Election blog, Aug 29-Sep 4

Graham Stairmand (National president, Grey Power)
04.09.05 2.30pm

At last a political party that has recognised the iniquity in the ever-escalating uncontrolled electricity prices that affect everyone in this country.

NZ First have offered an energy poilicy to limit price rises to the rate of inflation unless the company justifies higher prices because it is building a power station.

This is the only party that has made such a committment as the two main parties stoically refuse to recognise that this affects everyone and is in need of urgent attention - others talk of investigating profits, as if that will have any effect.

The elderly in particular and everyone in general have to accept price rises without any justification nor clarification except that they start on a certain date .

There is no doubt that there is price gouging of the worst kind. What is needed is a regulator with the power to accept or reject price increases and to bring the industry under control.

The regulator would allow rises in accordance with the consumer price index or a greater rate if it relates to new investment.

The existing Electricity Commission is a creature of government there to implement government policy which is to reap dividends and GST from ever-increasing prices, irrespective of the harm that it does to the community.

We totally commend this policy plank, as it will be of great benefit to those such as superannuitants who receive a fixed income subject only to CPI adjustment.

* * *

Alan Cocker (Lecturer in Communications, AUT)
02.09.05 12.30pm

I have not blogged for a few days. I was a little put off by Peter Griffin's article in last Friday's Herald. He writes that overseas evidence suggests that bloggers have little influence unless fanning the flames of a major scandal.

Most people he states are too busy working and organising their lives to be interested "in the rants of the opinionated trying to out-intellectualise each other".

This election has thrown up far more effective ways to influence voter opinion. Take, for example, those trapped in nervous anticipation as they are about to take-off from Wellington Airport. In this case there is immeasurable power in having control of the pilot's intercom. Who can argue if the pilot elects after take-off to bank sharply to the right.

And from the last election we have the power of the worm. What a buzz there must be to be one of those who has the little dial that can make the worm rise and fall.

It was the making of Peter Dunne who arose out of the good earth of Ohariu to put his United Future and Outdoor Conjugal Sports Party in a position to be a player in the coalition government.

Sadly, however, it's a bit of a worm-eaten democracy if such devices determine our political leadership. So blogging probably has about as much effect as talkback radio, although surely it has be a little more over-intellectualised.

* * *

Donna Wynd (Commentator on social and economic issues)
02.09.05 8.15am

Oh dear. Rising petrol prices. Not surprising under the circumstances, but never good news for any government trying to get re-elected.

I would like to share the optimism of those who think that oil will settle back to US$40 per barrel, but I just keep thinking about the Chinese government's stated aim of having 500 million cars in China as soon as is humanly possible. So it seems to me that we had better get used to high prices at the petrol pumps.

Rising petrol prices always seem to make drivers edgy, maybe because they can't imagine that there are alternatives to cars. And this addiction to cars is something we appear to be happy to pass on to our children, despite the obvious environmental and health costs.

To impress upon us the inter-generational pain of rising fuel costs, one radio reporter noted - with a straight face by the sound of it - that people had started making their children walk to school "even in inclement weather".

What? How will they cope? They'll get oxygen to their brains and be able to think. Some of them might lose the excess weight that they've never noticed before because all they do is walk from the car to the classroom.

They might realise that they can gossip with their peers while dawdling to and from school, and that this is preferable to sitting cooped up in a car with their mums.

But there is a less attractive side to this. Is there possibly a child poverty issue here? Do families need tax breaks, targeted such that the parents of a child used to being chauffeured in a V6 urban tractor get more than parents driving say, a Toyota Starlet? And what about when it rains? Will there be waterlogged and immobile children, nursing soggy crisps, all over the footpath?

There are a couple of solutions to these conundrums. The first is that we could get children bicycles to ride to school, like kids used to. Who knows, somewhere in one of those car-using children there may be a Sarah Ulmer or Greg Henderson just waiting to escape.

Parents often say the roads are too dangerous for (their) children, but that is because the roads are clogged by those same parents driving their kids to schools that are often out of zone.

The other solution is more contentious. It's a bit old-fashioned, like the notion of children cycling to school.

