General Election 2017 – Evening Report

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Is Labour yielding too much to business?

Bryce Edwards — Thu, 30 Aug 2018 04:03:53 +0000

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Is Labour yielding too much to business?

[caption id="attachment_13635" align="alignright" width="150"] Dr Bryce Edwards.[/caption] It might traditionally be the “workers party”, but at the moment Labour is making a serious play of inviting business into the tent, in order to stop their traditional foe lobbing bombs from the outside. That’s the upshot of this week’s major charm offensive from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to the business community. Her speech to business leaders in Auckland on Tuesday came with the announcement of a new Business Advisory Council, which is supposed to allow business interests more influence at the highest levels of Government. [caption id="attachment_15386" align="aligncenter" width="1600"] New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, at the APEC leaders’ summit, November 2017 (Image courtesy of APEC.org).[/caption] Obviously, the Labour-led Government is attempting to mollify business with this announcement, along with other concessions spelt out in Ardern’s speech. The objective is to turn around the so-called plummeting business confidence surveys that Labour is embarrassed by. But isn’t this going too far? Does it mean Labour has capitulated to vested interests? Certainly, some are worried that the Government is placing the demands of business interests too high in the policy-making process. Herald business journalist Fran O’Sullivan points out just how influential the new business group will be: “Ardern says the council’s role will be to build closer relationships between Government and business, provide high-level free and frank advice to the Prime Minister on key economic issues, and to create a vehicle to harness expertise from the private sector to inform the development of the Government’s economic policies” – see: Anointing Christopher Luxon a smart move by Jacinda Ardern. Ardern herself has said “I want to work closely with, and be advised by, senior business leaders who take a helicopter view of our economy”, and she has invited business leaders to “join us in taking the lead on some of the important areas of reform the Government is undertaking”. Writing in the NBR, Brent Edwards reports how the head of Business New Zealand, Kirk Hope, is impressed with the new initiative, saying “the new body is important because it gives business a direct line to the prime minister” – see: Prime Minister urged to slow the pace of employment law changes. Hope is quoted saying, “As another conduit to government and as a formal mechanism for engagement with the prime minister over policy I think … it’s probably a smart idea and a really critical channel for business.” But Edwards notes that “Business New Zealand is already represented on five government-initiated working groups, including reviewing the tax system, the future of work and pay equity.” Business journalist Rob Stock points out that, in general, business interests are already incredibly dominant in the policy making process, and it is therefore absurd to give them even more power: “I can think of many interest groups who lack a political voice. Business is not one of them. Business has money. It is well organised. Its opinion on anything is easily gauged. It has a powerful voice. It has its business membership groups – a bewildering number of them” – see: The Business Advisory Council is a waste of time; or is it a belated masterstroke? After listing a large number of powerful business interest groups, Stock then explains their current political power: “Each has a staff of experts, policy officers, lobbyists, and communications people. On literally no topic is it possible for the government not to know what business thinks and wants.” And, says Stock, these groups have a big impact on legislation: “I hear the voice of business echoing in all government discussion papers. It works like this. A minister announces a review. A few policy options are flagged. Business lobbyists go about their work. When the discussion paper comes out, much of the watering down has already happened… And then comes the whole consultation, and law-making process.” The same article also includes the analysis of Stuff’s new national business editor Rebecca Stevenson, who is much more enthusiastic about integrating business more into government’s decision-making. She says: “This announcement is a smart one in my view. It makes business feel included, which has been sorely lacking”. Stevenson lists various ways in which the current Government has apparently sidelined business interests, including when “the prime minister failed to turn up for the Deloitte Top 200 awards in November” and when “business failed to gain even one single mention” in the Budget (“That had to sting”). Therefore, for her, the new advisory council is “the least the Government could do for business. Literally.” Like Stock, The Spinoff’s Toby Manhire also sees the absurdity of the Government attempting to give business even more power: “There is of course something fairly hilarious about the creation of an advisory group for big business. If you’re searching for underrepresented voices who go unheard in the corridors of power, who lack the resource and networks to put their case in policy making, big business is probably not going top of the list. But that just underscores the symbolism in all of this” – see: Jacinda Ardern takes on the elephants and albatrosses in the business zoo. Nonetheless, Manhire believes Ardern’s charm offensive has probably worked. He says that her main message to business is “We promise you we are listening”, and he thinks “she’s probably done enough to shake something of that albatross” of low business confidence from around Labour’s neck. Business journalist Jason Walls has also reacted with surprise, saying there are already ample opportunities for business interests to have input into the workings of this government. He questions whether another is needed: “what about the Treasury? What about the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)? The Reserve Bank? BusinessNZ? Surely they should be doing this type of work already. On top of that, we have a Minister of Finance who has not one, not two but three Associate Ministers as well as a Minister of Revenue and Small Business. And already this year, the Government has already established two other business-led groups to help advise the Government – the Tripartite Future Work Forum and the Small Business Council” – see: Jacinda Ardern’s latest pitch to woo business won’t work – here’s why. Does business even deserve to have more influence? That’s the question asked by University of Auckland professor of economics Tim Hazledine, who hopes “that the talking at the Council’s meetings is not all in one direction” – see: Business Advisory Council could prick ‘lack of confidence’ bubble. He thinks that the Prime Minister should be using the new council to tell business to get its act together. Hazledine agrees that New Zealand has a business confidence problem, but of a different sort: “there is indeed a substantive ‘business confidence’ issue in New Zealand: it is about our, the people’s, lack of confidence in them – specifically, in the big business corporate sector. Overall, the corporate sector in New Zealand has been a conspicuous poor performer over the past thirty years.” Possibly the most interesting and challenging criticism of the Government’s new business working group comes from former Reserve Bank economist Michael Reddell, who has two big problems with the new approach – see his blog post, A country is not a company. First, “such councils can be a path towards cronyism. On the one hand, attracting sycophants who like to be able to tell their mates they have the ear of the Prime Minister. And on the other, more concerningly, enabling selected business heads to bend the ear of ministers and put pressure on them to make decisions favourable to the specific economic interests of those involved and their employers.” Second, he challenges the very notion that businesspeople have expertise in running economies: “what do chief executives of businesses know about overall economic management, and the challenges of New Zealand’s longstanding productivity underperformance?”. Reddell argues that “Expertise on economic management, and the particular confounding challenges the New Zealand economy faces, just aren’t the sort of thing that tends to be fostered in the course of a corporate career.” There were other aspects of the Prime Minister’s speech to business that the audience should have been appreciative of, according to the New Zealand Herald – see its editorial: Two small words from PM should lift business confidence. In particular, they should be thankful to the PM for saying “We won’t” on the issue of relaxing the conservative fiscal policies contained in their Budget Responsibility Rules. And the editorial points out that Ardern reiterated that planned industrial relations reform will not “fundamentally disrupt the employment relations landscape” established by the National Government. According to Stuff political editor Tracy Watkins, such statements about industrial relations reform show that this government is now shifting away from a more radical and transformative approach, and towards a moderate and incrementalist approach – in the same way that Helen Clark and John Key pragmatically ran their governments – see: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s plan to bring the boardroom into the Beehive. Could it be that this Government has rolled over too easily in the face of business grumpiness? Pattrick Smellie writes today that “The degree of political attention paid to the decline in business confidence… is overblown”, and the “Government has let itself be spooked, which may say something about its internal confidence about the cohesion of the economic plan it says it’s pursuing” – see: Magnifying the elephant in the boardroom. Finally, the capitulation of the Government to business might actually be the opposite of how it looks. Mike Hosking argues that Labour is simply co-opting business leaders in order to blunt their opposition, because “what you are achieving is getting buy-in from them. They are signing up for the plan. They are on board with the government because they are in the pay if not debt of the government… once you’re on a government board you work for the government” – see: Jacinda Ardern’s Business Advisory Council is political genius.]]>

