Election blog, Aug 15-21

Graham Stairmand (National president, Grey Power)
1.30pm 21.08.05

We all await with bated breath for the National party to announce their proposed tax cuts which have strayed from being substantial to timely and modest but of benefit to all workers.

The elderly population receiving New Zealand Superannuation will not benefit from tax cuts as the payment of NZS is based on a net value which is the net average after tax ordinary time weekly wage.

The fact that the tables prepared by the MSD show a gross figure is just a device to allow those that do have other income, and there are not many of them, to be able to prepare a tax return, so a change in taxation rates or thresholds will affect few elderly.

Therefore a large section of the voting population has no prospect of any benefit from tax cuts and this is the section of the population that has the highest voter turnout.

The matter of tax cuts was the basis of the Labor party election thrust in the last election in Australia and led to an initial lead in the polls but this was countered by a vigorous campaign by Howard that the tax cuts would only go to pay for the extra costs when the interest rates for mortgages went up as that was the inevitable result of the tax cuts, so there would in effect be no money in the hand.

This was a highly successful campaign and the Howard government was returned ..

Perhaps we can look forward to a similar campaign here but whatever happens the elderly can only look on from the sidelines and ponder why they should not be a recipient in some way of some of this largess.

* * *

Annette Presley (CEO, Slingshot Internet)
10.30am 21.08.05

What ELSE sucks in New Zealand:

- picking MPs to bits rather than running the country

- looking at what MPs pay for knickers rather than examining how to progress the country

- adding new benefits to help people be reliant on the government and aid

- adding interest free student loans to get more votes and increase our social welfare state

- resource management that means new roading or new anything takes so long you might as well not bother – and that's before you have to consult iwi on sacred mussel beds that may or may not exist

- different tax rates for Maori corporations and trusts of 19.5 per cent - hello?

- Going back in history to right what may or may not be wrong

- Staff and human resources policies that mean businesses won't hire new staff through fear of not being able to fire them

- Health system that can't afford to keep our elderly on life giving machines so they get turned off to give to the young

- Life-long income support

- Introducing a new tax scheme that means even more people in nz - this time middle income earners - are reliant on benefits

- Supporting life-long DPB caregivers who earn more staying at home caring for children than working and have so many benefits and such a high level of income they don't bother to look any more… taking workers out of our workforce and creating more dependants on our government

- Penalising people who work two jobs by charging them secondary tax at 59cents so that families trying to work hard and get ahead might as well not bother

- Maintaining a low unemployment rate – is it? - there are thousands of people who are unemployed and unaccounted who go from course to course and never work as they are supported by our government

- Training courses paid for by government for people to learn how to … Karaoke??

... ooh oh I will have to do what doesn't suck next week as I have run out of words.

* * *

Fiona Peat (Journalism student, AUT)
10.00am 20.08.05

As a political forum virgin it was with naive interest that I attended the women's forum held at AUT this week.

The political sisterhood was out in force with seven party representatives ready to convince me that their party has the most to offer women.

Or at least that's what my inexperience prepared me for.

But it seemed that some speakers were just rehashing major national policies, such as tax, into something that will directly and specifically benefit women. I can imagine that the same theory could be applied to a vegetarian butchers forum.

Despite knowing the questions prior to the forum everyone failed to get all their facts out within the two minute time period.

Everyone's first points were described in detail, but when their two minutes was up all other facts were forced out in a garbled rush as the speaker sat down, as slowly as possible.

The winners of the first round were those who could ignore the chairwoman's stares and 'ahems' for the longest. And the best tactic if she did start to form a word was to pointedly continue, raise the volume and squeeze in one last point at accelerated pace.

Angeline Greensill of the Maori Party was the classiest going out with "universal student allowances. Yes".

It seemed that the tactics moved from explaining policies to one-up-manship.

Alliance won the minimum wage auction, promising to raise it to a smug $15. This knocked down the Maori Party bid of $12.50 and the Greens lost out altogether with the opening bid of $12.

It then seemed like bonus points were then being offered for anyone that could stand up and claim that their party had split leadership between males and females.

