Written By: - Date published: 3:52 pm, November 16th, 2008 - 103 comments
Categories: national/act government -
Tags:
As we predicted, National has used a confidence and supply agreement with ACT as a vehicle for its true right-wing agenda.
National has given a wide range of concessions to ACT, far more than is necessary to gain ACT’s already pledged support. Together, they amount to a far more rightwing policy program than National promised.
Here’s a summary (full version here):
Hide to be Minister of Local Government and Regulatory Control (= fewer controls on business, less public input). Roy to be Minister of Consumer Affairs (like appointing Paris Hilton to teach at a finishing school).
Life sentences for people with three serious convictions (what ‘serious’ is we don’t know). In California, this law has seen the prison population explode while crime rate reduction has been in line with falling rates in states without such laws.
The Emissions Trading Scheme will be suspended until ACT gets to have a review under its terms of reference, which are designed to have the ETS scrapped and preferably not replaced or replaced with a carbon tax. National and ACT opposed a carbon tax in 2004, it is just a delaying tactic.
“Task Forces that include private sector representatives and private sector chairs to undertake fundamental reviews of all base government spending. A focus of this work should be on elimination programmes* that do not deliver value for money”. Value for money being decided by the rich ‘advisors’ National/ACT appoints to carry out the review. I wonder how much value for money they will see in poverty relief.
Cap expenditure on government services by law. Which would prevent the Government responding to new policy challenges without cutting existing programmes. That will be a problem for National, it has already promised programs requiring thousands more public servants. It will mean the new prisons National/ACT will build will need to take money from other areas, like health.
Flatter tax. That means any future tax cuts will go exclusively to the wealthy. Most people will get nothing.
Further weakening of the RMA.
More money for private education = less for public education because expenditure is capped.
Your work rights will be attacked too. National/ACT releases this is sensitive so they’ve disguised their plan with coded language.
National/Act agree to close the ‘income gap’ between Australia and NZ by 2025, requiring ’3% productivity growth per year’. Which is just economic techno-babble. What ‘income gap’ are they talking about? GDP per capita or wages or what? And how would a faster rate of productivity growth close this gap? Anyone who knows what productivity is (the amount of wealth produced in a unit of work) knows that merely increasing productivity doesn’t necessarily boost GDP or wages. GDP = productivity x work done. So, GDP not only depends on productivity it also depends on how many people are in work. And boosting productivity doesn’t lead automatically to higher wages – wages are determined by supply and demand in the labour market, nothing to do with productivity. In fact, productivity grows faster when employment drops because it’s the low quality workers that lose their jobs first and lower quality capital that sits idle first, but wages don’t go up because there is more slack in the labour market.
So, why this rubbish statement? The following paragraph gives the answer. National/ACT will establish “a high quality advisory group to investigate the reasons for the recent decline in New Zealand’s productivity performance”. New Zealand has grown faster than Australia and other countries in recent years. Overall, our productivity growth has been slower in recent years at about 1.5% than in past years (2.5%) but for a very good reason. Our economy has grown so fast that it has sucked in lower quality labour and capital, which brings down the average (if you look at just workers who have been in the labour force continuously for the past seven years their productivity has continued to increase at about 2.5%). Any first year economics student should understand this. So, what do National/ACT expect their ‘high quality’ (ie private sector) advisors to recommend? They’ll say work rights are the problem – that weakening workers’ rights is the way to boost productivity and, thereby, wages. It’s all rubbish of course. Just like ‘trickle down’ in the 1990s, the effect will be lower wages and lower GDP growth.
Is this the change that you felt it was time for?
*(yeah, that’s right, National and ACT’s grammar problems have continued from their campaign ads to their official agreements. There are more grammar mistakes in the education section)
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
I hope that the government act quickly to overturn all the human rights abuses your employers inflicted on this country.