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Why Gareth Morgan’s TOP failed

Bryce Edwards — Fri, 13 Jul 2018 01:39:53 +0000

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Why Gareth Morgan’s TOP failed

[caption id="attachment_13635" align="alignright" width="150"] Dr Bryce Edwards.[/caption] There was always a big problem with The Opportunities Party – no one really knew what it stood for, and no one really knew what type of voters it was appealing to. Yes, it claimed to exist to promote “evidence-based policies”, but to some extent all parties say this and it’s simply not a compelling enough reason for voters. In terms of its target voter, TOP itself didn’t seem to know who it was trying to appeal to. Even Gareth Morgan seems to admit today on Twitter that he and deputy leader, Geoff Simmons, differed in who they were focused on: “Geoff’s interest was always only in millennials, the children of the urban property-owning elite who hang out at universities. Mine is more in working class people who are underpaid while the urban elite is protected from the tax break on income from owner occupied property”. The bigger problem was that many conservatives saw the party as politically “liberal” and many liberals saw the party as “conservative” – partly because it tried to be all things to all people, and hence failed to be anything very clear at all. Or as Liam Hehir puts it, TOP was “Too woke for talkback town, too talkback for woke town” – see: TOP, we hardly knew ye. Hehir elaborates on this liberal-conservative confusion: “What was TOP’s constituency? Where was its power base? It was a populist movement whose leader displayed disdain for the stupidity of common voters. It was an anti-establishment party that was going to rise up against the entrenched way of doing things from its base in, er, bureaucratic Wellington. It railed against personality driven politics while earning free media on the basis of celebrity.” This ideological confusion was there, Hehir says, from its very first day: “The muddled waywardness of TOP was there at its inception. Immediately following his announcement of the party, Morgan compared himself to Donald Trump. Then he took that back and said distanced himself from Trump. Finally, he said he was a bit like Trump. This was all at the same press conference, by the way.” Perhaps the lesson is that TOP was attempting to be a populist party in a country where there is currently little appetite for any sort of anti-Establishment political movement. This is the message of Giovanni Tiso’s blog post, Don’t let the garage door hit you. Tiso explains that the modus operandi of Morgan: “was to follow the playbook of the likes of Berlusconi, Trump and other contemporary populists. Beginning with chapter one, which instructs to seek controversy, always, in order to monopolise the news cycles and bamboozle the political debate.” However, the problem is those voters who might be interested in such a populist message seem to have departed from active participation in the political system: “the victims of our economic system are also largely excluded from the democratic process: so populists simply have no-one to appeal to – at least no-one who can be relied upon to vote. These are the very same conditions that stand in the way of genuine progressive alternatives.” Credit is given by Tiso for TOP’s taxation policies: “TOP was the only party that sought to shift the balance of taxation away from wages and towards capital, including capital tied in real estate. That Labour and the Greens have abandoned any serious attempt to shift this burden – or even admit, in the face of record level of unaffordability, that lower house prices may be a good thing – is one of the New Zealand left’s most enduring shames. And if there is a useful challenge to carry forward from TOP’s failed experiment, it should probably be this.” Tiso also criticises Morgan for simply not having the patience to progress his policies, which is what is normally required by new political formations. This is also the main point made by blogger No Right Turn, who says “Morgan’s biggest problem is that he is impatient” – see: TOP and the politics of impatience. No Right Turn makes the argument that other small parties like the Greens have played the long-game, and have ultimately been successful in bringing about some major changes. Here’s his main point: “Building consensus behind policy and changing political priorities requires time and patience. It requires convincing people. Morgan didn’t have patience, either for the process or with the people he was trying to convince. And that is why he was doomed to failure.” Claire Trevett’s obituary for TOP makes a similar point, saying the party “stood a chance of getting somewhere had it persisted. It was no mean feat getting to 2.4 per cent less than a year after setting up and in an election in which support for the smaller parties was squeezed by the juggernauts. Parties generally build over time unless there is a lightning rod issue to elevate them” – see: The slow, sad demise of Gareth Morgan’s TOP. [caption id="attachment_16685" align="alignleft" width="253"] Gareth Morgan, leader of The Opportunities Party (TOP). Image sourced from Wikipedia.org.[/caption] Morgan himself is aware of this problem and seems aware of his own impatience, saying, “to change the voting public’s political priorities requires a massive investment of time – time that individuals who have other options might more productively apply on other projects” – see his interview with Duncan Greive: ‘I enjoyed pissing off the flakes and groupies’: Gareth Morgan on TOP, RIP. The same interview has plenty of other nuggets from Morgan on why the party failed. For example: “Our market research analysis indicates that policy is of minor interest to all but a small subset of the voting public, that in essence there is a massive Establishment party inertia, which in part explains why the policy differences between Labour and National are so minor, even trivial. The way I’d express all that is that the electorate is too fat, content and complacent to respond to radical policy change”. Morgan also explains some of the decision-making that led to him calling it quits, essentially saying that the party failed to find a new leader to replace him. This point is elaborated on by Sean Plunket in an opinion piece yesterday: “Since the election Morgan has attempted in several different ways to transition the party from the perceived rich man’s hobby to a more sustainable and less dictatorial organisation. A new high-profile leader was recruited, and work was proceeding to launch him and TOP.2 early next year. It was that individual’s decision to pull out of the role, made for totally justified personal reasons, that was the final nail in TOP’s coffin” – see: Is The Opportunities Party over? Presumably, the new leader who was supposed to take over from Morgan was Lance O’Sullivan. Plunket also announces that he’s very keen to keep TOP going, lamenting that Morgan has unilaterally killed off the party: “If TOP had any semblance of membership-driven authority that wouldn’t have been his decision to make alone. Those who were inspired and motivated by the type of politics TOP sought to promote now have a clear choice. They can revert to picking from the established political players and cynically write-off TOP as the cat man’s pet project, or pick up the torch and give it another crack.” Deputy leader Geoff Simmons has today published his own account of the party’s demise, and also seems interested in keeping the project alive: “A new party was never going to immediately upset the cosy grip of the Labour/National cartel over our parliament like Gareth wanted to. It is pretty clear that was an unrealistic goal, given that two thirds of NZers vote pretty much automatically for the same party every time. This is frustrating because those two parties are actually the closest to one another on policy. Breaking this cosy cartel is a very long term game and will probably require some kind of crisis to break established patterns. However, we learned that making an impact and coming close to getting into Parliament is doable. Now we just need to build on that” – see: What I learned from Gareth Morgan and the TOP adventure. Simmons sees major change is likely to occur in New Zealand politics and society: “Given the global trends, it looks like some sort of policy revolution is inevitable. The current system isn’t working. The only question is whether it we can make it a revolution for good, or let it descend into a Trump-style kickback that makes things worse.” There seems to be a consensus that TOP’s demise is another warning sign that the New Zealand party system is in danger of getting too small. As No Right Turn says, “it means we’ll be down to only 12 registered political parties (and only 5 in Parliament). Which isn’t a lot of options for voters to choose from. One way of measuring the health of a democracy is by the number of registered political parties. And on that metric, ours seems to be in slow decline” – see: TOP-less. This issue is examined in much more detail in Claire Trevett’s column (The slow, sad demise of Gareth Morgan’s TOP), which outlines all of the other small parties on the “scrap heap”. She laments that New Zealand voters are less interested in ideological diversity: “In New Zealand the diet is more restricted, perhaps by common sense or indifference as much as population size. But the diet is at risk of getting too bland if fringe parties fall by the wayside completely and NZ First or the Greens suffer the same fate as other minor parties have in government. Should the pool of parties shrink further, there will inevitably be calls to revisit the 5 per cent threshold required to get into Parliament.” But perhaps it’s simply a problem with “parties set up by moguls”, says Peter Dunne, who catalogues all the other parties led by business people that have failed to last, concluding: “The common threads of all these moves are that political parties formed and funded by wealthy business leaders do not last, because those who form them quickly lose enthusiasm for the vehicle they have established and invested so much of their own capital in when they fail to get a sufficient return at the next election. The art of politics is, after all, vastly different from the world of the business takeover, and success in business is no assurance of success in politics” – see: Another National ‘mate’ burns out. Some similar points are made by Brigitte Morten, who says that “vanity parties” are inherently unstable and unable to sufficiently incorporate their supporters: “Vanity parties generally start with a bang and fizzle out quickly. This is because there are not solid foundations to the party. A wealthy or charismatic leader starts a party based on their own view of the world, it does not come from a group of people with a shared view of the world. People generally join political parties because they want to be heard, want to have a say on policy and want to have a sense of ownership of making it better. A party built around a dominant central figure – like Gareth Morgan – fail to provide people in the long term with that ability” – see: TOP demise shows fate of vanity parties. There is now some attention being focused on what future political parties might arise, and where TOP’s supporters might go – see Alex Braae’s With TOP gone, where will the protest vote go next? And some of the existing political parties will be keen on soaking up some of that 2.4 per cent TOP vote – see Sophie Bateman’s David Seymour appeals to Opportunities Party voters while holding cats. Finally, one of the potentially bright lights that has come of the demise of TOP is a new think tank set up by a number of former party candidates, such as Jenny Condie and Jessica Hammond – you can find out more at their Civic website and their Facebook page.]]>

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Jacinda Ardern’s strike for gender equality

Bryce Edwards — Mon, 25 Jun 2018 04:54:56 +0000

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Jacinda Ardern’s strike for gender equality