From there it disintegrated into what looked like a muggy Friday afternoon at an all girls school with everyone slouched in their chairs, doodling and waiting impatiently for the bell to ring.

Labour representative Judith Tizard would have earned herself a detention for playing with her personal organiser continually through the second half.

She then proceeded to announce "that's not true", "that's not right" while Judy Turner from United Future was saying her piece.

Deborah Coddington of Act threw a minor tantrum, spitting out "that's changing the rules" after being told that she could use her two minutes to answer a question or make her own point.

She then used her time to advertise her paedophile register, and its life changing benefits.

In the end it was the condescending smiles and head shakes, behind the hand whispers between pals, and blatant boredom with the whole process that left the most impression on me. 

* * *

Laila Harre (Trade unionist and former MP)
6.00pm 19.08.05

So we have the sixth pledge. Contrary to the hype, this, along with the student loan interest cancellation, looks to me to keep Labour inside the $1.9 billion in new spending they put aside for Budget 2006 in the Budget 2005 forecasts.

Interestingly, the National Party budget policy released today plans new spending in Budget 2006 of only $750 million. This has to be a sign of massive health and education cuts and a wage freeze in the public service as well as significant new borrowing. It means that promises already made – like the huge prison building and staffing programme that will be needed if the Nats ever get a chance to introduce their absurd policy of abolishing parole – simply can not be funded.

I am not a great fan of Cullen's fiscal conservatism, believing that there is something to the Nats' line that more new infrastructure could be funded by borrowing rather than taxation income. But across the board tax cuts that will put more money in the hands of the rich than the poor is no answer to continued un-met social need.

The approach of targeting funds to families with children is better. It will make a much bigger difference for children than a few dollars returned to every taxpayer.

But it also has its weaknesses. For one, the children of beneficiaries miss out on the extra relief, and yet they are our poorest children. This also means that if (when) we face another downturn and increase in unemployment, working parents will not only lose their regular wage, but will also lose the very substantial amounts of extra money now promised to them.

The obvious solution to both these problems is to extend this tax relief to beneficiary families with kids. They also pay tax from their benefits.

A tight election with a giant surplus has brought out the cheque books and the outstretched hands. But are the hands of the children of the poor? 

* * *

Donna Wynd
(Commentator on social and economic issues)
5.00pm 19.08.05

Election time always seems to get people who should know better saying whacky things. One wee gem that seems to have slipped under the radar comes from Winston Peters who told a meeting in Masterton (the text of the speech is available on NZ First' s website) that New Zealand First would "require potential recidivist serious offenders to be electronically tagged and monitored for life."

What a fantastic idea. Don't wait till someone has actually committed the crimes, just work on the basis that they're going to. Liberals will object, but rising crime by gangs and immigrants is a serious threat to our communities, so we should just act.

However, there might be some things we might need to figure out first.

Such what is a serious offence? Attempting to procure a Class A drug? Drink driving? Going bankrupt with more than $50,000 worth of debts? Or how often does someone potentially have to do something before they are recidivist? And is there some scale whereby the more serious the crime, the less often you potentially have to do it before you are deemed a serial offender?

But the curliest part of this is who might be a potential offender. We know that children from poor households are at greater at risk of becoming delinquents, so should we electronically tag the lot of them just to be sure? Winston cites rising crime by immigrants, so should we make electronic tagging part of an immigrant's residency requirements?

Does being the leader of the Christian Heritage Party necessarily mark you as a potential serial paedophile?

Of course, the notion of innocent until proven guilty would have to take a hike. As would any concept of rehabilitation and redemption. Helpfully, though, the idea that you can prevent someone erring in the future by acting decisively has been shown by the London Police to be effective.

All this seems a bit harsh, and there surely needs to be an opportunity for the potentially truly remorseful to express that remorse. Suppose this potential remorse manifested itself as, say, a $10,000 contribution to the David Henderson Memorial Trust Fund for the Rehabilitation of Potential Recidivist Offenders. This generous donation would let the potential offender off having to be tagged. That would be okay, surely. Wouldn't it?

