Archive for the 'labour' Category

Why is there a media honeymoon?

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 25, 2008
in labour, media and national/act government
. 41 Comments

Why do new leaders get honeymoons? When you think about it, there’s no objective reason why a leader should get an easy run at first, not be asked the hard questions, be served lavish praise. So why does it happen?

Well, I asked around a few people who’d been there and done that, and the only credible answer I got was that it’s because the press gallery and the new leader are building relationships. It works like this: gallery journos need access, that means they have to get the new leader and his ministers to trust them, and that means no critical articles. To protect their ability to gain information for writing stories, the media have to only write nice stories. The new government has the power to shut them out, so they’ve got to protect their own arses. The new leaders are also building relationships. Flush with victory they are in an open, welcoming mood and with the media being so nice to them, they are minded to be even more open and friendly toward them. When you’re getting to be friends with people, and when your job prospects depend on good relations with them, it’s easy to have a honeymoon.

It’s not until one of the half-dozen people who essentially control our political discourse starts writing critical articles and others follow them that the honeymoon ends. That never really happened to Key during his time in opposition. Sure the political editors all got in their pro forma critical pieces but all were afraid of getting offside with someone they were certain would soon be PM. Moreover, some of them have a career change to consider. Watch over the next few weeks for at least one, possibly more, of the top political journos to join Key’s office.

Now, I know what you’re thinking - ‘this sucks, the people meant to hold our politicians to account are too busy trying to keep their jobs or get new ones’. Yeah, it does suck but there’s no changing the lay of the land. Instead, the Left, and Labour in particular, needs to do a much better job working with the media than they have done.

There is a tendency for the Left to view the media as an enemy to be fought, which is a big mistake. While the old media still control how the public perceives politics, Labour needs to work with them. In particular, they need to turn away from this paralysing ‘risk avoidance’ model and, instead, work on building personal relationships with the media.

The journos are just people, treat them with distrust and they’ll treat you badly back; be friendly and they’ll be nice back. And it’s not hard - they’re, most of them, genuinely nice people in person - just make friends. That’s something smiling John and National know all too well. It’s something Labour needs to learn, and quick.

Labour’s lessons

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 23, 2008
in election 2008 and labour
. 54 Comments

54,982 votes, 2.3% of the total. That was difference in the election. If Labour had lost 55,000 fewer votes to National (it lost 142.966 in total, while voter numbers grew 69,000) then a Labour (47), Green (9), Progressive (1), Maori (5) government would have been possible, a more natural and stable government than one that combines ACT and the Maori Party.

While Labour’s vote went down 138,000, the Greens gained 37,000 votes. Combined they lost 100,000 votes, whereas they would have gained 32,000 votes had the vote increased in line with the growing number of voters. Let’s look at where the votes were lost.

So, it’s a pretty consistent pattern across the country - Labour lost 500-2500 party votes in the vast majority of seats (the Left gained votes in only 7 seats). In general, the loss as heavier in the urban seats (but remember, Labour had more votes to lose in those seats). Labour lost 20-30% of its votes in the Auckland seats and Hamilton. The loss in Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin was smaller and more went to the Greens.

Votes for Labour in its South Auckland heartland fell more than average. The 14,000 votes lost there account for 10% of Labour’s lost votes in an area that accounts for only 7.5% of its nationwide vote. Turnout in South Auckland (by which I mean the four Ms) was down 10,000 from 2005 and 5000 more votes were lost to the Pacific Party. That’s not a vote for National or right-wing politics but it does seem to confirm that some South Auckland voters disaffected by Labour’s focus on liberal issues. (btw, this rubbish about an extra 100,000 votes being turned out in South Auckland in 2005 doesn’t add up - the increase in Labour votes in South Auckland from 2002 to 2005 was only 12,000, and total vote up only 20,000).

Auckland Central, another seat with previously strong support also experienced a big loss to National. Perhaps next time, Labour will put up a decent candidate who is willing to put the effort in to win. We can see the same pattern in other electorates where poor performing Labour MPs have seen what were once large majorities continue to erode or disappear altogether.