[caption id="attachment_13635" align="alignright" width="150"] Dr Bryce Edwards.[/caption] In terms of the struggle for gender equality, the symbolism of the birth of Neve Te Aroha Ardern Gayford is impossible to ignore, and is rightly being celebrated around the world. Possibly the most important article about the significance of Ardern having a child while prime minister was published in the Hindustan Times – see: Jacinda Ardern to Benazir Bhutto: A tale of two pregnancies in power. As the title suggests, the article emphasises the difference between Ardern’s experience and that of Pakistan’s prime minister Benazir Bhutto, who gave birth to daughter Bakhtawar in 1990 while in office. [caption id="attachment_16598" align="aligncenter" width="640"] New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and partner Clarke Gayford announce the birth of their daughter Neve Te Aroha Ardern Gayford.[/caption] The contrast is stunning and worth quoting at length: “It was all a far cry from 1990, when Bhutto, the first woman to head a democratic government in a Muslim-majority nation, told almost no-one she was pregnant until Bakhtawar was born on January 25. ‘None of us in the cabinet virtually knew that this prime minister was about to deliver a baby,’ Javed Jabbar, a member of her cabinet, told the BBC recently. ‘And then lo-and-behold suddenly we learn that she has not only gone and delivered democracy she’s also delivered a baby.’ Opposition leader Syeda Abida Hussain had called Bhutto ‘greedy’ for wanting to have ‘motherhood, domesticity, glamour, and whole responsibility’ rather than make sacrifices for her country.” The article recounts how the Pakistani prime minister feared “she was in danger of being overthrown” and had to go “incognito to a Karachi hospital, underwent a Caesarean section, then returned to work.” According to Bhutto, “The next day I was back on the job, reading government papers and signing government files”. Bhutto was assassinated in 2007, but had she lived “Thursday would have been her birthday.” It would be a mistake to see the contrast between Bhutto and Ardern’s experience as simply being down to cultural and national differences between New Zealand and Pakistan. After all, western developed countries haven’t produced many female heads of government since 1990, and it’s remarkable that Ardern is only the first to give birth while in office. Ex-prime minister Helen Clark, writes in the British Guardian: “What lessons are there in this for our world? In my view, New Zealand is showing that no doors are closed to women, that having a baby while being prime minister can be managed, and that it’s acceptable for male partners to be full-time carers. This is very positive role modelling for the empowerment of women and for gender equality” – see: Jacinda Ardern shows that no doors are closed to women. On Ardern being unmarried, Clark says “Conventional wisdom may have said that this combination of factors would not have been helpful to a political career at the highest level. Fortunately, that has proved to be wrong. Ardern is a remarkable woman who crashes through glass ceilings with apparent ease.” Lots of commentaries on the birth have quite rightly been using words such as “momentous” and “groundbreaking”. For example, see Michelle Duff’s Jacinda Ardern had a baby, and we should all be proud. According to Duff, the importance of this historic event is that “It normalises powerful women and nurturing, caring men. It decimates outdated ideals of where a mother ‘should’ be – at home, with the children, while dad earns the money.” She says the country has mostly embraced the PM’s pregnancy: “New Zealand’s reaction to its Prime Minister’s pregnancy has basically been a collective ‘Sweet as’. As a country, we’re mostly cool with this, which suggests we’re well on our way to true equality.” National Party blogger David Farrar came up with one of the best lines on the significance of it all, saying, That’s one small step for a woman, one giant leap for womenkind. He stated: “There is of course nothing unusual at all about a woman giving birth, but for many it is quite monumental to see that being pregnant and giving birth is not incompatible with the highest office in the land. It is motivational and aspirational. Similarly, veteran political journalist John Armstrong reflected on the significance, declaring: “There are moments in a country’s history which transcend the ordinary; moments when the stars are in alignment with one another to produce the truly extraordinary. The birth of the Prime Minister’s first child has been such a moment” – see: There are moments in a country’s history which transcend the ordinary. Armstrong explains Ardern’s influence: “Ardern is the very embodiment of how a modern society seeks to unshackle women in order to harvest their potential contribution to the greater good to the maximum possible. It is impossible to measure Ardern’s influence as a role model. But it will already have been vast. Yet, she is incurably modest about it all. And she does not seek to exploit her success and the consequent high regard in which she is held to ram a message about gender equality down people’s throats.” Positivity about the birth, and about the breaking down of barriers, has been far from partisan according to Armstrong: “No matter one’s political leanings, it was near impossible not to succumb to the euphoria. The symptoms of Babymania were easy to spot.” Newspaper editorials also reflected on what Neve Gayford’s birth said about the modern liberal nature of New Zealand. For example, The Press said that “In an unmarried Prime Minister who gets to take maternity leave, we could see the progressive, tolerant, open-minded nation we like to think we are” – see: Jacinda’s baby represents hope, humility and the best of our values. Of course, some have questioned how progressive the nation really is and whether we should read too much into the birth. For example, Heather du Plessis-Allan reminded us that we didn’t actually vote a pregnant woman into office, and it was really down to Winston Peters giving the nod to Ardern instead of Bill English. She argues that, although the nation loves to bask in the reputation of being socially progressive, there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary – see: It’s not hip to be square. Coming from a completely different point of view, leftwing blogger Steven Cowan wonders if Labour Party types are simply trying to make political capital about how great it is for elite women in this country, while ignoring the struggles of most women. He says, “It is trickle down feminism, the kind of feminism that neoliberalism can embrace” – see: Jacinda Ardern and the feminism of the one percent. Ardern has been at pains to acknowledge that not all women or families have the privileges that will allow her to lead the nation while being a new mother. And David Farrar elaborates on this in his blog post: “Jacinda is fortunate that she has the support of not just her partner who will be primary caregiver, but also her parents. On top of that she has a staff of 25, VIP Transport, the DPS etc who will all be supporting her in her role as PM and mother, so she can do both. Her baby and partner/support persons will be transported around NZ with her. That is at it should be, but not every mother will have that support. So other parents shouldn’t feel pressured that they are lacking something if they are not back at work so soon.” And these issues are fuelling debate around the world. For instance, in the UK, Victoria Smith has written in the Independent newspaper that, as much as we should celebrate what New Zealand’s prime minister has achieved, there is a danger in assuming – or pressuring – every woman to be able to do the same thing when it’s simply not possible for them – see: Why you shouldn’t uphold Jacinda Ardern as proof that working mothers can ‘have it all’. Smith worries that other mothers who are not working will now be asked: “So what’s your excuse?”. Her main point is this: “I’m delighted at the example Ardern sets, and look forward to her continuing to demonstrate that pregnancy, motherhood and care work can and should be embedded in political life. The more we see mothers as full participants in public discourse and social change, the better. It’s important, though, to be clear about realities for other women in the here and now. Being shown what can be possible is not the same as being offered it. Pregnancy and motherhood should not exclude us from career success, but the truth is, they do.” Finally, Jenna Lynch looks back at some of the politicians who have led the way for Ardern – see Jenna Lynch’s Mothers in Parliament: The women who paved the way for Jacinda Ardern, and Anna Bracewell-Worrall investigates how Parliament is becoming more child-friendly – see What it’s like having a baby at Parliament.]]>