* * *

Jon Stokes (Maori issues reporter, NZ Herald)
4.00pm 19.08.05

All parents who make use of subsidised doctor visits fall under the growing list of welfare dependents, if the logic of Murray Jack is to be used. The example demonstrates the subtlety of language - subsidy versus welfare, or benefit.

Recipients of "Family Tax Relief" will have no qualms in accepting a child tax rebate. They however may baulk at perceptions of beneficiaries putting their hand out for a welfare cheque.

Either a new definition will apply or disdain for welfare dependency declines. After all as many of the new recipients pass Mr Jack's income based 'successful' scale, they are unlikely to attract the disdain currently reserved for say the motley voiceless lot under the "dole-bludger" banner.

Whether large numbers of educated young New Zealanders continue to exit this country, lured by greener pastures or to experience the world, remains unknown.

What however is known is that the group remains the country's future. If there must be a pre-election lolly scramble, it makes sense to dig deepest and throw hardest towards the nurturers' of tomorrows tax-payers.

* * *

Murray Jack (CEO, Deloitte NZ)
1.00pm 19.08.05

As I foreshadowed earlier in the week the lolly scramble picked up a notch with Labour's announcement of its "Family Tax Relief". And it could be a winner for many voters. There will be lots of argument from the "Right" about the redistributive excess of the "Left", and from the "Left" that tax cuts merely favour the rich and leave ordinary New Zealanders behind.

But here are some other thoughts to ponder.

Working for Families enabled some earning more than $60,000 (as long as there were lots of kids) to apply to the Government for welfare – now some of those earning more than $100,000 have that opportunity. Back in 2000 these people were considered rich enough to have their tax rate hiked. Now they could be on welfare. What is it about a Government that makes beneficiaries of successful people? What about the stigma of having to apply for a benefit?

Once we entrench these benefits in the welfare system what happens when the economy goes through a rough patch? Do we take them away? Or do we just run large deficits to pay for them? At least with tax cuts we all share in the upside and the downside based on the results of our collective endeavour.

What will this do to the incentives for people to progress? The high effective marginal tax rates that result would seem to discourage work. Don't we want to encourage people to grow their incomes to escape welfare?

Along with Student Loans, Family Tax Relief seems a hasty policy. After all the money to pay for it only turned up on Thursday. I just don't like hasty policy as there could be many unintended consequences. Without detailed study and modelling of potential incentive effects we just don't know how expensive this could be. Maybe taxes will have to rise in future to pay for it. By then there won't be so many workers around to pay for it.

At least Labour has now revealed itself as a high tax and high expenditure and wealth redistribution Government. A traditional socialist party that thinks it can both spend your money better than you think you can yourself, and take a bunch of yours and give to others that they think need it. Dr Cullen's carefully manicured image of fiscal prudence over the past five years is now in shreds.

National will unwrap their lolly on Monday. They clearly now have a lot more room to move than they perhaps initially thought.

The choice in this election is becoming very clear. It will be nanny state dependency versus self-reliance and economic freedom. If National can package tax cuts with responsible welfare it could get interesting.

* * *

Jon Stokes (Maori issues reporter, NZ Herald)
12.00pm 19.08.05

Before rushing to pat the back of the National Party and murmuring 'there, there, it's only three years till the next one', spare a thought for the Maori Party.

It is fair to say Labour have delivered the killer blow to National's governmental hopes at this election. The Maori Party, I am inclined to think, have seen the finish line ribbon grabbed, before they even put on their running shoes.

Sweetener or not, yesterday's Working for Families upgrade is a slick move.  It targets families, emerging as a buzz word in these apparently troubled 'family values' times. It rewards breeders, at a time when family size continues to shrink, our population continues to age and Winston Peters continues to turn off migrants.

It is also good old fashioned Mick Savage inspired Labour politics. Targeting the hard working kiwi battler, and mum, dad and the kids.

Those set to gain the most, despite substantial gains for middle income earners, are the low paid with large families. Race based funding may be gone, but you can bet large sections of Clendon and Ngaruawahia greeted yesterday's announcement with glee. Maori, who earn less and have younger and bigger families, will do quite nicely out of the latest policy announcement. The Government, who know better than to directly target Maori voters - a good way to annoy the rest - have offered a compelling reason for Maori to stay with Labour.