What's say we abandon the competitive model our schools operate under, and resource all our schools adequately so that people feel they can get a decent education for their children at their local schools, even when those schools are in poor areas?

Like how it was when Bill English and I grew up. If more children walk to their local schools, there will be more people on the streets, and those streets will be safer, especially if the number of cars on them reduces. And as for the soggy crisps - we used to eat them anyway.

* * *

Murray Jack (CEO, Deloitte NZ)
31.08.05 9.45am

It's amusing to see commentators over the past week or so (not necessarily fellow bloggers) paint the two main parties at different ends of the political spectrum. Labour is left of centre and National right or even far right according to some.

The reality is that on many important issues you would be hard pressed to pass a piece of Glad Wrap between them. Part of Labour's success in recent years has been its appropriation of centre or centre-right economic thinking, leaving National with an inability to differentiate itself without a lurch to the far right, which would be suicidal given popular support at that end of the spectrum. In case anyone believes otherwise ponder for a moment the politics of the National Front and Act's showing in the polls.

It's also amusing to see business consistently portrayed as supporters of National. It may come as a surprise to many to know that business people are quite a diverse lot, and they also have quite diverse political views. Most often they will favour competent governments with policies that encourage realisation of individual potential and a stable society. Certainly in the 1980s I can recall business being very supportive of Labour (in opposition and in government), not because of asset sales (as no one saw those coming) but because of real concern about the long-term welfare of the nation under an increasingly inept Muldoon regime.

Back to the main protagonists this time - Labour and National are actually very close on economic policy (the only significant debate being about the form of redistribution) as they are on education (apart from bulk funding and zoning), health, immigration and they even agree on superannuation. Business gets more handouts these days from Labour than they did from National, and a recent survey suggested that business didn't really care for them.

What business would like is a little attention on some big issues: reliability of energy supply, ensuring there is capacity to transmit it, adequacy of the roading network, dealing with the imperfections in the implementation of Kyoto, balancing the Resource Management Act to make it at least neutral to economic development - things that make for a functioning first world economy. They also want to be left alone to run their businesses with as little intervention as possible. For many, tax cuts are not the most fundamental thing on their minds.

* * *

Donna Wynd
(Commentator on social and economic issues)
31.08.05 7.00am

When The X-Files first graced our TV screens, I had a beer with someone who said: "When I first saw it I thought 'this is different', but when I saw it again I thought 'no it's not'."

I admit I'm having the same feeling about John Key. My initial feeling was that the National Party might finally have found someone to hang some policy on, but no, closer inspection reveals he's just another anti working-class Tory.

This was made clear by a remark that has kindly been brought to my attention by someone who is actually an economic "dry". Mr Key was quoted as having suggested on National Radio's Checkpoint that it was a good thing for parents to miss their children's Saturday sport in order to earn a little extra cash.

This is wrong for so many reasons it's hard to know where to begin. Perhaps we could start by suggesting he read his Glorious Leader's biography, specifically the bit where Dr Don fesses up to not having spent much time with the children from his first marriage. We could also ask whether the National Party really think there's votes in championing economic imperatives at the expense of family values.

We know that the median wage in this country is $22,000. To reiterate, that means half of us earn less than that. Does this mean people should leave their children to go out and earn about $40 or $50 gross so people like John Key can go shopping on Saturday afternoons? This is not going to push us into the top half of the OECD by anyone's reckoning. If you're actually earning a wage whereby working those extra hours will make a material difference, you're probably already working as many hours as you can, and Saturdays are not going to be sacrificed as well.

What we are in fact seeing here is a flag-bearer for global capitalism seeking to replace a quintessential Kiwi activity with a set of values that puts economic growth above all else. People's sense of community and social cohesion is built up by mixing with their neighbours and peers at informal events such as children's sports games, not by diving out of bed on Saturday mornings to go and clean another office. It is this social cohesion that contributes to our sense of well-being to a far greater extent than earning an extra $50.

It is also a further assault on that Kiwi totem, the forty-hour week. In fact New Zealanders already work long hours, and the low-paid work longer hours than most. There is serious over-employment among the low-paid, and they see little enough of their kids as it is. And is working Saturday afternoons going to pole-vault these hospital workers, retail assistants and garbiologists up the corporate career ladder? No chance. If they want to get rich they might as well buy a lotto ticket on the way home from the game.