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Six months of new New Zealand government – the verdicts are in

Bryce Edwards — Mon, 30 Apr 2018 09:59:28 +0000

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Six months of new New Zealand government – the verdicts are in

[caption id="attachment_13635" align="alignright" width="150"] Dr Bryce Edwards.[/caption] Is the new government transformational? Or just fighting fires? Who are the strongest performers, and who are the weak links? What are they doing right and wrong? These are the questions at the core of reviews from political commentators of the government’s performance over its first six months in power. [caption id="attachment_15386" align="aligncenter" width="1600"] New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, at the APEC leaders’ summit, November 2017 (Image courtesy of APEC.org).[/caption] For the most comprehensive review of the new government, see Newsroom’s Grading the Government, authored by a number of Newsroom journalists who break down the different areas of performance and hand out grades from B+ through to F. Generally, the government sits at around a “B” – with Health and Education scoring highest (B+). The exceptions are immigration (D), foreign affairs (C). In terms of immigration, Tim Murphy asks: “Is this the coalition’s most over-promised and under-delivered policy area?” He points out that “The annual net migration numbers remain close to those assailed in opposition as disastrous and uncontrolled. The supposed low-hanging fruit of low-value international education courses and their student work visas have largely remained in place”. Sam Sachdeva says the foreign affairs portfolio is “one of the Government’s weakest areas”, lacking coherence or obvious guiding principles. He points to the role of Winston Peters and his orientation to Russia. Political management gets a C+ and on Open government and transparency the government scores an F. In terms of open government, Shane Cowlishaw is scathing. Amongst other letdowns in this area, the “Official Information Act continues to be treated with disdain, with many journalists holding the opinion that their requests are taking longer, and returning poorer results, than under National who was not exactly known for its transparency.” Martin van Beynen offers up an intriguing perspective in Jacinda Ardern’s idea of government is revolutionary. To start with, the normally conservative journalist and commentator, claims he voted for the Greens: “The Greens have always struck me as more of a religion than a political party and that’s partly why I voted for them. I sometimes think they represent our only hope with their code of vegetarianism, cycling, organics, public transport, restorative justice, Māori empowerment, minimal packaging, international peace, anti-Americanism, diversity, public ownership, high taxation, interventionist government, severe income re-distribution and, of course, conservation. If Jesus was reborn in New Zealand he would walk straight into the Green Party.” Not only that, he appears genuinely excited about the promise of “a Government based on kindness”. He looks at both the possibilities and limitations of kindness as a guiding principle, and concludes: “kindness, like Christianity, might be one of those great ideas that just hasn’t been tried yet. It could be that Jacinda Ardern is exactly the person to lead the way – and what a trip it could be.” For another enthusiastic and interesting account of the new government, see Simon Wilson’s feature article: The ministry of ‘things will be different now’ – how are they doing? Wilson argues this government is heading in the direction of being a transformational one, and his column is a nice counterpoint to critics bemoaning the lack of radicalism and progress in the new administration. Wilson is full of praise for accomplishments so far, and points to factors inhibiting change that the government has had to contend with, including support partners pulling in different directions. And he emphasises that the new administration is having to work hard to introduce new directions that will actually take the public along with it, rather than just govern by decree with radical new directions that might easily be reversed in the future. He points to the oil and gas announcement as “a model of how to introduce radical change without giving those affected any good reason to panic”. And he credits the Greens as being behind the move, highlighting “the importance of the Green Party in setting the Government’s transformational agenda”. Other areas that are truly radical, according to Wilson, are in education (with the abolition of National Standards, and the potential major reform of the Tomorrow’s Schools model), transport (with the draft Government Policy Statement) and Grant Robertson’s adoption of Treasury’s Living Standards Framework. Even in the area of tax reform, Wilson sees reason to be optimistic about radical change coming. And, although he’s critical of the Budget Responsibility Rules, he says this issue “will not define how transformational this Government really is. The big projects that are still possible will do that.” He laments that the government has failed to make te reo Maori compulsory in schools, which would make New Zealand “culturally, the most resilient nation in the world”. And on wages and pay equity, Wilson is less optimistic about real change. Writing prior to van Beynen taking up the theme of kindness, Wilson concludes: “Is it possible to run an effective government powered by kindness? If Ardern and her colleagues can show us the answer is yes, what would that change? Almost everything?” Colin James is much less convinced that we are seeing a radical new government in action, suggesting the administration might instead be one of “transition”, especially in terms of shifting power to “the post-baby-boom generations” – see: Govt looks transitional at this stage but could yet be transformational. He argues “fixing shortfalls is not transformation – or even transition. Neither, so far, are the dozens – or scores, depending what you count – of reviews, working groups, strategies and so on. They open issues up rather than open up ‘bold” (another Ardern word) new vistas. For example, the education review reads more