Election blog, Aug 22-28

Alistair Kwun (Public relations consultant)
10.30am 26.08.05

I read Errol Kiong's piece in the Herald yesterday Crime big worry for ethnic groups [link at bottom of page] and it made me wonder: what are Asian communities afraid of? Is it:

a) racist sidewalk attacks and harrassment

b) non-racially targeted robberies on modest small businesses, like dairies or taxis

c) racially-profiled burglaries of affluent-looking 'Asian'-style houses

d) being incompetently kidnapped by members of their own community

e) their children listening to 'underground' hip-hop music and turning into 'wild childs' or

f) the perception that mainstream society and the police won't step in to defend people still treated as outsiders to New Zealand society?

I'm a NZ born Chinese living in multicultural Auckland where people have mostly overcome that 90s sidewalk Asian-harrassment habit. Law and order are not a strong voting priority for me. Errol's article highlights that my generation of 'Asian' voters are less defined by conservative or 'ethnic' concerns.

Insulting immigration policies, however, still rile them up. I hope recent Asian immigrant voters realise that while the Right-Wing may try to woo the 'Asian' vote by promising to bring back flogging and hanging, draconian punitive measures only serve useful for amplifying people's fears. They don't affect how much crime occurs. Today's 'PC-leftie' regime has followed through on actual diversification of the ethnic make-up of the police force to allow it to work better with ethnic communities. This is incredibly vital, and builds stronger and healthier communities.

A talented actor and youth-worker, whom I met recently on a trip to Wellington, used to regularly get in trouble in his teenage years around a refugee area of the city, where he'd challenge and shout down the neighbourhood racist shopkeepers who would call him a nigger.

I recall what he told me: "Whenever they sent out the white cops, I'd get arrested. Whenever they sent out the Chinese cop, he'd talk it over with everyone, and I wouldn't get arrested." If there hadn't been that (one) 'ethnic-beat' cop, he could have been one of those hip-hop criminals our parents' generation is so afraid of now, rather than a community mentor for at-risk youth. More Chinese cops please!

* * *

Donna Wynd
(Commentator on social and economic issues)
3.30pm 25.08.05

Steve Maharey is working up a righteous lather about how mean-spirited the Nats are being by having decided not to give the $10 per week increase in Family Support that is due to come in under Working for Families (WFF) in 2007.

This from a Minister who carved $91 million out of assistance to our poorest families with changes to the Special Benefit, reduced core benefits to families with children as part of WFF, and not only refused to ditch the discriminatory Child Tax Credit, but extended it under WFF. Nothing about this behaviour suggests Mr Maharey is interested in the well-being of our lowest-income families.

Poor families are not exclusively families on benefits. They also include families whose income is derived from the low-paid, unglamorous jobs like cleaning, and cleaning up after Grandma in the rest home.

These hardworking but largely ignored citizens will not gain much from National's tax cuts, either. Interestingly, the tax calculator that can be accessed from the National Party website has a minimum income of $15,000, yet according to Statistics New Zealand, almost 40 per cent of us make less than this.

Does this matter? Well, according to the Ministry of Social Development, we are going to be facing skill shortages well into the future. We also have an ageing population.

Families with more than 2.5 children are doing more than their fair share to provide tomorrow's workers who will produce goods and services for elderly baby-boomers. So it would seem to make sense to make sure these children are decently housed, fed, and educated.

When South Auckland school principals report that up to 30 per cent of their students are turning up to school hungry, then we can assume they are not learning, and that their health is probably suffering. This is confirmed by the high rates of preventable third-world diseases at Starship Children's Hospital. These kids are not going to support you and me, they will be a future drain on our resources. Yes, I know people should look after their own kids, and all that. But with the best will in the world, too many families are simply unable to manage.

The voices of these families have been drowned out in the tax-cut cacophony of the last few days. We might be able to build enough prisons to deal with the fallout eventually, but in the long term we will all be poorer for it."