So, what does this tell us? Well, the success of the vacuous ‘time for a change’ slogan appears to have been widespread. The situation, particularly, in South Auckland ought to improve as feelings over the s59 issue will, especially if Labour moves back to its roots in work rights and public services. The importance of committed, strong candidates cannot be over-estimated. One bright side of the losses and change of leadership will be that a new crop will get a look in - as with National in 2002, the deadwood has been stripped.

This election was not lost by a huge amount. Labour’s base remains strong and the reasons for the loss of votes are pretty clear. It amounts to simple message to Labour: re-connect with your core policies, re-connect with your core supporters, and put up energetic candidates who stand for those values.

Goff announces shadow cabinet

Published
by
Tane
on November 20, 2008
in labour
. 44 Comments

Labour leader Phil Goff has announced his shadow cabinet. As announced already Cunliffe takes finance, Clark takes foreign affairs, Hughes and Chadwick are whips.

Annette King takes on social development in addition to the deputy leadership - a smart move, she’ll make mincemeat out of Paula Bennett. Ruth Dyson takes health, Chris Carter holds education and Clayton Cosgrove takes law and order (including police and corrections) as well as associate finance. Cosgrove’s a fighter so he’ll do well, but it does signal Labour will be clinging to its reactionary stance on law and order in opposition.

David Parker, in addition to shadow attorney-general, has two potentially big roles in ACC and electoral reform given National’s plan to reform these areas. Chauvel will take the fight on climate change as National and ACT try to weaken, delay and possibly even dump the ETS.

From a personal perspective I’m happy to see Trevor Mallard keep labour. Like many I was dubious at first but over the last year he’s more than proven his strength in that portfolio - something we’ll need as National and ACT start rolling back our rights at work.

Overall, a strong shadow cabinet with the strength and experience to come back in 2011. More encouraging still is the depth of talent further down the list - people like Jacinda Adern, Grant Robertson, Phil Twyford and Kelvin Davis. I’m sure we’ll see more of them very soon.

Full details below the break.

Continue reading ‘Goff announces shadow cabinet’

NZ Labour supporters site launched

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 20, 2008
in activism, blogs and labour
. 32 Comments

NZ Labour Supporters has been launched as an unofficial online hub for Labour supporters. It looks like a good wee site. Along the lines of g.blog for Greens supporters, any registered user can write blog posts. Looks like there are forums and the ability to contribute to a multi-media library too.

They’ve started off with an interesting story about one of our new ministers. Seems Paula Bennett was strongly anti-National when she was Massey Student Association President in 1996. Now, she’s a minister for the party she once described using some pretty choice words and seems set to implement the same policies she once vehemently opposed.

Farewell

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 19, 2008
in helen clark and labour
. 96 Comments

A crowd several hundred strong turned out this morning to farewell Helen Clark as she left Parliament as Prime Minister for the last time to present her Government’s official resignation to the Governor-General.

Even though I’m a Greenie, I always find Labour events amazingly heart-warming - such a huge variety of people young and old from all walks of life. And whether they’re officials, members, or supporters, they’re all just ordinary warm, good-hearted Kiwis who believe in a fairer, better New Zealand. It’s always a wonderful atmosphere amongst them. Although this was a sad occasion, there was still a strong sense of camaraderie, and of pride in a job well done.

After Clark’s car pulled away, the out-going ministers were surrounded by supporters. I was standing just beside the cameraman as this pic of Michael Cullen was taken. The woman must have asked him if he was feeling OK and, with that quick good-humoured wit that I’ve always found him to have in person, he smiled ‘well, I’ve had better months’ before bounding up the steps back to work.

So, we farewell the best government of my lifetime and one of our best ever. They and every one of their supporters can be enormously proud that their hard work has made New Zealand a better place for all.

What should Clark do?

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 18, 2008
in activism, helen clark and labour
. 28 Comments

There’s a lot of talk about Helen Clark leaving Parliament in a year or so to head for an international role. While Clark would obviously be more than capable of performing well at that level, I would prefer to see her do something completely different.

