Written By: - Date published: 3:27 pm, March 8th, 2008 - 44 comments
Categories: john key, Media, workers' rights -
Tags: john key, Media, workers' rights
On the 20th of December, John Key was reported in the Bay Report as saying “we would love to see wages drop” while talking to a Kerikeri businesswoman. The story broke nationally three weeks ago and Key offered several, conflicting explanations - he was joking, he was misquoted, he was talking about Australia.
The Bay Report stood by the quote in an article in its next issue and in a statement it issued, as did the Northern Advocate.
Last week, John Key smeared the journalist and said he had spoken to APN, the parent company that owns both the Bay Report and the Northern Advocate, about getting a ‘correction’. Rumours emerged that National had attempted to have the journalist fired and that the APN management was trying to kill the story. The Herald, APN’s flagship, refused to give the story any serious coverage.
Then, on Wednesday, Bill English announced the Bay Report was ‘retracting’ the quote it had previously stood by. How English knew this would happen is still unknown. In fact, there was no retraction, only a ‘clarification’ that Key had been talking about Australia. This clarification was ordered by APN management and forced upon the staff. Story over as far as APN and National are concerned (apparently, a wannabe PM saying our closest cousins should have lower wages is not a story itself). APN gagged it’s staff from further discussing the issue on record.
But does this late, artificial, explanation even hold water?
- Key does not mention Australia in his response.
- The quote came in response to a question that refers the trans-Tasman wage gap, and lowering Australian wages would indeed decrease that gap but the question actually is about wage pressure here in New Zealand (high Australian wages being part of that pressure).
- There is no way a New Zealand leader could lower Australian wages so why would he suggest that as the answer? Furthermore, why would his policy to make New Zealanders better off actually involve impoverishing another nation? On top of that, New Zealand wages are low relative to a number of wealthy countries. So, lowering Australian wages would have at best a marginal effect on emigration to Australia (which isn’t even that high) and international wage pressure.
- In the second part of the quote Key says “The way we want to see wages rise is because productivity is greater … not just inflationary reasons”. Many commentators have taken this as directly conflicting with the ‘wage drop’ quote and accepted, therefore, the ‘wage drop’ quote must be regarding Australia. In fact, the two parts are consistent: Key is saying ‘we would love to see wages drop and not rise to match inflation’. Also, it doesn’t show on the transcript but there is an important pause: Key says wage should drop, he pauses, then explains that they shouldn’t rise because with inflation, only from increased productivity.
So, was Key talking about Australia when he said ‘we would love to see wages drop?’. Pull the other one, cobber. This ‘clarification’ is a blatant case of political interference by National and APN in media freedom.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
rOb,
I’ll say this: If the APN people have rolled over on this to the extent being alleged, and I seriously doubt that’s true, then the journalists should consider their future with that company.
HS – you’re still not answering the question! What’s the matter – can’t you bring yourself to give the same answer scribe gave? Scribe’s OK with pretty much anything goes. But is your conscience giving you trouble with that HS?
That said I find it staggering that the current government is thinking of embarking into the very same market on the back of their housing policies.
That’s a pretty poor grasp of the issues HS. The American markets got themselves deregulated and went wacko with insanely leveraged financial “innovations” all balanced on a foundation of loans to people what couldn’t afford them. This doesn’t suddenly mean that it makes no economic sense for anyone in the world to build houses.
Labour’s new policies for affordable housing are desperately needed in NZ, where sharply rising prices are driving more and more young people out of the market. Indeed, I think the policies announced so far don’t go nearly far enough.
Thanks for completely misrepresenting my position. I didn’t say it was OK;
You said that it was OK for such a person to be in parliament, which was the kind of “OK” I was asking about in my question. I’m sure you don’t think it’s OK at all levels, and sorry if you took anything I said in that way, didn’t mean to offend.
As a working journalist, let me tell you it’s not easy to muzzle one.
I’m sure it isn’t, which is what makes this situation all the more extraordinary.
And it’s even harder when that alleged attempted muzzling is coming from someone who doesn’t sign your pay cheque.
The clear implication in this case is that the pressures is indeed coming from those who sign the pay check. Top level management in APN, the parent company for the reporter’s local newspaper.
I would have though Scribe that you would have a professional interest in getting to the bottom of all this?
But the clear implication from the people who run this blog is that John Key and the Nats have APN in their pocket. That’s quite an accusation.
Perhaps not “in their pocket” in general (and we could argue endlessly about bias in past Herald reporting), but that’s certainly the gist of it with respect to this particular situation.
And you’re right, it’s quite an accusation. Because if true, I think a lot of people would hold Key unfit for parliament. Surely it is exactly the fact that it is an extraordinary accusation, with extraordinarily important implications, that means that it should be explored and openly reported with the greatest of urgency!
Step away from the specifics and ask youself what in general should the media do with an extraordinary accusation for which there is prima facie evidence:
(1) ignore it, or
(2) explore it?
I’ll say this: If the APN people have rolled over on this to the extent being alleged, and I seriously doubt that’s true, then the journalists should consider their future with that company.
I agree with you about the journos, if they can, they should move on. Might be difficult if they are tied to a little local community though. But I do hope they can one day let us know what really went on.
But if it’s true it doesn’t get fixed by the people involved finding another job. It gets fixed by the truth being told to all. I don’t see how any journalist could hide from that conclusion.
For myself, I really don’t see any other way of interpreting the prima facie evidence Scribe. The story was published. It was challenged. The editor and reporter stood by the story. Key spoke to APN chief executive Martin Simons about the story. The Herald then publishes a “correction”, and states that the Editor and journalist agree to it. Those who try to contact these people directly find that they won’t talk about it. Those connected via union links say that Key tried to have the journalist sacked, and that APN management have now instructed them not to talk about it. I dunno Scribe – I find this pretty convincing evidence that there has been a totally unacceptable abuse of power here. I really don’t see any other way to read it.
At least one of your colleagues agrees:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/blogs/politics/2008/03/06/why-is-bay-report-apologising-to-john-key/
“At least one of your colleagues agrees:” – beg pardon I should say – At least one of your colleagues agrees that there are serious questions here.
Not on topic, but people should have a look this rather interesting paper by Brian Easton at the Public Sector Finance Forum last year. “The Current State of the Public Sector: An Economist’s View. He gives a good breakdown of the overall position.
“On existing definitions the OECD ranks New Zealand as 20th out of 30 in terms of total government revenue, which includes non-tax revenue sources and local authority rates. Remember too, the effect of grossing up transfers. Thus it is hard to argue that New Zealand is particularly highly taxed in comparison to other rich countries.
Even so, there has been extraordinary effort to demonstrate that New Zealanders are highly taxed and that the economy would perform better were tax rates lower, often using almost fraudulent statistical procedures. The alacrity with which some advocates seize upon incompetent analysis to justify their views suggests a debate more driven by enthusiasm than competence.”
There is quite a lot of commentary by someone I’ve been reading for decades, and who is usually correct in his long-term analysis. It is pleasant not reading about the short-term obsession on this and other blogs.
There are some interesting papers there on Government/Policy
well why doesnt he take a wage cut himself or does he consider that he is personally becoming more productive by the moment?