The Maori Party slipping in the polls, getting hammered for lack of policy, have been scrambling to find a platform - such as combating growing child poverty - to gain political headway. They have also struggled to show Maori they can actually affect change after next month's elections.Labour, following a promise to scrap interest on student loans, which also is a boost for the high number of Maori in tertiary study, have delivered a further blow. Maori Affairs Minister, Parekura Horomia, despite doing little of late, has more reason for hand rubbing and chortling as the election approaches.

* * *

Alan Cocker (Lecturer in Communications, AUT)
11.30am 19.08.05

It is unsurprising that the election is developing as a self-interest lolly scramble but last night there emerged an interesting twist on how to sell election bribes.

Michael Cullen agreed to appear on Close-Up on TV1 only if he was interviewed separately from the National spokesperson John Key and there was no debate. A restriction on media freedom? Certainly it appeared to work, Cullen was able to earnestly sell his billion dollar 'Family Pledge' without it becoming the political equivalent of the singing hounds.

Arguably the public learned more than they would have in a more 'normal' current affairs format. But was it just clever news management where a politician was able to call the shots? As the media normally hold the power in such situations(controlling the format and time, having the last word, etc) maybe it was just one back for the politicians.

Of greater consequence was the non-appearance of Morning Report at 7.00am this morning. It might be because I am typical of this programme's target audience (163 years old, a fair isle handknit cardy-wearing, farming houseperson from Oamaru) but I believe this is the best news and current affairs source in New Zealand.

I feel greatly deprived not hearing Michael Cullen being taken to task this morning. There is also the important point that if Geoff Robinson is motivated to go out on strike, something must be wrong in the state of Denmark.

* * *

Donna Wynd
(Commentator on social and economic issues)
7.00am 19.08.05

It was only a matter of time before someone from the National Party let slip that their much publicised tax cuts would have to be financed by selling state assets - assuming they are faithful to all those assurances about not cutting social services. (Except to really poor people.)

It's very simple. If the government's income is cut, it must spend less, borrow, or sell assets. If the first option has been ruled out, at least in public, then that leaves borrowing - surely something no responsible right-wing government would do - and selling assets.

This last option must surely be the preferred one in a party headed by an eighties-style economic reformer, with a former merchant banker as its finance spokesperson. This option also fits nicely with all that propaganda put about by the right that privatising health, education and heaven knows what else will lead to better outcomes for ordinary people. You may remember some of the benefits mentioned in the last wave of asset sales, notably cheaper and more efficient services.

The Nats may have a hard sell on this. Some services have notably not got cheaper, for example electricity. And you can bet that as soon as they can wiggle out of the Kiwishare agreement, Telecom will be putting up your domestic phone line charges. And those enterprises that were sold off haven't necessarily gotten more efficient. Again, the electricity retailers spring easily to mind, as does the Transrail shambles. Recall the government had to buy the railways back. Oh, and the formerly state-owned Air New Zealand had to be rescued as well.

Is the taxpayer better off? It depends. If you are making enough from your utilities shares to offset the price increases arising from formerly state-owned assets operating in a far from perfectly competitive market, you're probably happy. Unfortunately, New Zealanders have low rates of share ownership, and most of the people I talk to seem to associate asset sales with higher prices, non-existent customer service, and huge profits made by foreign companies. Economically it doesn't much matter who owns a company, but voters do care.

Which brings me, in a roundabout way, to a point made by Murray Jack about high electricity prices. High prices for electricity do not encourage conservation. You don't, for example, see electricity generators (three of which are state-owned) telling the public to conserve electricity by putting in solar panels.

Conservation suggests a voluntary restriction on consumption now in order to leave something aside for the future. Having lower prices in the future may be one of the motivations for conserving resources. High prices restrict consumption by putting the resource out of reach of some consumers.

These are quite different concepts. The first is an attempt to foil the market by changing behaviour. The second is simply the market in action. People use less, not because they are conserving, but because they can't afford to use the resource. It's just too bad if the resource might be something you use to heat the house or cook with.