* * *

Laila Harre (Trade unionist and former MP)
30.08.05 1.00pm

Remember the "decent society"? The soft slogan that preceded the Employment Contracts Act, the 1991 benefit cuts, the freezing of the minimum wage, the rural hospital closures, bulk funding, and the deregulation and privatisation of power companies and ACC?

I got a sinking feeling that we were heading in that direction again as I woke up to radio reports of National's sad little ride on the anti-Maori bandwagon. Only this time it feels worse, because they aren't even promising decency. If a middle class individual tax cut and an attack on the Treaty of Waitangi were all it took for a Government to lose the Treasury benches at a time when we have record low unemployment, huge government surpluses and some potential to invest in health, education and infrastructure then what a sorry lot we'd be.

And if that happens, I predict that it'll only be a matter of months before people regret trading in the parsimonious Cullen for the flashy millionaire Keys, and a pretty conservative centre-left government for a right wing replacement that gets its advice (solicited or not) from Act and the Business Roundtable.

Much of the heat was taken out of the 90s by a weakened and rudderless trade union movement, the courting of high level Maori co-operation by Doug Graham, and deep divisions on the Parliamentary left. Now, with a progressive CTU leadership, the hikoi and the Maori Party, and unprecedented co-operation among parties of the centre-left, all that has changed.

Last year Australians allowed Howard's Brash-style rhetoric and promises to seduce them for another three years. Now just as the Liberals have secured the control of both houses and the chance to finally push through laws gutting the award system, collective bargaining and protection for new and low paid workers they have a revolt on their hands – with not just unionists but churches, sports clubs, community groups and the like linking arms to protect their family life, their communities and their fellowships from the onslaught of a new right industrial relations agenda.

We've been there once before folks – but last time we had the excuse that it was a bit of surprise coming from Bolger and his decent societeers. This time we'd be doing it with our eyes wide open. As they say, there are none so blind as those that can not see.

* * *

Annette Presley (CEO, Slingshot Internet)
30.08.05 12.00pm

More of what sucks in New Zealand:

As we move forward in an environment that discourages companies from expanding and hiring people, with labour laws that are cumbersome and painful to work with, the only people benefiting from them are the employment lawyers just as the telecommunications regime supports only the ICT lawyers.

Meantime we have a potential new National communications minister who has a state policy of "doing nothing" just like he did last time and we are meant to vote for him?

Or we have the existing minister who just cost NZers $90million by - again - doing nothing. Maybe this should be on their business cards: "Our KPI: Do nothing".

The scary thing is they seem to be proud of doing nothing - in the normal business world you would get fired for doing nothing. I obviously am confused.

We stand as a county at the bottom of the OECD – what does that mean? It means our standard of living is lower than most other countries', people earn less, education and health and roading are all at the bottom of the developed world. How do we fix this? We need to change what we have been doing. If you do what you have always done you will get what you have always got.

We are currently a low to middle-income rated country and are getting slowly better. But even if we improve at the same rate we have been over the last few years for the foreseeable future we will still in 25 years be around the bottom…maybe the middle?

* * *

Donna Wynd
(Commentator on social and economic issues)
30.08.05 9.15am

So, at last the truth is revealed - Don Brash's bid for the leadership of the National Party had the backing of Act and the Business Roundtable. Whoever would have thought?

But is this news to anyone? Really? It was obvious when Don Brash took over the leadership of the National Party that he had the enthusiastic support of Act. Going back further, it seemed to the sceptical among us that Mr Brash was in fact Act's plant in the National Party.

Bill English was altogether too thoughtful to mindlessly ram through the policies favoured by the business sector. For those within and without the National Party, Don Brash was the obvious solution to the threat of moderation.

Yet in the interest of getting into power, even the Nats have had to face up to the fact that the Business Roundtable and their friends at Act are tainted in the minds of most voters. The role of Messrs Hide, Kerr and Douglas as de facto consultants to Don Brash must have plausibly deniability, to borrow a phrase from some of Dr Don's other good friends.