like adjustments to the 2010s than anticipation of the 2020s”. James does concede that incremental change can still add up to transformation. But, like other commentators, he points to factors holding back the new government’s reforming agenda: “First, substandard political management: ministers’ slips and skids (Clare Curran, Shane Jones, Eugenie Sage), and off-script support parties (Russia, Air New Zealand) plus a broken promise on fuel tax. Too much of this will, in time, leach public goodwill. Second: support parties’ travails. Polls put New Zealand First well below the 5% cutoff point. The Greens’ score is steady but Marama Davidson’s big win in the co-leader vote deepens their green-red schism and leaves James Shaw as minority co-leader.” Jo Moir evaluates the performance of government ministers in her article, Six months on the job for the Government – who is up and who is down? And the prize for the strongest performer doesn’t go to the prime minister, but to the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, who gets a rating of 9/10. Other strong performers, with 8/10 ratings, are David Parker, Shane Jones, and Jacinda Ardern. The PM gets marked down on her failure to deliver on child poverty: “She really focused on it during the campaign and created the Child Poverty Reduction portfolio but that’s about where it stopped.” Meanwhile the Regional Development Minister is praised for his impact and colourfulness: “Shane Jones has been lapping up the headlines and has also had the job of going a bit rogue when necessary. If he was being measured on headlines and sound bytes Jones would be well in the lead.” At the other end of the spectrum Moir awards only 3/10 to “the invisible trio” of Nanaia Mahuta, Jenny Salesa, and Carmel Sepuloni, all of whom might have been expected to be performing strongly, but haven’t “really been seen or heard.” Labour’s deputy Kelvin Davis scores 2/10, as his “stints as acting prime minister haven’t gone too well and he hasn’t really stamped his mark on the Corrections portfolio”. And Clare Curran rates a dismal 1/10, as she is “struggling to bounce back” from her scandal and may not hold onto her ministerial position. Audrey Young also evaluates the ministers in her column, Jacinda Ardern has come through turbulent times but her cabinet has had mixed success. She points to the fact that the PM now knows that “she cannot rely on all ministers to handle difficulties in their portfolios well”, and says Clare Curran is now “a slow-moving target for the Opposition.” However, Young focuses mainly on ministers who are doing well, and helping Ardern make the government a success. She says Grant Robertson and Phil Twyford “are part of her informal kitchen cabinet along with Chris Hipkins, Megan Woods and Kelvin Davis. Andrew Little and David Parker are also highly trusted as ministers of sound judgment with difficult portfolios.” Winston Peters, too, may have raised some eyebrows as Minister for Foreign Affairs, “but in his duties as Ardern’s Deputy Prime Minister by and large he has been very good.” Also from Peters’ party, “Tracey Martin is New Zealand First’s best performing minister and showing why Ardern had the confidence to make her Children’s Minister”. Meanwhile, Shane Jones “is effectively No 2 in the party that put Labour in power. He behaves with impunity because he has impunity.” Young also points out that, “A couple of low-ranked ministers, Kris Faafoi outside cabinet, and Iain Lee-Galloway in cabinet, have really shone in their diverse portfolios.” For a more humorous evaluation that also makes serious points, see Jenna Lynch and Anna Bracewell-Worrall’s Six months in: The new Government’s report card. As with other commentaries, they point out problems in the first six months: the Labour Party youth camp, the vagueness about Russian issues, and the Clare Curran-RNZ scandal. This article adds to the consensus that Andrew Little is the surprise star of the new government, David Parker the rock behind the scenes, Kelvin Davis is missing in action, Winston Peters is a good deputy PM, and Shane Jones is now the front person for New Zealand First. Davis, in particular, gets a hard time, with these journalists pointing out that he had a lot to say about what was wrong with the status quo when he was in opposition, and he made plenty of promises, but is now not fronting up: “He’s yet to make any major – or minor – announcements.” They warn that Labour’s coalition partners are in danger of blending in too much with Labour. Peters, for example, doesn’t even talk about some of his party’s main policies: “We’ve heard almost no complaints from him on immigration and he hasn’t mentioned the Maori seats at all.” And James Shaw is “too well behaved” and therefore endangering the Green’s identity. But they regard the government as having made good progress on some core policies, such as fee-free education, the oil and gas issue, the fuel tax, and the families package to alleviate hardship. More progress is demanded from Duncan Garner in his review: Government’s six months in a leaky boat – captain overboard. Here’s his main point: “Jacinda Ardern’s stardust must turn to something useful and quickly. Voters are impatient. A slew of reviews only leads to paralysis by analysis. The Government’s hands are full but with not much to show for it. And I haven’t even touched on their populist promises to slash immigration and fix the deeply troubled mental health service. The stardust must turn to something more concrete – solutions, not slogans, trains, not talk and houses, not just hope.” Expectations are high, he says, with promises such as “$28b worth of roads and 100,000 homes in 10 years”, but failing to meet these expectations will hurt the Government. He identifies the weak links (“Kelvin Davis, Carmel Sepuloni, Clare Curran”) and praises Ardern for pulling “together the loose strands to make it all that more acceptable.” Garner sums up the first six months: “things have been a bit average, sometimes chaotic and muddled with a sideshow or two but with the very best of intentions and hugely lofty goals and ambitions, if not a little naive.” Finally, for how the cartoonists see the government’s achievements and problems so far, see my blog post, Cartoons on the first six months of the new government.]]>