* * *

Donna Wynd
(Commentator on social and economic issues)
11.45am 25.08.05

Could someone please brief Judith Collins before she tells us how much better off the poorest members of our community will be under the tender wing of a National Government?

According to Ms Collins, National's tax plan will give beneficiaries an incentive to get back into work because their tax rate will be 19 per cent instead of 33 per cent. I might be missing something here, but it is difficult to imagine any beneficiary working part-time earning enough to pay 33 cents in the dollar tax. That tax rate applies to people earning $38,000 to $60,000.

The only beneficiaries raking in that much cash are the ones Muriel Newman never tires of alerting us to who, on closer inspection, are invariably found to be raising families with about twelve disabled foster children whom the state would otherwise have to feed and house.

Thus, it would appear the suggestion that National's tax cuts will provide an incentive for beneficiaries to move into work is based on a misunderstanding. And it still does not deal with the central issue of the 70 cents in the dollar marginal tax rate faced by sole parents for earnings over $180 per week, and earnings over $80 per week for those on the dole.

A cynic could be forgiven for thinking that this package has nothing at all to do with sharing the benefits of growth except to those who are already doing quite nicely, thanks very much.

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

* * *

Annette Presley (CEO, Slingshot Internet)
6.00pm 24.08.05

Gosh what torture and shock to watch our leaders humiliate themselves in totally different ways in front of a national audience. If they worked for me I would fire both of them or retrain quickly, which I think is the real issue here.

Don brash is a pleader .. sorry I misspelt that, I should say leader, who needs training on debating and for some reason even though he is a leader in our country he doesn't seem to be getting it …surely there are some PR/debating training companies out there who can teach him?…

Here is a man who has the ability to make a real difference to NZ and has a proven background in economics that outstrips his competitors ..how can he not make a positive difference with a reasoned and well thought out approach to NZ financial policies and implementation. I believe he could take us from being consistently at the bottom of the OECD to simply…not being. Maybe he would even get our GDP and income levels somewhere near the rest of the world which would improve our near third world public services and health and education.

But then what happens…he opens his mouth – if he just stopped doing that it would be so much easier to vote for him….I wish I could go and give him some counselling but I don't think he would listen…then when it is all looking really bad and the public feedback is - he SO lost the debate- "who could call that a debate - slanging match is the word for it ". But when he hears it is bad feedback what does he say …"well she is a woman I had to go easy on her – if the PM was a man then I would have been more assertive"…..pardon?

Well..Don does lack charisma that much is clear, but is he a sexist as well? ….Way to go Don ..alienate the voters…..go for it …aah…but that doesn't determine how well he can run this country …..And his lack of participation in a shouting, denigrating children's fight on national TV – does that make the people of NZ decide he is the wrong choice to run NZ? God I know where I would like my child to be in that fight….

So …the dilemma continues….Helen – the rabid rottweiler and Don - the respectful yet ambling poodle…….who will you choose? Or should it be about more than that?

* * *

Murray Jack (CEO, Deloitte NZ)
4.30pm 24.08.05

It was all going so well. Following the leaders debate the Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen and John Key were acting in a professional manner while interviewed by Sue Wood. A proper and informed discussion - what went wrong at the end, did the restraint period end, is this election to be about who can shout over the other, ignoring requests to close down the conversation? Is it impossible for the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister to exhibit any restraint over an extended period of time? It's an embarrassment for this nation's leaders to be behaving so badly in such a public forum.

At the end Sue Wood looked absolutely shocked and I can't blame her. Is the point you are trying to make that you're only able to win the debate if your sea of words crashes over everyone else's?

Our politicians should get a grip on what is appropriate behaviour as what has been aired over the last few days goes well past wit and oratory skills to being just plain rude. Full credit to Dr Cullen who for most of the interview behaved totally appropriately. He should have a chat with his leader before the next debate! People want to hear each side and make a decision.

* * *

Raymond Miller
(Deputy Head of Political Studies, U of Auckland)
12.00pm 24.08.05

Let's spare a thought for the minor parties.

At the last four elections their combined vote averaged an impressive 35 per cent. If we were going to the polls this Saturday, they'd be lucky to do even half that well.