[lprent: *Sigh* Looks like another troll. I suggest that you read the Policy. If you're just here to drop hackneyed lines without participating, and I could probably write a program that does the lines more coherently and with more intelligence - then I consider you a troll. Trolls do not last long here.]
Madeleine,
No I’m not envious of the rich, both my parents are in the top tax bracket.
Your original comment to ‘Flatting tax = cuts for wealthy’ was that it was a:
“crock of scare-mongoring rubbish”
However when I pointed out that 70% of New Zealanders earn less than 40K it seems that it may not be rubbish after all. Instead you thought you’d combat that statistic by saying that I call all tories ‘rich pricks’, Interesting….
You went on to suggest in your original comment:
“The deal is looking at working towards lowering the top tax rates to 30%. That will benefit everyone who earns more than $40,000. It will effect MOST people directly and EVERYONE indirectly as it impacts the economy.”
That, Madeleine, is trickle down theory and its a crock of shit.
Ginger, I’m interested to hear that there are still Muldoonists in the National party. Are you talking about the rank and file, or MP’s? If the latter, got any names?
I also find the vagueness annoying, but not surprising. I infer from what you say, (and correct me if I’m wrong) that you assume that this is the National party retaining control of the agenda by simply promising reviews that won’t amount to anything.
If that is true, then the coalition will fail rather spectacularly I think. It’s not like these issues are side issues for the minor parties. If they get nothing from them but National party policy, (or the status quo), then what are they getting in return for C and S? Just the baubles of office. United Future will be happy with that, but the others not so much.
Given that they have Ministerial warrants, and given that there are no (public) deals on policy within those portfolios, why shouldn’t we look to the Minister’s party policy for clues as to what policy is for that portfolio? The only other option is to assume that these people have all just signed a blank cheque to National, who is planning on shafting them, and destroying any future goodwill. That seems unlikely to me. Instead I think that these reviews are likely to favour the Ministers’ views over National’s, and that ACT will get more than the mP.
Oh my,
Was it only a week ago that I said that under JK everything would be sold off to the highest bidder. LOL.
And this is only the beginning. That nice Mr. Key eh, and what’s more they let their dogs of the leash doing their dirty work for them.
Well done. Are you ready for this? How about paying toll every time you want to go the nearest village or if due to the financial hardship because of the financial collapse you can’t pay for your water bill. What you gonna do? You will die within three days if you don’t have water.
This what Noam Chomsky has to say about privatisation:
“Privatisation does not mean you take a public institution and give it to some nice person. It means you take a public institution and give it to an unaccountable tyranny.”
Maybe the NZ National voting suckers will wake up when we will have to have water riots like in Bolivia in order to have access to the most vital element for survival.
The next drought means in capitalist terms there is an increase in demand. In other words: Let’s charge the suckers a bundle. FFS. How stupid can you get.
Oh, and Enron/Merrill Lynch anyone?
I’m talking about National Supporters. They aren’t exactly fans of hard-right thinking but likely too stubborn to have shifted to New Zealand First and won’t vote Labour on principle. As for the MPs. I doubt it but to be honest half of the MPs in the National Party are a mystery same with a number of Labour MPs. Seemingly invisible members rarely seen, rarely heard.
I do see it as them retaining the agenda. But I also think its to ensure they never go too far if a policy is very disliked out in the public. One criticism of Key is he doesn’t seem to stand for anything. I think there is some truth in that. Thus his persona is likely being reflected in policies, statements and how he’ll lead.
travellerev you dont have any faith in National whatsoever do you? I see you don’t have faith in Obama either. Did you have faith in Clark and Cullen or were they just better than anyone else?
Whether or not National voters are muldoonist is kind of irrelevant. If they were prepared to vote for National after Richardson, and under Brash then their Muldoonist feelings won’t be hurt by Douglas. If, as you suggest, they have no where else to go and will vote Blue no matter the policy pretty much, they are not a threat. So we can forget about them No? (I actually doubt their existence in any great numbers 25 years down the track to be honest).