Labour needs to build its membership and its connections with the communities of South and West Auckland in particular. It is a disgrace that they are losing seats and party vote support in the heart of working class New Zealand. Labour needs to rebuild itself as the people’s party and build the popular demand for an improved social democracy. I would like to see Clark, MP for Mount Albert, lead that effort.

Now, some will say that if Labour has lost some connection with the working class it is the fault of Clark and her top-down leadership style. And I think there’s some truth to that. Certainly the Fifth Labour Government failed to take its opportunity to build political consciousness, public demand for improved social democracy. But she is still the person for the job of fixing that. She has the mana, she has the leadership and organisational skills. We also saw in the final days of the campaign that underneath the tough exterior, underneath the ’strong leader’ image, that Clark needed to win and keep her positions as Labour leader and PM there is still an idealist very much connected to her social democratic principles.

Such a role might not have the profile of a senior UN position but it is just as important. If Labour can build and extend its base, raise the political consciousness of the working class, our social democracy will be protected against whatever populist rubbish the Right can throw at it. Now, that would be a truly great legacy for Clark.

Undefeated

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 17, 2008
in activism, greens, labour, maori party, media and national/act government
. 41 Comments

Paul Holmes wrote yesterday: “While Labour moves to the Opposition benches, it does so weirdly unmolested by the election defeat, weirdly undefeated”

Damn right, the Left seems undefeated, and so it should. The Right has only won power by masquerading as the Left; Key’s mandate is only to maintain the legacy of the Fifth Labour Government (and, somehow, solve every problem going at the same time).

The Left was not rejected in a landslide - the Labour/Progressive/Green vote was 41.1% (will be 42% once specials are counted) compared to 47.2% in 2005. Those few percent who moved from Left to Right want a continuation of the policies of the last nine years, they just wanted a change of leadership for change’s sake.

It was a close race, a 2.5% shift from National to Labour (about what Labour lost in the closing two weeks of the campaign) would have been enough for a LPG+Maori government to be formed*. Despite nine years of government wearing away at support, despite a constant negative campaign for four years straight from National, despite a year-long campaign from the media, particularly the Herald, that recalls the vitriolic anti-Labour press of the 1930s, they only just got enough, the people did not abandon the Left in droves and they want to see the policies of the Left continued.

And, while many great policies are now on hold or under threat, we have a lot to look forward to. Being in opposition is a poor substitute for being in power, rather than racking up achievements the goal is to protect those that have been made form destruction, but at least now it will be Key and his mates having to answer the hard questions. Labour will be chomping at the bit, waiting for the first question time. For the activist too, having the Right in power is invigorating. In reality, we are always in opposition to the ruling capitalist class. Now that the capitalists’ parties are in power again, the heat comes back into the conflict. We can build and extend our networks as the Right’s policies increase consciousness and militancy in the Left.

Key has over-promised and simply has no policy plan which can deliver. Even though the media will continue to give him a free ride, the Left knows there will be plenty of opportunities to hammer his failures as time goes on.

Sure, the Left has lost the Treasury benches but they are just one tool with which we fight for what we believe in; we keep going without them. Yes we are undefeated, and we will soon start clocking up the victories again.

*(I know the Maori Party just went with National but the clear first preference of Maori Party voters and its membership was Labour - that’s the deal that would have been done if the Moari Party were kingmaker. Indeed, I’m hearing reports that many Maori Party supporters are fuming at Turia over the ‘consultation’ that took place before the deal with National was signed).

Gordon Campbell: new Labour leadership

Published
by
Dancer
on November 12, 2008
in articles, labour and maori party
. 42 Comments

As we’ve come to expect, a thought provoking piece from Gordon Campbell, who says

…the public may one day come to rue the change they sought on Saturday. But if and when they do, there is no guarantee that a paternalistic Labour would be the only, or best source of relief. The Greens, now that they are finally free from any structural ties to Labour, will be trying hard to supplant them as the most effective opposition party on the left. On industrial relations and beneficiary issues, the Greens have already been making much of the running in recent years. If Labour remains intent on projecting a kinder, more efficient brand of centrism, they could well be overtaken significantly on their left - and the risk will be increased if Act does manage to pull National further to the right.

