Written By: - Date published: 11:56 am, February 25th, 2008 - 70 comments
Categories: john key, national, workers' rights -
Tags: john key, national, workers' rights
When it was revealed that John Key had told a business leader he ‘would love to see wages drop‘ it undermined everything he’d told national media about wanting to lift wages. It also had the potential to do irreparable damage to his rhetoric on tax cuts and to show him as being less than honest with voters.
National’s response was interesting. First, we had Key’s telling silence in Parliament. Then we had the excuses that John couldn’t recall the exchange, that he was misquoted, that he never said it and even that he was joking. When those lines failed, National changed tack and claimed Key had been talking about Australian wages all along.
Now the Northern Advocate has released a transcript that proves not only was Key lying, he is now on the record telling a business leader he wants to give working New Zealanders a pay cut.
The transcript has Key’s full quote as well as the question he was answering, and it clears up once and for all what happened:
During a Northland meeting on his Heartland tour, John Key met Kerikeri District Business Association president Carolyne Brooks-Quan in a café with a journalist present. Key seems to have taken little notice of the journalist, referring to him in a later media interview as ‘a young guy’.
During the meeting Brooks-Quan expressed to Key her concern about calls for employers in New Zealand to pay their workers more:
‘There’s been a lot surrounding the exodus of people to Australia that are lured by higher wages. There are some calls here for employers to pay more. What’s your take on that?
John, ever the business-friendly politician, replied:
‘We would love to see wages drop. The way we want to see wages increase is because productivity is greater. So people can afford more. Not just inflationary reasons, otherwise it’s a bit of a vicious circle as it comes back to you in higher interest rates. We really want to drive that out.’
So there you have it. John Key says his party would love to see wages in New Zealand drop – no ifs, no buts, no maybes.
Note that ‘we really want to drive that [wages rises for ‘inflationary reasons'] out’ is also a call for people’s wages to stagnate or fall while inflation decreases their buying power.
There is no plausible way in which Key’s comments could be interpreted as wanting to see wages fall in Australia.
Key has been caught lying, plain and simple. Now he has some explaining to do.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
excellent. so now will the msm take this story up? some how i doubt it – not because it isn’t real, not because Key didn’t say or mean it.
our msm won’t take it up because it would damage Key – who they see as representing their interests.
after all, who cares about informing the public, all that old Fourth Estate stuff is really just a marketing gimmick these days, right?
So Colin Espiner says he wants corroboration before he runs a story on this. Well here’s his corroboration- you reckon we’ll get a story?
It’s already appeared in the Herald and in the Dom Post. I don’t think there is much life left in this dog. Most journalists are smart enough to see there is a contradiction between two sentences and that Key accidentally left a word out because otherwise the thing just don’t sense.
“our msm won’t take it up because it would damage Key – who they see as representing their interests.”
Ah, I understand now: it’s a terrible conspiracy against socialist Labour.
The Sprout, do you always wear a tin-foil hat?
insider, in the same sentence he rails against ‘inflationary’ wage growth – a direct call for real wages to be eaten away by inflation.
I think what this shows is a media far too willing to accept excuses from Key even when they’re demonstrably false.
Hey, today Tracy Watkins is even making up John’s excuses for him-
http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/traceys-power-play/
When it’s Labour they’re not quite so forgiving.
The media have been talking a lot recently about “Teflon John” – what they’ve got to realise is that the teflon is them.
He says in the next sentance that “the way we want to see wages increase…”
And then goes on to explain that they want wages to go up naturally rather than being forced up by government (that causes inflation).
Either Key meant to say increase instead of drop, or (just as likely) the newspaper made a typo.
Insider, that type of denial just doesn’t wash and is very weak.
Analyse it word-by-word if you wish, and there is nothing to indicate that he was referring to Australia, nothing to show that it was a light-hearted off-the-cuff comment and nothing showing an implicit contradiction. Nothing.
What further backs up the comment is that he proposes ways in which he would possibly like to have wages grow (presumably after they have dropped, if he had his way), by increasing production – this is not a bad thing in any way, but there’s no reason to cut wages first.
So he’s attacked wages rising for any reason apart from the largesse of employers I guess, which is on a par for a pro-business guy.
I say good on him – this sort of truthfulness can only help people to understand what it will mean to voto for a National government; we’ve got some idea of what he wants to achieve now.
John Key – keep up this honesty and truthfulness please!
Santi – that’s a great comment there. I’m not sure about the “I understand” comment though, that’s doubtful at best.
So what do you think about John Key thinking wages should drop? Do you agree with him that people should earn less? Got anything on-topic bud?
Cap: soloists life – Haunted by the spectre of Perigo maybe?
Peteremcc- the transcript was made from a tape (any word on whether this exists) and the newspaper has come out backing the journo to the hilt. It’s not a typo.
Key says he wants wages to increase if it’s driven by improvements in productivity but not if it’s just to keep up with the rising cost of living. That’s what right-wing economists call ‘wage inflation’ and it’s something they “really want to drive that out”.
Net effect? John Key doesn’t want inflationary wage increases. He wants wages to drop. They can rise when productivity increases. For you and me that means a pay cut.
Oh and what National have said since the issue came up actually support the idea that this is a simple mistake, not deliberate.
“First, we had Key’s telling silence in Parliament.”
Maybe because he’s confused because he doesn’t think it happened.
“Then we had the excuses that John couldn’t recall the exchange”.
Makes sense if it was just a misplaced word.