But all is not lost. Heads up, big business. While we all know welfare among the lower orders is a terrible thing that encourages dependency and fraudulent behaviour, the Nats have no intention of abandoning the notion of taxpayer-funded handouts for you. To wit: a Minister for Infrastructure.

Check it out on National's website. Said Minister will "push through vital infrastructure development" by amending the Resource Management Act by essentially limiting the right to object to developments. The Minister for Infrastructure will be the solution to our roading and energy problems, apparently.

But we all know in our heart of hearts that the only thing that is going to solve Auckland's roading problem is to get people out of their cars (take note, the Green Party), and the only thing that is going to solve our energy problem is to curb our profligate consumption and make it more affordable for people to insulate their homes.

But this is not what infrastructure contractors and building supplies manufacturers want to hear. When the housing market comes off the boil they will need something else to keep their businesses ticking over, and roads and electricity generation and transmission facilities will do nicely.

So Don Brash is doing what he can for those who helped get him into the Nats' top spot. There may or may not be an infrastructure crisis, but we can bet that if there's government money to be spread around, one can be whipped up with some well-placed billboards and a spot on Morning Report. Taking away the need to prove the case for a project, and overriding citizens' legitimate objections reinforces the perception that this is public welfare for the corporate sector.

So before you throw away your vote for a median $5.80 or so per week in tax cuts, stop and think if you really want a motorway carving through your backyard, or power lines stalking across your lifestyle block in the name of some nebulous national interest. For those of you in the path of the Curtis-Banks Memorial Freeway, I hope your tax cuts make a meaningful contribution to your legal fees.

* * *

Graham Stairmand (National president, Grey Power)
30.08.05 8.00am

National promises a tax cut to superannuitants of $320 which caused me to ponder on the fact that superannuitants are remunerated on the basis of a nett amount of the average wage, with this amount grossed up by IRD so that any superannuitant that is lucky enough to have other income would be able to make a tax return. So it can't be a tax cut because, if you don't pay any, how can you pay less?

Well, having rung the 0800 number and after some two hours actually getting through I asked what this amount was for and how it related to the current arrangement of first increasing the NZS by the CPI and then comparing that amount with the average wage.

No one could or would answer and I was told to send the query to feedback@national.org.nz. That was three days ago and what have I had in reply but a stunning silence.

I suspect the answer is that the amount is an addition to the ordinary adjustment to cater for the fact that during the year the level falls below the statutory level of 65 per cent and up to this time no adjustment has been made. However if this is so, it affects over 500,000 voters out there, so just how good is National's PR and election strategy in that they don't explain what might be a commendable action?

So what has Labour offered the elderly? Exactly nothing as they continue to harken back to an adjustment to NZ Superannuation 6 years ago, adjustments to asset testing for long-term care, increase in orthopaedic procedures heralded in the 2004 budget and increase in cataract procedures in the 2005 budget but nothing for the future. We may be old but we still have thinking facilities and also long memories.

What should parties do to secure the elderly vote? Increase in superannuation may be attractive but the two main parties are stoic in their attitude that it stays at the present low level. Three minor parties advocate an increase in the level but whether that would occur in coalition is problematical.

Recently Minister Mallard took the hard line on gas retailers and they have to reduce their prices in October. But what about government electricity companies and their ever-escalating increases in prices to the tune of 50 per cent increase over 4 years in some areas?

Ah but these are state-owned enterprises required by law to make a profit and they sure do. If the Minister was even-handed he would be applying the same requirements to electricity retailers but no, because they are such a convenient cash cow for government, they are able to set their prices at any level they desire. The opposition, having realised this, advocates only a reorganisation of the Electricity Commission which is a big laugh as it is a creature of government and under the Government Policy Statement is required to implement government policy.

Electricity prices affect everyone universal and would be more effective than tax cuts.. The goodwill that would accrue to either of the main parties from regulating electricity prices could materially affect the outcome of the election, but will anyone grasp the nettle of reduced government intake of monies by dividends and GST by such a policy?

As a final comment why are the elderly such an ignored group that to date no party has really tried to cultivate their vote?