Labour was a formidable team when last in opposition - tuned in to their networks, activists busy on the ground, and political issues to the fore. Let’s see whether this brave new team can live up to their counterparts of old (and how much of it those who were there before can remember). I’m thinking there will be interesting times ahead! Campbell also makes a good observation regarding the Maori party and their decision whether or not to become part of the government:

…much of Key’s hopes for a wider consensus will depend in the next few days on whether the Maori Party takes the bait, and comes on board with National. Why they would want to do so remains a mystery – because being a Minister isn’t a free lunch, and entails wider responsibility for the government to which said Minister belongs….

Update: i’ve just read “The Maori Party has reached a draft agreement with the National Party and will take it to its supporters to consider as soon as this evening.” Hui anyone?

Goff and King to lead Labour

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 11, 2008
in labour
. 94 Comments

As has been widely reported, Phil Goff is set to take the leadership of Labour with Annette King as deputy leader.

We’ll hear all kinds of nonsense about how this is a shift to the Right. Rubbish. We are not going to see Labour try to be National-lite.

First, while the leader of National essentially decides everything and the party trots along behind, Labour doesn’t work like that. Labour has a strongly democratic process for setting the policy direction and it learned in the 1980s that the leadership cannot abandon the ambitions of the rank and file.

Secondly, Labour doesn’t need to be National-lite. Voters did not reject Labour’s general policy programme of greater work rights, savings and investment, and greater environmental protection. Rather they responded to the ceaseless ‘time for a change’ rhetoric from the Right and Labour shot itself in the foot over what should have been minor issues. The failure of Clark and Cullen (and this is not to take away anything from their manifold achievements) was to not talk in terms of their vision for a more social-democratic New Zealand and keep the discourse focused on those big issues. It was not the policies that were the problem, it was a failure to communicate what those policies represent.

So, expect Goff, King and the rest of the caucus to keep Labour on the same policy track and promise to undo National/Act’s regressive policies like privatising ACC and slashing Kiwisaver. Hopefully, they will also be able to better articulate the principles that underlie those policies.

Fare thee well

Published
by
Dancer
on November 9, 2008
in articles, helen clark, john key and labour
. 37 Comments

Firstly I must say congratulations to the winners on the night, and sympathies to those who did not succeed. We may not hold politicians in high regard but they put themselves on the line.  The voting public have had their say and that, if nothing else, we must celebrate and respect. But for Labour the price has been high. It is the end of an era - and a time for both reflection and optimism for the future. Ian Lllewellyn said it well when he wrote:

…it was Miss Clark’s political and policy partnership with her deputy and finance minister Michael Cullen that built a legacy that is likely to stand the test of time. The introduction of Working for Families, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (also known as the Cullen Fund), Kiwibank, KiwiSaver and the renationalisation of the rail system all stand as a complete turn around of the policies of the 1990s.

It is a testament to the Clark/Cullen administration that the only way National leader John Key could win office was by promising to keep all of those institutions in place or tinkering with them at the edges.

Clark and Cullen have been a formidable team - the challenge for Labour is to create and support the next generation. Meantime we can look to the challenges ahead for Mr Key, as summarised by Steve Braunias:

The real John Key - assuming he exists - now has to stand up. He said he was ambitious for New Zealand; New Zealand, broke and vulnerable, is ambitious for John Key. He has been granted the opportunity of a lifetime.

And we will all be watching.