* * *

Raymond Miller
(Deputy Head of Political Studies, U of Auckland)
11.45am, 18.08.05

Unfortunately Jon Stokes has missed the point of my comment about populist right-wing agendas. Far from denying those with conservative social values the chance to express their views, or of belittling their principles and beliefs, I welcome the diversity of viewpoint that is a growing feature of multi-party politics under MMP.

However, we look to and expect the responsible sections of the media, and that includes Jon's employer, the Herald, to provide fair and balanced coverage of election campaigns. Clearly 'morals', 'handouts' to Maori, immigration and tax reflect the priorities of those on the political right. My concern is that these are the only issues identified by the Herald on its page 1 coverage of the 'key issues' of the campaign. It may be that these were the only substantive matters raised by the 600 respondents to the Herald's survey. If that's the case, then it's fair game to ask about the design and execution of the survey, especially since we would expect some issues favoured by the centre-left to make it into the top four.

These views are not being expressed from 'the left', as Jon suggests, but out of concern that we remain vigilant and are prepared to question and hold the fourth estate to account.

[Reader reaction: See Your Views link at bottom of page.]

* * *

Jon Stokes (Maori Affairs reporter, NZ Herald)
1.30pm 17.08.05

Isn't it strange that the moment people do mention morals or values or vision or where the country is going, the Left instantly spots a right wing agenda?

Labour politicians and party officials are doing their best to say everything to do with "values" is some kind of right wing agenda.

The paranoia is closer to the surface on this than on any other issue.

Yes, countries like America have active Christian and right-wing politicians who bang on about "values". But that doesn't necessarily mean they can't have a point of view or that they are wrong to raise it.

Nor, in New Zealand.

If there is a "right wing agenda" on morals, as Professor Raymond Miller says, then can't the "left wing agenda" equally reply that, hey, we want everyone to have the same rights to marry and what's wrong with gays getting married and why not ban the hitting of children?

That's debate. Labelling stuff "right wing agenda" smacks of not trying to argue the point, just belittling something instead.

The object of the excercise was for Simon Collins to talk to people and find out what they think. It was not for him to go out and confirm what he believes. Had that been the case, the tenor of the story may have been more in the mould Prof Miller prefers.

[Reader reaction: See Your Views link at bottom of page.]

* * *

Murray Jack (CEO, Deloitte NZ)
10.30am 17.08.05

I'm intrigued by Laila's proposition that "experience matters", and not because I disagree with it. At a practical level you would think it at least helps. The question is does it matter to people that vote? Just a couple of years ago Californians elected a fading movie star as their Governor (and not for the first time – they run the risk of being serial offenders!).

Of course I am sure New Zealanders are more thoughtful than that – surely they would like their leaders to be proven performers, have unchallengeable credentials, and have lashings of charisma – yeah right. For many the last trait is often key but historically and currently in New Zealand it is hard to find.

At least as important as experience is the notion of trust. And here I think managerial competence can be problematic – if overdone it can come across as quite manipulative. There is something endearing about spontaneity, making it up as you go along, and making the mistakes that go with that. After all that is how most people work. A problem for managers, and particularly micro managers, is that they find it difficult to admit to mistakes and easy to find others to blame.

David Lange was spontaneity in action. Of course he was flawed – that's what people liked in him. If his name was on a ballot in the coming election he would probably win, which illustrates the quality of the man.

Life and politics should also be about dealing with difficult issues – take electricity. It's convenient to blame the market and the Government for rising prices but let's be clear: rising prices is economics in action. We are paying now for decades of artificially low Maui gas prices (a bequest of the Muldoon era Government).

Not only does this mean that prices must rise to now much higher market levels, but historic low prices discouraged exploration and development of what we already had. Higher prices, while unattractive to consumers, will bring benefits – like encouraging conservation, enabling investment in alternative (and "green") sources, and encouraging exploration and development – but do we want to really recognise these?

Of course we could drive prices down at a cost to all taxpayers regardless of the electricity they consume. Once we do that then what about petrol, milk, bread and butter? I think we have been there and found it unsatisfactory but have we really learned? I know, lets provide interest free funding to students to encourage them to repay student debt?