How do you think the minor parties, and more importantly their voters, will react to being shafted by these faux policy reviews? Can you see the problem? Key can’t use one hand claim to be a transformational MMP leader dragging National toward inclusiveness, while with his other hand sell his coalition partners a pig in a poke. Can’t work, he’ll get a hernia.
If Key really doesn’t stand for anything, doesn’t that actually make it it more likely that he will give policy concessions to coalition partners in return for longevity? Seems that way to me.
United Future and Act will be happy if its a centre-right agenda. Considering there isn’t that many United Future supporters and Act supporters can’t exactly go to Labour. I can’t see them having a problem. The problem lies with the Maori party. Is the agreement signed between Maori and National have that many gains for Maori? To be honest I was thinking we’d see more detail in regards to maori and health and Maori and education. Neither is there. Sure there are associate minister portfolios but i essence lacks policy. Their supporters I think would want more.
The way policies were written and these agreements suggest that National is likely to be more adaptive to public sentiment than Helen Clark was.
How Ging is that actually going to work in practice? Please tell us. Or is this just a prepared line?
The irony of the title of the thread just occurred to me.
The last time Rodney was stepping to the right arm-in-arm with anyone…
… he left them sprawled awkwardly all over the floor.
TimeWarp, nice!
Ginger, ACT supporters will not be happy with a centre right agenda, unless by centre right you mean something well to the right of what Key campaigned on.
Saying they’ve got nowhere else to go, is narrow minded, arrogant, and false. ACT may decide that if there is little significant (in their eyes) difference between National and Labour, why should they compromise themselves by giving power to the Blue Socialists. Far better to fight on for their principles, take down the Blue socialists if need be (especially if they feel they have been shafted by them), and force National to move right.
What I meant by that Quoth was Helen Clark was adaptable but she always drew a line where she would not go. I don’t think John Key is like that. Even if something proved unpopular, one example could be the anti-smacking bill, Clark would still sign it. Basically I’m saying Clark had a set of principals which she wouldn’t cross. Key however, I think this term will be swayed by public sentiment. National want a long-term government and if they’re getting reaction that something isn’t liked Key would be willing to change it.
I have to disagree Pascal. I think National is already delivering a premise that isn’t far right. It may be far-right for you and other people at The Standard. But I don’t believe its seen as far-right by the general public. And going by what I saw in the media isn’t seen by them as far-right either. Act gets concessions and portfolios and things may get reviewed. But I don’t believe there is anything that far-right. Take the three strikes. You and others here may see it as that but for the general public I really don’t think they will.
Add to that, most of Act’s support this year was generated right towards the end of the election. That would suggest the majority of Act supporters lean more to the right than National generally but not so principled they’d only vote Act. That and a Green-Maori and Labour government is likely far more scary for them.
Also can National go right and govern? They tried that in 2002 and they got to 41%. That suggests there is a clear limit as to how far New Zealand is willing to go in a clear right agenda. The most notable thing this year is New Zealand will go centre-right but they don’t right. Thus there is a clear limit as to how far New Zealanders are willing to go. And if that happens then once again Act’s support will be completely swallowed up like last time.
If blood be the price of their cursed wealth, then by god, we will buy it fair…
GC: I think that they’re strategy was just better this time. Do you really think that the average voter really knows the difference between left and right?
Sure, Brash was exposed as being further to the right but I don’t think that Keys really that different. And now with Act in the mix, they’ll get pushed further and who knows what will happen to the tri-agreements, not to mention National’s factions.
If NZers really understood the 90-day bill and other right-wing anti-worker policies, National/Act wouldn’t have had a show. That’s what you get with a superficial media, that doesn’t really focus on the matters that affect ordinary NZers. I could go on..
“Key has no principles.”
Nice GC.
I think the average voter does know the difference between left and right. National has always had anti-working policies. It hasn’t scared people any other time. I also think we should be careful in making assumptions about the average voter. They’re not nearly as thick or gullible as we like to think.