Making the decision

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 7, 2008
in act, election 2008, greens, helen clark, john key, labour, maori party, national, progressives and united future
. 55 Comments

Have you still not decided who you’ll vote for? The final poll shows the race between a National/ACT/United Future or a Labour/Green/Progressive/Maori government is neck and neck, so your choice matters. Here is some advice and tools that may help:

When choosing who to vote for there are three things you should consider:
policy - what does the party plan to do? Is that in the best interests of you, your family, your community, and the wider world?
trust - do you believe that the party will do what it says it will?
competence - do you think the people who would govern if that party is in power are up to the job?

Change for its own sake is not a reason to vote for a party. The Government has a very important job, you want the best parties to make up that government. Vote on the issues that matter to you, not trivial things that parties often concentrate on. The biggest issues for most people are having a job, getting enough money to afford a decent standard of living, health and education. Real freedom is not light-bulbs, it is having the income security to afford the life you want for you and your family.

Since Labour came to power, unemployment has fallen to record lows, wages have risen strongly, crime is down, health and education have improved, Working for Families and tax cuts have reduced tax to nearly zero for many families, government debt has been reduced, and private saving has been encouraged with Kiwisaver. A Labour-Green government will continue to build on this record. This article describes NZ under a Labour-led government

National’s record is wages dropping and high unemployment, this time their policies are to weaken work rights. National will not be putting more money into health and education, it would increase government debt and cut Kiwisaver in half. National’s tax cuts would increase tax for many families and would only give others 1-2% more in after-tax income. This article describes NZ under a National-led government

- This test calculates how well your personal views line up with the policies of each party
- This tax cut calculator is the only one that includes money you would lose from Kiwisaver contributions under National.
- The Standard Line series of posts addresses a number of the issues that have arisen during this campaign.

Wages still growing strongly

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 3, 2008
in election 2008, labour, national, wages and workers' rights
. 31 Comments

Despite the recession, wages have continued to grow at a record rate and, crucially, faster than inflation. The average hourly rate was up 5.5% over the past year. The percentage of the economy that goes to workers (rather than to the capital owners) continues to increase.

This is the outcome of running a low unemployment policy. Low unemployment is self-reinforcing because employers know it will be hard to get new staff later if they lay-off people now. That keeps people in work during tough periods; unemployment remains below 4% for now. Low unemployment also means employers have to offer better wages and conditions to attract and retain workers.

Contrast that with the history under National. The unemployment rate was kept high, benefits were cut, and the minimum wage was allowed to drop all in a successful effort to keep wages down and leave more profits for National’s business backers. Bill English said that the idea of unemployment below 6% was a “hoax“. Wages fell for most workers and the share of the nation’s wealth going to workers fell.

Advertising, getting it right and getting it wrong

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 3, 2008
in election 2008, labour and media
. 62 Comments

Labour’s new ad is one of the best political ads I’ve seen.

It’s just a really well written script: acknowledging the success of the Right’s ‘time for a change’ meme and undercutting it, getting in some positive points on Labour that are forward-looking, and getting in the sting on Key. ‘Mary’ is what National calls a ‘Labour plus’ voter(as was revealed in the secret agenda tapes). She says she had thought that ‘the new guy’ deserves a chance, a view that many Kiwis will have held or heard, but she has changed her mind because she can’t trust him to deliver for her family, whereas she knows Labour delivers. That will resonate with many voters.

In contrast, take a look at ACT’s latest ad (which, inexplicably, they were playing at quarter to nine in the morning).

Amateur hour. ACT used to be the most well-funded party for its size, now they can’t even afford a decent ad. Maybe the money-man has got them to give to National instead.

Side-show

Published
by
Tane
on October 31, 2008
in election 2008, labour, national and workers' rights
. 32 Comments

I see the media are now comparing the “redundancy” packages on offer with all of the horse race vigour they applied to the tax cuts. That’s understandable as the media like quantifiable measures so they can make simple graphs and X is greater or less than Y soundbite statements. But what they have forgotten is that neither package is better than a decent redundancy clause and of the major parties only Labour is offering one of those.

I don’t expect it’ll be great but let’s have a look at what redundancy means:

A standard redundancy (at the low end) is 4+2* capped at 20 years.