Bryce Edwards Political Roundup: Winston Peters Vs Dirty Politics

Bryce Edwards — Tue, 29 Aug 2017 21:33:51 +0000

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Winston Peters Vs Dirty Politics

[caption id="attachment_13635" align="alignleft" width="150"] Dr Bryce Edwards.[/caption] You don’t have to support Winston Peters or his party to be outraged about the treatment he appears to have received at the hands of government agencies, and possibly the Beehive. It increasingly appears that he is the victim of a dirty politics scandal – someone has leaked Peters’ superannuation overpayment details to the media, and many are now pointing the finger at government departments and National ministers. And there are now some important constitutional and democratic issues at stake. Dirty politics? [caption id="attachment_2529" align="alignright" width="300"] New Zealand First leader Winston Peters.[/caption] Peters predicament might well lead to an elevation in the polls, possibly at the expense of the National Party, who currently look rather tawdry, given the suspicion that ministers, staffers, or party activists might have played a part in trying to bring Peters down with scandalmongering. As Audrey Young wrote this afternoon: “it is almost certain that either a public servant or a political operative leaked the bare bones of his story to some media in a bid to discredit him. It has backfired badly, especially if it was a National black ops move. It has given Peters an elevated platform to attack National and dominate the political agenda for the next few weeks in the role he champions best, victim” – see: Only one winner possible in privacy row between Peters and National … and it won’t be National. Indeed, part of the problem for National is that this whole scandal looks like a revival of the 2014 dirty politics allegations. As Young says, “National’s past form has come back to haunt them.” Even the main protagonist in Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics investigation – Cameron Slater – makes an appearance, but this time serving up allegations of dirty tactics by the party he used to support: “The rot is set in and it has started at the top. National is rotten from the top down and now there needs to be some serious investigations into how a government can use private tax matters to attempt to silence political opponents” – see: Someone is getting axed today for sure. Slater says he doesn’t believe the Prime Minister’s statements on the issue, and suggests the leak has come from a ministerial office, meaning there will need to be a resignation: “In an exercise of spin that defies belief he claims to know nothing and believes none of his ministers have leaked. Bill English is lining someone up for an axing and trying to put distance between himself and the minister/s and/or staff who did his bidding. Some poor schmuck will be gone. The sacrificial lamb to protect Wayne Eagleson and Bill English from this shabby and ill-conceived hit job. The State Services Commissioner and the CEO of MSD both need to go in any case”. If National is responsible for the leak, what were they thinking? According to Newsroom co-editor Tim Murphy, the scandal is bad news for National, and may amount to an own-goal for the party: “It is unclear what benefit National might think it would get, at this critical stage of the campaign, by damaging and humiliating perhaps its only likely partner to get across the line to govern from September 23” – see: Peters too hot to handle. So what might have been National’s motive? According to Tracy Watkins, National may benefit from pushing down support for New Zealand First – see: Beehive knowledge of Peters’ pension problem is explosive. Here’s her main point: “National certainly has good reason for wanting to knock Peters down. If his vote suffers by an even a couple of points it will likely be National that picks them up. Risky business given that National may need Peters to govern? Actually, there is a scenario which the Nats have worked out where they could return to Government without needing any coalition allies. It relies on the Greens and TOPS party falling just short of the 5 per cent threshold and their wasted vote being divvied up between Labour and National. And it relies on Peters being a few points less popular than he is now. But National also wants to take Peters down a peg because he has cast fear into the hearts of many MPs in provincial New Zealand, where he has been making real strides.” Similarly, Barry Soper writes tonight on why National might target Peters: “National’s less than confident he’d give them a leg up into the Beehive after next month’s vote, hardly surprising given English’s recent disparaging remarks about Peters and how difficult he is to work with and not forgetting it was he who seconded the motion to kick Peters out of the National Party in the early 90s” – see: Bill English knew nothing of Winston Peters paying back money. However, Soper says “The leak of the Peters file came from National but it’s a strategy as ill conceived as Metiria Turei’s cry-me-a-river poverty plan. So politically it has the real potential of calling time for National”. Rachel Smalley also thinks that National had the motive to try and bring down Peters: “You’ve got to ask yourself, who benefits from this? If Peters takes a hit in the polls, if this blows up, who wins? National does” – see: Winston Peters super saga: I smell a rat. She also argues: “if Peters takes a hit in the polls and some of his conservative voter base desert him, where would they go? They’d go to the Nats. National would likely pick up their votes.” Peters hits back Winston Peters has now hit back forcefully at National, making strong accusations. He says: “‘You’ve got a political party that’s been deeply exposed now all the way to the Prime Minister” – see Corin Dann’s Winston slams Nats as English says Ministers knew super details. Peters adds, “This is humbug – it’s tawdry, its dirty, it’s filthy and they should not succeed on it.” He’s now threatening legal action, saying “legal subpoenas would force the truth