I was wondering when someone would pick that up TimeWarp. I think Key has principles and is a fair-minded person. But I think there is an essence that the left tried to project and that was Key didn’t have many principles. And there is probably some truth in that.
Well GC….
Following from your comments:
Key either has no principles, OR
he is prepared to shelve them.
Which would it be?
My problem with Key is not what he stands for… it’s knowing what that might be.
I’d go with the latter but then if you’re prepared to shelve principles you really don’t have any.
gc:
National has always had anti-working policies. It hasn’t scared people any other time.
Can you please expand on this fascinating observation?
I suspect you’re pointing to “anti-working” as meaning National party doesn’t mind people on benefits etc. In which case I didn’t mean to say that and should have used better terms. I meant anti-worker or more to the point their long-held stance against Unions.
If that wasn’t about that then here’s my answer:
—-
National has always been a party for businesses and the rural sector and has largely been anti-union. Which is what I was implying there. And I don’t think you can point to National’s anti-union stance damaging the party. Neither the First, Second, Third or Fourth National party governments were damaged by their stance as being anti-union.
First National Government had the waterfall dispute. That actually increased their vote. The downfall was simply a tired government.
Second National Government relaxed compulsory unionism. That didn’t damage them. Once again it was largely due to people wanting a change.
The third National government likewise didn’t fall due to its anti-union stance. Rather it was due to Muldoon’s “think big” policies, his own personality and the economic problems that plagued this period.
The fourth national government arguably brought in the most brutal anti-union legislation seen in this country. But I would personally argue that benefit cuts and National doing an about turn in regards to rogernomics was the reason for the downfall where Labour nearly won in 1993.
—-
In spite of the National Party having a long held stance of anti-unionism I don’t think you can point to that as being the downfall of National. Rather it has been either because the nation was tired of a long-term government (1st and 2nd National Governments); or personality, big government and economic issues (Muldoon); or a party that went back on its word and continued the policies of the Third Labour party.
And as for this Fifth National government. Yes anti-union legislation may lose it some support. But it will either be a hard-right agenda, a messy coalition relationship or some other reason for its downfall.
GC,
I had faith in HC and MC to the point that I knew that they were the last leaders that had NZ’s independence and well-being at heart.
That is gone. John Key is a banking foot soldier carefully groomed to do their bidding. And he is a cheap one. Only $ 50 mill. Chomp change for the guys he’s working for but then perhaps he will be awarded with a percentage of the loot, who knows.
Maybe Rodney Hide is just your average, fascistoid, greedy, right wing asshole with a fake tan who hasn’t got a clue but he will implementing the Smiling Assassin’s hidden agenda of privatisation and the big selling off of NZ’s resources and assets to his rich prick banking mates in Wall street and the city of London. In the next three years you will learn what it means to be owned.
Obama is a puppet and has been bought and paid for by the same banking scum.
His running mate Biden is a CFR puppet master and if Obama doesn’t tow the line its goodbye to him and his beautiful little family providing the next shock to implement the end game for America: Civil war and Martial law.
400 FEMA camps fully up and running, hundreds of thousands of coffins and battle(Fallujah) hardened US troops training in crowd control and on US soil in direct contravention with the Posse Comitatus act tell me so.
Uh,
Moderation?
Have you moved on from 911 now ?
Can’t way to see what your next theory is they read like cheap thrillers.
Pity that NZ has gone from world leader to world betrayer in climate policy in less than two weeks.
I remember when travelling overseas in the Muldoon days you were always apologising for him, as he was such an international embarrassment. A new era of international shame looks to be here.
Janet
On behalf of NZ farmers ……….. diddims.
Climate change is the most important issue that faces the world. HS Your puerile response will not be appreciated by the children of the future.
The Kyoto forrests assn seem pretty angry too – they are about to lose a $100 million or something deal.