According to the pollsters, New Zealand First and the Greens are struggling. At this early stage in the campaign, the rest are in danger of disappearing into the hole marked 'Others'.

Clearly the small parties have been hurt by the flood of policy announcements emanating from Labour and National. Instead of basking in the campaign spotlight, they are struggling to be heard.

This may change once we begin to focus on how best to achieve stable and effective government. But will it be enough?

As ACT, the Greens and the Maori party have learned, with friends like Brash and Clark who needs enemies? Little inclination on their part for sympathy or support, let alone a willingness to give the small party a leg up.

As we have learned from the past, while party leaders can be great chums after an election, they are fierce rivals before it. National and Labour strategists can only hope that they have some kindred spirits to negotiate with on September 18.

* * *

Alan Cocker (Lecturer in Communications, AUT)
11.00am 24.08.05

It is probably because I am a dishevelled westie Citroen-driving media studies lecturer and not a Parnell-living, two Audis in the garage, financial analyst that I am 'at sea' with the economics of both John Key and Michael Cullen.

National states that its proposed tax cuts are affordable but that the government will have to borrow to afford them. Michael Cullen preached financial prudence at budget time but has since found many millions with which to be imprudent.

My economics education began (and ended) with Mr Micawber, a rather Dickensian figure who coached rugby and taught home economics at Kelston Boys High School.

He stated: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

As Colin James has pointed out the country has a 'healthy' balance of payments current account deficit bulging on the back of a gravely worsening trade deficit. We are also looking with some trepidation at the steeply rising cost of fuel. This all looks a little mid-1970s when the electorate gleefully grasped the bribe of the Muldoon suprannuation scheme and has since grappled with how to pay for it.

Oh well I could probably get the Citroen 2cv to run on a tank of fermented carrots. Try that in an Audi.

* * *

Murray Jack (CEO, Deloitte NZ)
4.00pm 23.08.05

A day is a long time in politics and the worm can turn more quickly than people think. Yesterday's tax announcement by National should have had the worm on oxygen as it was cruising at altitude – time will tell whether that actually occurred and whether it will stay there.

So who trumped whom – have a think whether this tax policy could just as easily have been delivered by Labour – why is it so offensive to the left – is it because everyone's a winner or it just wasn't their idea? But that's the middle ground that needs to be taken – the war not the battle. Quick come back, the rich at $100,000 benefit by nearly $100 a week – how perverse when the poor only get a fraction in an absolute sense.

The current internet joke says it all:

Suppose that every night, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. They decide to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, and it goes like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) paid nothing
* The fifth paid $1
* The sixth $3
* The seventh $7
* The eighth $12
* The ninth $18
* The tenth man (the richest) paid $59

All 10 are quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the restaurant owner says: "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now their dinner for ten only costs $80. The group still decides to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men are unaffected. They will still eat for free.

But how should the other six, the paying customers, divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?

They realise that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth men would each end up being paid to eat. The restaurateur suggests reducing each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, thus:

* The fifth man pays nothing (like the first four) instead of $1 (100 per cent saving)
* The sixth pays $2 instead of $3 (33 per cent saving)
* The seventh pays $5 instead of $7 (28 per cent saving)
* The eighth pays $9 instead of $12 (25 per cent saving)
* The ninth pays $14 instead of $18 (22 per cent saving)
* The tenth pays $49 instead of $59 (16 per cent saving)

Each of the six are better off, and the first four continue to eat for free, as now does the fifth - but outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"That's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men then surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner. The nine sat down and ate without him, but when they came to pay the bill, they discovered that they didn't have enough money between all of them to meet even half of the bill!

That is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most aggregate benefit from a tax reduction because they pay the tax. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants elsewhere.

What's wrong with a policy that seeks to provide a lower tax burden and restore incentives for taxpayers to get ahead from their own effort?

Surely as a country we have grown out of our tall poppy syndrome and our desire to place everyone on some form of welfare – time will tell.

