributions. But that was quickly retracted by Key (and we learned National spokespeople are not involved in policy development in their portfolios) to be replaced by a slightly less empty void: National would keep compulsory employer contributions in a “pretty similar” form.

The conclusion must be that National is planning to weaken the employer contribution, probably by stopping contributions at 2% from April next year, rather than growing them to 4% by 2011. This will not save the Government anything, it will still be covering $20 a week of employer of contributions but it will mean that for employees earning less than $52,000 a year employers will pay nothing. Kiwisavers’ nest eggs will be smaller but businesses will get away with contributing nothing.

Kremlinology: Nats’ tax plans

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on May 26, 2008
in election 2008, kremlinology, national and tax
. 11 Comments

National is still refusing to give us any detail on its tax cut plan, indicating it doesn’t have one. But let’s do a bit of Kremlinology to work out what we might expect from them when they eventually get their act together.

The size of Labour’s tax cuts has spooked National. Key’s speech in reply to the Budget was a mess, and the Nats have been all over the place since. National continues to say its tax cuts will be larger but Key is now saying other things matter too (what other things and how he would somehow magically fix them, he doesn’t say). Key no longer talks about $50 plus for the average worker. Now, he says the Nat’s package “may be” bigger than Labour’s. This indicates that National has looked at the Budget numbers and seen there really is nothing left.

There are vague mutterings from National about cutting spending but they have openly pledged not to cut funding and inbuilt increases for health, education, welfare, superannuation, defence, and infrastructure. Working for Families and Kiwisaver are also protected although National hasn’t ruled out reductions. That’s most of government spending ruled out. There is nothing left for big cuts.

So, National’s cuts will not be much larger than Labour’s (or, if they are, they will be offset by WfF or Kiwisaver cuts for many families). Additionally, National says they will target their cuts to those on upper incomes. With the same limited pot as Labour’s cuts and more of the money going to the rich, less will go to most people.

The October 1 cuts will already be in place by the election. So, we’re looking at what National might do differently after them. It could raise the 39% bracket to 100K and the 33% bracket to 55K , and off-set that by not raising the start of the 21% bracket to 20K as Labour intends but keeping it at 14K.

As ever with National, this can only be a vague suggestion of what they might do but it is clear that if National wants to prioritise cuts for the rich, it will mean smaller cuts for those on low and medium incomes.

National still won’t say what they’d do

Published
by
all_your_base
on May 21, 2008
in bill english, economy, john key, kremlinology, same old national, workers' rights and youtube
. 9 Comments

Seemingly content to coast along on the “time for a change” sentiment, the National Party are still refusing to offer any substantive details in major policy areas: government debt, work rights and retirement savings.

English ended up sounding like a broken record on Agenda a few days back. His stock answer was ‘I can’t tell you that until we’re closer to the election’ which is really just a continuation of National’s “small target” election strategy. They’re aiming to minimise risk until the last moment, and having the public know what their policy is in areas like industrial relations is a real risk. There are some rats that Key’s big business backers just won’t allow him to swallow.

In the interview below, English refuses to say what their target is on government debt. What we do know is that National wants to borrow more. If they lift debt from 18.5 per cent (where it is currently) to the 25 per cent they’re talking about, that’s an increase of $10.2 billion. Kiwi taxpayers will have to find another $600 million or so per year just to cover the interest. There seems little doubt that National means ‘increased debt’.

Nor would English come clean on his party’s industrial relations policy. Espiner questions him on National’s plans for “more flexible” employment law, alluding of course to Wayne Mapp’s now infamous ‘90 day bill’ which would have allowed the most vulnerable workers to be fired without recourse after three months in a job. English wouldn’t say but presumably that proposal’s still on the table. It looks like National still means ‘less rights at work’.

He wouldn’t give any details on retirement savings either but English tellingly revealed that while KiwiSaver would be retained it may not be retained “in the same form”. It’s no secret that the Nats are under pressure from businees to water down KiwiSaver by reducing or scrapping employer contributions. So despite the fact they won’t say what their intentions are, it looks like National also means ‘crippling KiwiSaver’.

Contrary to Key’s pitch that a change to National means “all of the stuff you like but none of the stuff you don’t” it looks like what might actually be in store is a renewed assault on workers’ rights, a crippled KiwiSaver and increased National debt. It’s a pity they won’t just follow ACT’s example: come clean and let the public decide for themselves.

Kremlinology: National on work rights

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on May 20, 2008
in bill english, kremlinology, national and workers' rights
. 24 Comments

National’s refusal to say what it stands for is becoming so ridiculous we have resorted to the Cold War art of Kremlinology. Today, we look at work rights.

On Agenda, Bill English said he is concerned about new ‘entitlements’ for workers. ‘Entitlements’ is an anti-worker way of saying work rights - it implies that they are some gift from a benevolent boss, who should also be allowed to take them away; not a right workers have won through struggle and the political process.

What are some of the work rights that have been introduced under Labour?

  • Four weeks annual leave
  • Minimum wage up 70% in eight years
  • Paid parental leave
  • Restoration of holiday pay
  • The right to flexible work hours
  • Promotion of collective bargaining
  • End of youth pay rates
  • Kiwisaver
  • Right to meal breaks
  • The right to breastfeed at work
  • The right to union access to workplace
  • Good faith bargaining
  • The right to have unions recognised as legal entities

So, which of these new work rights does English want to remove?

National: we’ll borrow for tax cuts for the rich

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on May 19, 2008
in kremlinology, national and tax
. 72 Comments

Discovering National’s policy is a bit like the old art of Kremlinology, when Western intelligence agencies would attempt to discover the inner workings of Soviet politics by looking at who stood next to whom in pictures, and what hand politburo members carried their briefcases in. The latest subtle signs from National regarding its tax policy are: they will average “north of $50” a week and will focus on the 14% of people with incomes over $60,000 a year. The only way to achieve those parameters (without a tax-free bracket or cut to GST both of which National oppose) is to create a flat tax of 16%. The average cut would be $50 a week, but it would be spread very unevenly: on $250,000 a year you would get $920 a week; on the median income of $27,000 you would get $12.50, half of New Zealand taxpayers, 1.6 million people, would get less than that.

$50 a week x 52 weeks x 3.2 million taxpayers means National’s tax cuts would cost over $8.6 billion a year, that would create a huge cash deficit of around $5 billion a year. The money can’t be found by silly little measures like capping the core public service that will deliver only $166 million a year by National’s own estimate. In fact, the only part of government spending to which National has not ruled out major cuts and is sufficiently large for cuts to fund such enormous tax cuts is superannuation. And even if it slashed superannuation, National would still need to borrow to fund the tax cuts. National has previously said it is prepared to increase gross government debt 50% (from 17% of GDP to 25%); it is now clear it would use that debt to fund tax cuts for the wealthy few.

A realistic projection of National’s tax cut plan sees most people worse off: they would get little or nothing from tax cuts, with most of the money going to the wealthy few. They would face a diminished social wage from less Government spending, and have to spend more of their income buying things that are now provided by the Government. And they would face skyrocketing inflation and interest rates resulting from National borrowing billions of dollars to fund irresponsible cuts. But, as we already know, Key and National will promise anything, anything, to win.