over the leak” – see the Herald’s Winston Peters says National MPs knew of his super overpayment before he did. And even though three official inquiries have been launched about the leaks – from within IRD, MSD, and Ministerial Services – Peters has declared a lack of confidence in them all. In one report, he says “We’re not going to have an in house inquiry to political rumour and dirt… that’s not the way democracy and accountability work” – see Jo Moir, Stacey Kirk and Tracy Watkins’ It would have been better not to tell ministers of Peters’ pension info – Prime Minister. Additionally, he says, “The last thing I’m going to have is the State Services Commission investigating their own untoward behaviour.” Peters also has little time for the denials coming out of National: “He says he has no doubt National campaign chair Steven Joyce and leader Bill English were passed on his personal pension information” – see Jo Moir, Stacey Kirk and Tracy Watkins’ Winston Peters warned he was being ‘taken down’ by National. “No surprises” and the politicisation of the public service The main revelation today that has shifted the scandal in Winston Peters’ favour was that the Beehive had been supplied with the information about his super overpayment by the Ministry of Social Development. This is best explained in Jo Moir, Stacey Kirk and Tracy Watkins’ story, It would have been better not to tell ministers of Peters’ pension info – Prime Minister. They explain how the Ministry of Social Development sought the advice of the State Services Commission, who agreed that the information about Peters should be given to the Minister of Social Development, Anne Tolley, under the “no surprises” rule: “The ‘No Surprises Convention’ is set out in the Cabinet Manual and requires departments to inform Ministers promptly of matters of significance within their portfolio responsibilities, particularly where the matters may be controversial or could become the subject of public debate.” A decision was also made to inform the Minister of State Services, Paula Bennett. There appears to be a consensus today that these decisions were wrong. And even Prime Minister Bill English has spoken out against this, saying “given the personal and confidential nature of the information, it would have been better for the ministers not to have been advised” – see Claire Trevett and Audrey Young’s Peters’ super information too personal for ministers to know, says Bill English. Herald political editor Audrey Young says that Anne Tolley now needs to front up and back English’s view: “The fact that Tolley is unwilling to discuss the issue any further because it is a private matter is evidence enough that she should not have been told in the first place. It is an abuse of the no-surprises policy. No minister should have been privy to that sort of information any more than the Health Minister should receive reports on any hip replacement operation Peters might have. If Tolley had no expectation of receiving such information, she should say so publicly and conclude that the ministry’s decision was a misjudgment. If she doesn’t, it is safe to assume that she and ministers have created an expectation they should get information like that” – see: Peters’ case highlights an abuse of the ‘no surprises’ policy. Stuff political editor Tracy Watkins says that the use of the no surprises mechanism is “disturbing”, and “That was not a problem the Government needed to be aware of under the no surprises rule” – see: Beehive knowledge of Peters’ pension problem is explosive. Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper adds that the State Services Commission’s explanation for informing ministers is “bunkum”, and use of the “no surprises” rule is “patently ridiculous” – see: Bill English knew nothing of Winston Peters paying back money. Soper also says that he doesn’t believe the ministers would have kept the gossip on Peters secret: “Knowing how the Beehive operates and knowing what a cesspit of gossip it is, particularly when Winston Peters has a bullseye on his back, that’s beyond comprehension.” Writers of both left and right are united in condemning what has happened. The NBR’s Rob Hosking says the story is alarming, and he likens it all to 2014’s dirty politics revelations: “In fact, it cuts to the heart of New Zealand’s constitution: that is, the way New Zealand conducts its political business. It does look as though there has been, at best, an abuse of rules in this case and it is not pretty. Bad habits and toadying public servants. We’ve been here before when it was revealed security intelligence staff were supplying politically damaging information to political operatives in the then prime minister John Key’s office – information which was then leaked to an attack blogger. This appears to be in the same category” – see: Winston’s warpath, and why the rest of us should be beating drums, too (paywalled). Hosking says that although there is now a public interest in Peters’ overpayments, “the corruption (as in the warping and debasement of purpose) of the public service is a far, far greater concern.” On the left, Gordon Campbell also condemns this use of the “no surprises” rule and adds: “This politicisation of state-gathered and state-managed information should be a concern to everyone. As the government’s web of surveillance expands, and the inter-departmental sharing of electronic information increases, the temptation to use private information for political purposes will increase” – see: On Winston Peters and MSD. And blogger No Right Turn says “its also a gross abuse of power by the government to use the information in this way, reminiscent of Muldoon at his worst. It shows an utter lack of ethics on the part of the National party to do this, or to permit a political atmosphere among their hacks that this was seen as an acceptable tactic” – see: Muldoonism at its worst. Finally, for the ultimate discussion of the “no surprises” rule, how it has developed and “just how rotten the policy has become” – see Ben Thomas’ No alarm? How the ‘no surprises’ policy blights everyone it touches.]]>