A final point, the rich don't earn $100,000, they earn a lot more and there's nothing in National's package for them!

* * *

Murray Jack (CEO, Deloitte NZ)
2.30pm 23.08.05

How can you have an election debate with a parochial audience and both participants, particularly the Prime Minister talking over each other? Is it just me or is this how low we have gone in terms of dealing with some of the most important issues facing the country?

Sound bite after sound bite carefully planned and executed. Facts articulated as if they should cause the world to stop and think and really having little to do with what was said before. In the Prime Minister's case personal attacks projected through the insincere but permanent smile no doubt spin doctors advised remain a feature of the evening. Ahh childhood memories of dealing with my sister – but I grew up!

Cutting through all of this, what if we had a debate with no audience, simple rules regarding talking over each other and an off button should they ignore those rules?

* * *

Jon Stokes (Maori Affairs reporter, NZ Herald)
1.30pm 23.08.05

So someone has finally taken a match to the wick jutting from the Maori Party backside.

Five weeks out from the election and the party has finally come out and, demanded the Maori vote, articulated why, and put a boot into those trying to prevent it achieving its goals

Last night co-leader Pita Sharples dropped the "I'm a hell of a nice guy" approach. Excellent in ensuring the juiciest morsels come hangi carve up time - but hopeless if you expect to get a tick on election day. Dr Sharples attacked the performance of Labour's Maori MPs, and, in turn, promised Maori voters a voice, unhindered by cabinet pressures, to speak for them.

Dr Sharples aimed for the kneecaps, and in doing so, finally hit at what is truly unique for his party. A voice - a Maori one, that can speak in both te reo and plain English. And it is about time he did.

Call me a cynic but punters vote for leaders. Leaders are not at the helm because they are great at giving a hug and a back rub when the heat's on. A leader must make the hard calls. Please as many of the people most of the time as is possible, rather than some of the people all of the time.

Up until now the Maori Party have been guided by Manaakitanga, which in short says though shalt not bag your opponent.

Ignore the fact your opponent, John Tamihere, defies the laws of physics by continuing to walk with both feet jammed in his mouth. An endearing concept but alas flawed.

Democracy is about choice. Assisting in the decision is debate that both supports and demeans the views and policy of the opposition. Once a position has sustained the rigours of interrogation, if it still stands, then it always should have.

The Maori Party has the chance to build on its one-seat foothold in Parliament, but it could also send Maori political aspirations crashing over the cliff of mainstream politics.

Politics can be brutal, and voters fickle. Passion and clarity are the key. With Maori political aspirations teetering on the precipice, the Maori Party must ensure it delivers lashings of both.

* * *

Alistair Kwun (Public relations consultant)
11.00am 23.08.05

Voters of Asian descent will have their say in this year's election for sure. They will be heard, and part of that power rests with Asian youth. Several members of Aotearoa Asian Alliance (the triple-A) hooked up last Friday night for some TV election-fever (NZ style, not Johnnie To style, that is!): three switched-on young Chinese shared their thoughts on this year's election on Nightline - two 1.5 generation Taiwanese, and one New Zealand-born. They got a kick out of being interviewed, and it's a testament to how far the public discourse has come. Five years ago nobody would have bothered wanting to know what their opinions actually were.

However, the piece was edited into less than two minutes, and my friend Tessie Chen, one of the interviewees, was rather unhappy with them cutting the ending to make her sound like she would vote for tax-cuts at the end of the day.

Tessie's family knows that a vote for National would no doubt be a vote for cutting much needed settlement services to migrant communities, as a part of trimming government 'waste' to fund tax cuts. The Chens are just one of many cross-cultural community efforts to integrate new settlers which have been developed and supported by our 'PC gone-mad régime' for some years now. Where some people see 'PC nonsense', other people see life-saving infrastructure.

* * *

Donna Wynd
(Commentator on social and economic issues)
9.00am 23.08.05

Something that appears to have everyone (well, Richard Inder and Don Brash) excited is the issue of marginal tax rates. The high marginal tax rates referred to arise from the targeting inherent in the Working for Families package, specifically the In Work Payment. This in turn throws into relief several other issues.