Giving credibility and power to the climate change deniers is just so last century. It’s not fair that they are putting our country and our world at such risk.
Why don’t you decrease your own emissions and stick a cork in it.
NZ could decrease emissions to zero and it would make not an iota of difference to global (or local) climate change.
HS: Have you moved on from 911 now ?
And what ever happened to depleted uranium? At least there used to be some variety. Now it’s all “banksters” this and “LOL” that.
Redlogix – love your posts here.
HS – Rodney, is that you?
NZ is the 5th biggest per capita polluter. We also have a responsibility to do our bit for the countries in the Pacific that are sinking. Climate change also means we are all at risk from extreme weather.
HS Will you be crying out for government help when you are flooded/hit by a tornado or drought? Or say we deserve this because we didn’t do our bit to prevent climate change?
Nat Rad just had a love in between Rodney and Pita – sickmaking.
My point was and remains that $40k is not wealthy. The claim that “future tax cuts will go exclusively to the wealthy’ is rubbish.
In the main centres the average wage is over $40k, check statistics NZ. So this would apply to the majority of people living in main centres.
As I said, try living in Auckland with a family on $40k, if you did have any experience of that you would know that such a family would not be “wealthy’.
“That, Madeleine, is trickle down theory and its a crock of shit.’
Well after that devastating point by point explanation of economic theory I will just
throw away my text book and chant the mantra.
Here I was thinking that moving towards a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage, which still means the rich pay more, was equal treatment. Given that flat tax economists tend to argue for the tax rate to be set at around 20% that would benefit almost every worker in NZ to some degree, the trickle down would only apply to those on $14k. Further, with everyone being able to keep more of what they earn and no disincentive to achieve or earn more in place more people would be able to realise their potential and the average wage would rise.
Do you realise that in our current system a family of 4 on $40k and a family of 4 on $70k earn a difference of $190 a week? Where is the incentive to try harder to be more productive to create more jobs? The equalisation you support has screwed our economy and has stuffed over the poor, but hey as long as the evil people who are successful in life get screwed who cares, $40k is more than enough to make the rich list and lets ignore the fact that a top tax rate of 30% means that the “wealthy” would still be paying 7.6% more than the poor.
No wonder you got creamed. Normal people just don’t buy the lie that $40k makes your rich no matter how you dress it up.
So go on nit-pick something else I have said, quick, or you might have to defend the claim that earning $40k makes you wealthy.
HS and Billy,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share with you some material only released a week ago through a court case against the FBI.
This is a video of the North tower when it starts to collapse (Collapse only takes 11sec). Funny how it starts explode above the impact and while this might be caused by a raging inferno (black smoke indicating a low temperature but oh well) what could have caused the rest of the tower to collapse at such a speed when no fires were present I wonder. Funny, those banana shaped billowing clouds of dust 1.5 hours after impact. Oh, no it’s not so funny actually since the dust in the lungs of first responders (remember those heroes) are killing 50.000 of them and 20.000 of NY citizens are also dying from that dust.
About the Wall street/City of London/CIA connection you might want to read up on
insider trading connected to the events of 911 and Buzzy Krongard
Now that’s more like it, Ev.
Janet
Frothity froth froth !
NZ has an extremely large agricultural sector in proportion to our population hence we are deemed to be a large per capita polluter – whoopee. If we slaughtered our entire dairy herd and all the remainder of the farm animals in NZ it would have no effect on climate change.
This would wreck NZ’s economy and have no effect on climate change ? Why do it- your rationale seems to be because you would enjoy the ability to pontificate on the subject of how great NZ is in regards to acting on climate change ?
Janet your second sentence reeks of the crap I got through the mailbox from the greens which said something along the lines of ….’ vote Green to stop the East Coast beaches disappearing ” .what complete drivel.
Edit
Huzzah 911 is back ……. (Buzzy Krongard give his parents a red card)
Ev the video link doesn’t work for me.