* * *

Alan Cocker (Lecturer in Communications, AUT)
11.00am 16.08.05

Five weeks out from the election and the face on the newspaper billboards is that of former Prime Minister David Lange. This rather emphasises the contrast between the last Prime Minister with charisma and the 'managerial' appeal of Helen Clark and Don Brash.

The latest billboard of the only politician to which the term 'charisma' has been applied, Winston Peters, looks like an adman's bright idea gone wrong. Winston's contribution to the foreshore debate has him standing at seaside looking over his left shoulder as if he'd just trod in something unmentionable on the high tide line.

But billboards are not meant to raise issues for reasoned debate. Nor do they usually change people's minds. Their aim is to crystalise a feeling already in the voter's mind or reinforce a belief already held.

Soon the television ad campaign will fill our screens. Here the aim will be to close down reasoned discussion.

As the American writer Neil Postman has observed, television political ads demonstrate in a compact form all that is wrong with a television politics. There is no time for discussion or clarification of anything. What TV arguably does is intensify the irrational and amplifies the focus on form rather than substance.

Five weeks out and perhaps the period when there could be reasoned debate about the issues has already passed.

* * *

Laila Harre (Trade unionist and former MP)
10.30am 16.08.05

Does political inexperience matter in a Prime Minister?

David Lange's autobiography and death got me thinking about whether it matters that Don Brash is a political neophyte. I think it does.

David Lange was a man whose IQ clearly soared above the crowds and who by all accounts was perfectly able to absorb and repeat back vast amounts of information.

He knew Labour's constituency and he was able to repackage what can only be described as a massive attack on working class living standards and communities as a necessity (BTW if you question that comment, then why has NZ plummeted and Australia climbed in the per capita income stakes since 1986?). But commentary on Lange now (including his own confessions) suggests that he was short on the political management skills that actually do matter inside Government, nationally and internationally.

Not only does Brash lack the personality that enabled Lange to front a Government run by others, but those who are trying to make a virtue of his inexperience are fooling themselves and the public.

There is a vast difference between Parliament and the Prime Ministership and the hallowed halls of the Reserve Bank and the legal untouchability of the Governor.

There he was the boss without bosses - accountable only for keeping the dollar within a narrow inflation band using interest rates. He had staff, not peers, surrounding him. Have you noticed how affronted he is when other politicians actually confront him politically - over nukes or asset sales? Doesn't it worry you that this bloke who stumbles with a gentle interviewer and nervous opponents in a leaders' debate might have to be relied on to defend NZ's interests, values and independence close up with the leaders of much stronger countries?

Experience and political skills really do count for something in that job. After all, it's not a retirement hobby.

[Reader reaction: See Your Views link at bottom of page.]

* * *

Raymond Miller
(Deputy Head, Political Studies, U of Auckland)
5.00pm 15.08.05

Are we witnessing a massive shift in public opinion, or is it more a question of the Herald being captured by the classic right-wing agenda?

I was intrigued by the publicity surrounding the Herald's 'Voice of the Nation' series. On Saturday, the paper claimed that the 'Four Key Issues' of the campaign were tax (too high), 'handouts' to Maori (too many), morals (too lax), and immigration (also too high). Nothing from the liberal left about health, education and the environment, let alone student debt, nuclear ship visits and Iraq.

What makes these overwhelmingly negative judgments the defining issues of the campaign?

We are told that a busy journalist, Simon Collins, has conducted some 600 interviews with voters the length and breadth of the country. What seems odd about his findings is that they buck recent polling trends, which have the centre-right and centre-left parties running pretty well neck and neck.

Are we to assume that Labour and Green voters also place tax, 'handouts' to Maori, morals, 'bossy-boots' Clark (to quote the Herald), and immigration at the top of their campaign agendas? If so, then the government is on its way out. Or were there fundamental flaws in the design and execution of the survey? It would be helpful to know.

* * *

Graham Stairmand (National president, Grey Power)
4.00pm 15.08.05
<