In almost every other OECD country - you know, the ones we like to compare ourselves with - there is a universal component to child benefits. No one considers this "middle class welfare", it is just something to assist with the costs of raising children. We used to have a universal family benefit in New Zealand. Strangely, many of those who now vent about the evils of welfare dependency grew up with the advantage of this.

Because the universal family benefit was obviously a threat to our way of life, the National government ditched it as part of installing the world's most highly targeted welfare system in the early nineties. This was to ensure that only those "in need" got a brass razzoo. In reality, only those who could be bothered filling in complex forms got anything. (This is the key failing of the government's childcare policy. If companies had to fill out the paperwork that parents claiming childcare assistance need to, you can bet we'd be hearing shrieks of "compliance costs" from the rooftops and things would change very smartly.)

Targeting means that you aim assistance, say childcare assistance, at a certain income range. As people move out of that range, their eligibility drops off. The greater the targeting the more rapid the drop-off in eligibility, and the higher the marginal tax rate they face.

Lowering marginal tax rates means that as people earn an extra dollar, they get to keep more of it. This is a good thing, and will restore the incentive to get ahead, apparently. But what about those who most desperately want to get ahead and share in the benefits of a growing economy? That is, the 40 per cent of us who earn less than about $16,000 per year?

Well, the In Work Payment is not only targeted, it is also highly discriminatory. If you have children but are on a benefit you get nothing. You won't get anything if you work less than 30 hours per week (for a two-parent family), either. So if you work part-time to earn some extra cash, then you will not get to share in the economy's growth. Sorry.

Not only that, but the marginal tax rates that are causing these spasms pale in comparison to the marginal tax rates faced by the neediest members of our community. If you are on a DPB and you earn over $180 per week, you will pay tax on your earnings. That's fine, but you will also face a marginal tax rate of 70 cents in the dollar for each dollar earned over $180, bringing your tax rate to over 90 cents in the dollar. At the minimum wage, $180 is about 19 hours work. For an unemployed person hoping to get back into the workforce through part-time work, that 70 cents in the dollar clawback kicks in at $80 per week. This is not, as the Ministry of Social Development suggests, an incentive to work part-time, it is an incentive to goof off. I know I would.

These thresholds have not been adjusted for about 100 years, yet if we want to stamp out welfare dependency and do something positive, this would be a really good place to start. Yet, looking at what is being promised by the major parties, it is clearly assumed that none of these persons will vote.

The only parties that appear at all interested in getting this bottom group to vote are the Greens and the Maori Party. We can only hope they succeed.

* * *

Alistair Kwun (Public relations consultant)
7.00am 23.08.05

There's a lot more variety of opinion and interest in the very diverse Asian communities than the mainstream media, and political parties, care to acknowledge. In fact, there's only one thing that unites Asian voters: we hate Winston Peters.

During last night's bout of TV election fever it was interesting to see Don Brash pretending that he had a choice of three parties to form a coalition with, when we all know New Zealand First is the National Party's only viable option. National has already shown in their immigration policy, which seems to comprise New Zealand First offcuts, that it's willing to sell out vulnerable migrants and refugees for power.

Immigration received twenty seconds of soundbites each side on the leader's debate. It just goes to show how little weight 'mainstream New Zealand' seems to actually place on this once 'hot topic' for election time. For that 'mainstream', it's handily turned into just an extra gripe to add to the pile. For actual migrants and people of recent migrant backgrounds, it hits us where we live.

It's no small thing to be told that you can't be trusted to be a full resident (will these 'provisional' residents still be allowed to vote?) let alone what kind of ethnicity you should be identifying with. By the way, did anyone else think that someone would follow up the 'What is a Maori?' question posed to Don Brash with '...and have you ever seen one on the street where you live?'