Keith Rankin: Letter to Labour about Income Tax

Keith Rankin — Mon, 21 Aug 2017 07:09:18 +0000

Letter to Labour about Income Tax – By Keith Rankin.

As the fog clears, three options emerge for the 2017-2020 government:

· conservative: National and New Zealand First (English or Peters as PM)

· Peronista: Jacinda Ardern (as Evita) and Winston Peters (as Peron)

· progressive: Labour, Green, Māori (Ardern as PM)

Whichever of these we get, I would like to see a government true to its parties’ philosophies, and with good twenty-first century income tax policies.

The progressive option is looking much more probable than at any other time since 1999. Jacinda Ardern can act now to make this outcome both more likely and more authentic.

Understanding the reality of the economic struggle of low- and middle-income households is critical. Among other things, these people need more money, unconditionally. No bureaucracy, no abatements. Unconditional benefits have always been delivered in liberal democracies through the income tax system. These tax benefits, in the past, have taken the form of allowances, exemptions and progressive graduations.

The Present

What can Labour announce this week, to replace the Budget 2017 income tax adjustments? It needs to do something in addition to extending existing bureaucratic benefits. A political party representing ordinary people, with a good ear for their people, would hear that the bureaucracy around the benefit system is even more frustrating than the penury of those benefits.

The following simple remedy will work for Labour in the 2017 election campaign:

· Remove the 30% income tax bracket by joining it with the 33% bracket.

· Reduce the rate on the first bracket from 10.5% to zero, and lower the threshold to $9,370.

Why?

This will give ‘tax cuts’ to everyone earning less than $70,000 per year, while leaving all persons earning more than $70,000 at 2017 levels of taxation. More specifically, it would give everyone earning from $14,000 to $48,000 an extra $12.69 per week of unconditional cash, over and above any other benefit increases Labour would like to provide. This would make it a policy – albeit a tentative policy – that acknowledges everyone on struggle street.

Perhaps more importantly, as a guide to future income tax policy, please note the following simple tax formula:

weekly after-tax personal income equals 67% of gross earnings, plus $175

This formula is the present reality for every New Zealander earning $70,000 or more per year. The simple tax change suggested above extends that formula to every New Zealander earning $48,000 or more per year, while delivering symbolically important unconditional tax benefits to every New Zealander earning less than $48,000 per year. Further, it does nothing to antagonise anybody. It raises nobody’s income tax, from 2017 levels.

Let’s do this.

The Near Future

By following the same principle, the other middle tax bracket at present (the 17.5% bracket) can also be eliminated (for example in Budget 2019). This would mean having a zero-tax bracket upto incomes of $27,500 and a 33% marginal rate on all income in excess of $27,500. (This would also displace the present Independent Earner Tax Credit.)

As a result, everybody earning above $27,500 would be subject to the simple tax formula above. This would deliver significant unconditional tax benefits to people whose annual incomes are in the $20,000 to $40,000 range; benefits to the precariat, Labour’s new natural constituency.

Just Beyond the Near Future

As productivity increases progressively, the ratio of capital income (income arising from what we own) to labour income (income arising from what we do) must increase. So, say in Budget 2021, raise the tax rate from 33% to 35%, and raise the threshold from $27,500 to $32,000. The simple tax formula, which would apply to all persons earning over $32,000 per year, would become:

· weekly after-tax personal income equals 65% of gross earnings, plus $215

Further, extend this simple tax formula to all independent people under 25 years of age, displacing youth benefits, student allowances, and student loan living allowances. (Young adults with dependent children or with disabilities would continue to be eligible for indexed Work and Income benefits. Eligibility for accommodation benefits would not change.)

It’s not rocket science. It is the twenty-first century. Let’s do these, one simple step at a time.

]]>