That means someone who has worked for 5 years in the same job who is made redundant at a time they are taking home $500 a week in the hand will get fourteen weeks of pay or $7000 dollars.

If they have worked 20 years they get 44 weeks of pay or $22,000. Compared to the “assistance” the two parties are offering that’s a lot of cash to use to cover your mortgage and look after your family.

Sounds too good to be true? Well, 80% of union negotiated employment agreements have redundancy clauses and 4+2 is on the low end - many are 6+2 or 8+2.

When you consider Labour’s policy is to protect workers’ rights and introduce a minimum redundancy, while National won’t commit to such a policy and wants to make it harder for unions to negotiate, it’s pretty clear which party is really looking out for workers who lose their jobs.

The media frenzy over these assistance packages is a side-show in comparison.

[*This means a redundancy formula of four weeks' pay on signing up and two weeks for every year of service.]

Tories’ crack at socialism a poor substitute

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on October 31, 2008
in election 2008, labour, national, wages, welfare and workers' rights
. 5 Comments

National’s redundancy package would effectively continue Working for Families payments for some people who would otherwise lose them after redunancy. Only people who have been in the same job for six months would get it, cutting out labourers, temps, and contract workers. For about the same cost, it would deliver more money to fewer people than Labour’s policy, and would give more money to the more well-off. Labour’s scheme is better for the working class, National’s for highly indebted mortgage holders.

It’s nice they’ve had a crack at protecting workers but the instinct to favour the better-off always wins through, eh?

[You also have to consider the wider packages. While Labour's strengthening work rights and offering a minimum redundancy entitlement, National won't dare touch redundancy out of fear of offending its business mates and is instead planning to give employers the power to fire at will during a recession.]

Whose record is better?

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on October 31, 2008
in activism, election 2008, greens, labour, national and youtube
. 6 Comments

I found it weird that National’s attack ad is a series of newspaper headlines. Everyone knows newspaper headlines are sensationalist and everyone knows that things were much worse under National in the 1990s, as this new youtube vid illustrates:

Meanwhile, the upbeat jokers at 08wire have a positive reponse to the Nat attack ad:

More redundancy protection

Published
by
Tane
on October 30, 2008
in benefits, labour and workers' rights
. 76 Comments

It’s good to see Labour turning its focus back onto policy (and particularly the economy) today with its announcement of a “job search allowance” for people made redundant in the coming economic downturn.

Basically, the allowance means if you lose your job you’ll be eligible for the dole without means-testing for up to 13 weeks. Next to its policy to bring in a minimum redundancy entitlement and a retraining allowance, we’re starting to see from Labour a pretty solid plan to provide security for workers and their families as the economy starts to deteriorate.

The only real I have with the policy is that it excludes people who have been in the work force for less than five years - I can’t see any good reason why young people, many of whom will have families, should miss out.

Still, overall this is good, sensible, vote-winning stuff.

It’ll be interesting to see what the Nats come up with tomorrow in response. The signs are their package will be heavily targeted toward middle-income swing voters but I’ll hold my judgement until I’ve seen it. One thing’s for sure though, they’ve got their work cut out for them if they want to trump this one.

The Standard line: Tax cuts

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on October 30, 2008
in The Standard line, election 2008, labour, national and tax
. 23 Comments

[update: download this (tax-and-kiwisaver-calculator) simple excel table that will calculate tax cut and Kiwisaver losses under Labour and National, and the difference, for you and your family. No other calculator has included Kiwisaver losses]

So, you’re talking with someone about politics and they say something really dumb and wrong and you know it’s wrong but you don’t have the arguments and facts at your fingertips to make a decisive point. That’s where our election series, The Standard line, comes in. The info you need in bite-size form. Today: tax cuts