* * *

Donna Wynd
(Commentator on social and economic issues)
4.05pm 22.08.05

I thought I was alone in feeling slightly ill at the spectacle of our two major parties offering up a lolly scramble to middle New Zealand. But no. I feel obliged to pass on two comments from people who probably consider themselves mid-range voters. The first is from a chap who said "how stupid do they think we are?" The second comes from a colleague who said "New Zealanders are so greedy."

The other person who may not be terribly impressed with this bribing of the median voter is the Governor of the Reserve Bank. All this spending and all these tax cuts in an economy where the housing bubble is bursting slowly, if at all? I hope Mr Bollard is made of stern stuff.

If this new-found largesse is not to be highly inflationary, then spending will have to be cut. While National claims it will trim back "wasteful" public sector jobs, you can bet that what will actually be cut are services to the most needy in our community.

Now that National has finally come up with some figures, let's consider how much better off will you be with your tax cut. According to the Herald, someone on $38,000 will get $630 per year. That's $12.12 per week, rising to $13.27 from April 2007. If you are on $50,000 you will get about $28.27, rising to $45.58 from April 2007. Notice a pattern here? Following the tradition firmly established in the 1980s and 90s, these tax cuts will favour the better off. No surprises there, then.

However, the median income in New Zealand is about $22,000 dollars. That means that half of us earn less than that. So how much does someone on $22,000 stand to gain? Oh, about $7 per week. That means that half of us will get $7 per week or less from these tax cuts. Economic freedom for the masses, indeed.

* * *

Laila Harre (Trade unionist and former MP)
3.10pm  22.08.05

Do the Nats really think we're either that greedy or that needy? I've just worked out my bribe - which for me and my husband comes to a combined $5300 next year and $9100 the year after.

We already manage a tropical holiday and a snowboarding trip most years, and we've booked our central heating installation already. It's grotesque that we are seen as deserving of this largesse.

We don't need to be bribed into working more – there aren't any more working hours available in our days as it is.

Meanwhile, my son takes his electric guitar to his primary school because the operations budget of his lowish decile primary school doesn't stretch to equipment for a school band.

Charities are selling local aged care hospitals because they can't keep staff and provide safe appropriate care on the government's short change. Medicines stay uncollected at our local pharmacy because the household bills don't stretch that far this week.

I can think of a thousand better causes than my bank account for the surplus. At least Labour's package bears some relationship to need, although the Greens tax free $5000 and universal family benefit come closer to a balance between progressivity and universality – the two foundation stones of a genuine welfare state.

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

* * *

Murray Jack (CEO, Deloitte NZ)
11.30am 22.08.05

What is it about us that wants the Government to keep on owning assets that are owned by the private sector in almost all other OECD countries, including much of social democratic Europe?

Do we really think that if the Government owns assets it means better run firms, cheaper prices, or more consumer friendly behaviour? I actually think many of the remaining SOEs are pretty well run, and certainly much better managed than the pre-SOE days. But that is not a reason for the Government to own them.

The current debate on electricity prices would seem to scotch the notion that government owned assets deliver "cheap" prices, given that the majority of our electricity generation is government-owned. And does anyone want to go back to the days when it took a week to get a telephone and you could only have one in beige or some dirty cream colour? And why do we own some assets and not others? We are opposed to selling electricity companies but no one seems to suggest the Government buys supermarkets (which account for far more of people's non-discretionary spending).

Maybe we get a perverse pride in thinking the Government owns these assets – like "if I can't afford to own shares myself then I get some satisfaction in knowing the Government owns them for me"?

Or is it because we fear that if the Government sold them they would end up being plundered by foreign owners at the cost of jobs?

I am not dismissing these possibilities but they need to be balanced against the opportunities lost and problems that might arise if government ownership continues.

There is never a guarantee that firms will continue to be well run whoever owns them. Markets for goods and services, economic conditions, capital needs, and the rates of innovation change – what is a "sound" business today may not be one in future. Should governments, and therefore all taxpayers, carry the financial consequences of these risks?

Governments come and go. Who's to say that the relative lack of political interference we have had will continue. This election has already witnessed the extent to which parties will go to capture and retain power. Do we