Points:
- tax cuts are not the only thing you should judge a party on. Tax is used to provide public services - there is a trade-off between tax cuts and better public services
- don’t just consider your personal situation. Just because one party offers you a bigger tax cut is it worthwhile if others you care about lose out?
- If you, like 1 million people, earn less than $14,000 the tax cuts from both parties are the same
- If you, like around 500,000 people, earn $14,000 to $24,000 you get more from Labour’s tax cuts
- If you, like around 500,000 people, get Working for Families, Super, or a benefit and your income is less than $44,000 your tax cut is larger under Labour because you wouldn’t get National’s ‘independent earner’ rebate
- if you, like 850,000 people, are in Kiwisaver you will be better off with Labour because National would cut Kiwisaver to pay for its tax cuts.
- Most of the money in Labour’s cuts will go to low and middle incomes, most of the money in National’s cuts would go to the wealthy. Just 10% of people get 40% of the money in National’s cuts.
- A family with children, each parent earning $35,000 and in Kiwisaver would be $52 a week worse off under National compared to Labour’s cuts. John Key would be $87 a week better off.
- National’s next round of tax cuts would come in 2009, a year before Labour’s next round, but there is nothing in that second round for anyone earning less than $48,000 and most of the money would go to people earning more than $70,000.
- Labour’s tax cuts are already passed into law. Labour has said they will not be cancelling their next rounds of cuts

No smoking gun

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on October 30, 2008
in john key, labour and media
. 151 Comments

It turns out the Herald’s story about John Key’s H-fee involvement is a bust. Aside from Key not being straight with the dates he worked at Elders there isn’t anything firm to tie him to the actual fraud.

That’s not the story I expected given the Herald had decided to lead with this story on their website yesterday afternoon and hinted at a “smoking gun”. The reason it wasn’t the story I expected is because about a month ago we had material anonymously emailed to us that gave the background to the H-fee and included a series of posts outlining the issue. We ran the first of these posts but after trawling through the story and checking as much as we could we decided there simply wasn’t enough substance to run with. It now looks like we weren’t the only ones who were receiving this information.

There are still questions to be answered about this story, such as why did John get his dates wrong with the inoculation he took to the Herald in 2007 and why was the Herald promising audio of the 2007 interview yesterday and treating the story like a scoop when it knew there was no hard evidence?

But I expect these questions will be lost in the mishandling of the issue. My advice to Labour? Make sure you’ve got your ducks lined up before you go to the media, and when National is releasing stuff like their appalling prison policy don’t waste your time on blind alley stories like this one.

A clear choice on ACC

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on October 29, 2008
in ACC, act, election 2008, greens, health, labour, national, progressives, united future and workers' rights
. 46 Comments

If you vote National, United Future, or ACT, you will be voting for the ACC system to be privatised. Consequences of this include:

- $200 million in profits flowing offshore, according to John Key’s former employers Merril Lynch
- higher levies on most workers, as private insurers cherry-pick the most profitable for themselves, leaving the rest to be carried by the public insurer
- currently, the work account subsidises accidents that fall under other accounts. Privatisation will mean these claims have to be funded entirely from tax and other levies like car registration.
- less certain coverage. Private insurers make their money by not paying out claims
- less money for accident prevention. As a monopoly, ACC benefits from accident prevented, so it invests heavily in accident prevention. Private insurers would only have a fraction of the market each, so would only receive a fraction of the benefit from investment in accident reduction. A ‘tragedy of the commons’-type situation.
- more complexity in changing jobs. Different employers will have different insurers, changing obs will require changing insurer.
- getting a job may be more difficult if you are more likely to have an accident if that means higher levies for your prospective employer, eg if you are a young male or overweight.
- private insurance increases the administrative burden for healthcare providers.
- private insurers will try to minimise payouts and force other insurers to make the payouts instead. These boundary issues lead to more court cases. This type of personal injury litigation has choked the US court system.
-if your insurance company collapses when you have an ongoing claim, what will happen to your payments?

If you vote Labour, Green, Progressive (and, presumably, Maori), you will be voting to keep ACC in public ownership and this world-leading system intact. By moving out the point when the pubic system takes over liability for accidents that were covered by private insurers during the brief privatisation period in the 1990s, Labour will reduce the cost of ACC, allowing employer levies and car registration to drop 20% from next year.