“that he was misquoted”
Possible, this could still simply be a typo by the newspaper.
“that he never said it”
Again,makes sense if it was just a misplaced word – he wouldn’t think he had said it.
“and even that he was joking. When those lines failed, National changed tack and claimed Key had been talking about Australian wages all along.”
These were actually the same thing… Key clearly doesn’t remember the incident, and (because he doesn’t beleive actually it) thinks he must have been joking if he did say it.
Perhaps if the Labour hacks had released the ‘transcript’ right at the start, instead of keeping it hidden to try and create fake controversy, then National could have come out straight away and said “oh, no that was just a misplaced word” but that doesn’t suit your agenda.
I’m still waiting to hear the tape to see whether its a misplaced word or a typo by the newspaper…
You guys are really experiencing KDS badly today.
Do you perhaps think that the reporter missed one little tiny word “their” as in Australia’s?
Then the sentence makes sense with the following sentence.
“”We would love to see “their” wages drop. The way we want to see wages increase is because productivity is greater. So people can afford more.”
Funny how you pounce on the first sentence but have only now published the second sentence where JK says “…we want to see wages increase…”
No of course not it wouldn’t suit your KDS and party speaking lines would it?
r0b – I see one of the lines as something somewhat different:
“Key says: “The way we want to see wages increase is because productivity is greater. So people can afford more.’
Key means: Workers will get something as good as a wage increase if they produce more stuff, so stuff is cheaper, so they can buy more.”
I’d take it to mean that if productivity increases, employers could pay people more, so they could afford to buy more stuff.
Petermcc – I think it is more likely that he wants to see wages drop when they are inflated by a non-market factor such as minimum wages, union barganing and so-on. Then he would like to see productivity-driven wage growth.
The latter is all very well, but for many people with little option but to perform menial or simple tasks, you can’t increase productivity ina meaningful way. This implies he’s not too concerned with the lower earning spheres of society as the former idea will, of course, be disasterous for them.
More likely that a cock-up or a typo anyway.
Do you guys mentalaly delete this part: “The way we want to see wages increase is because productivity is greater. So people can afford more.”
Key is clearly advocating greater purchasing power via greater productivity.
Once again… wage increases are useless if not accompanied (caused by?) by productivity increases. Otherwise we may as well all just write an extra zero on our banknotes.
Of course maybe the idea is that wage increases for workers are to be sustained by the bottom line of employers? Do the authors of the Standard advocate more wealth re-distribution?
SlaterWhale, stick to the kiddy pictures – linguistics is not your forte.
Unlike some of my colleagues here I’m not so certain the MSM is dismissive of this for partisan reasons. I suspect the reason they are viewing it rather cynically is because of the way it came out in the middle of the Owen Glenn beat-up. However, even if it is a “slip of the tongue” I would expect it to be followed up (especially in light of the varying denials from Key’s office) and at the very least I’d suggest that it should lead to some kind of a discussion on what concrete policy National has around the issue.
Whale, I published the story with the second par in it when this story broke. It’s in the PDF. I think you need a new conspiracy
insider.
a) National has never claimed that Key mis-spoke. That’s watkins’ excuse, not Key’s.
b) he mis-spoke for two whole paragraphs? The second paragraph backs up the first: we would love to see wages drop and we don’t think wages should rise to mathc inflaiton, wages should only rise again following increased productivity.
insider. John wants your wages cut. How much do you think your cut should be?
Perhaps if the Labour hacks had released the ‘transcript’ right at the start
If you’d be following the story you’d know the transcript has only just been released by the Northern Advocate.
Do you perhaps think that the reporter missed one little tiny word “their’ as in Australia’s?
Attacking the integrity of the journalist again? That’s pretty weak, especially after the paper came out backing him.
It also means that there is no real incentive for employers to really raise productivity. That involves capital investment and a lot of hard yakka by managers. They have to train employees to be more effective. Have to put in the capital plant and software to allow them to be more effective. Have to design and implement the operational systems to make them more effective.
It is a lot simplier for employers to just keep pushing for lower wages from increasing immigration and reducing employees ‘power’ in negotiating contracts. This is exactly what the Nat’s did in the 1990′s, and a major reason why there is a wage gap with aussie.
It is a short-term fix for employers, but a long-term disaster for NZ. That is however the Nat’s operational philosphy – live for the short-term.
According to David Slack who has spoken to the reporter the recording no longer exists – it was nearly 3 months ago and in my experience it was common to reuse old tapes unless it was something significant (usually with legal implications).
MAtthew
I’m not denying Key said it, just that in context it makes no sense so my best guess is Key left out a word.
WhaleOil – the whole thing has been in at least one other Standard post – but reality can get in the way of your trolling can’t it?
Nice desperate attempt though, it looks worse each time a RWNJ tries to cover for John Key, I love it
Whaleoil. So now we’re back to the he was talking about Australia excuse? Its round and round in circles with you isn’t it?
Look. Greg Roberston is a professional reporter. He recorded the conversation and both the Bay Report and the Northern Advocate are standing by the transcript, unless you have any evidence to the contrary, you should stop attacking the journalist and deal with the issue.
But, then, you are ok with wages dropping aren’t you?
This looks to me like a slip of the tongue — cf “I will lead the next Labour government”. The transcript makes sense with “rise” instead of “drop”; as it is Key’s 1st and 2nd sentences are a non sequitur.
National know that they need to talk in dogwhistle-code about wages and employment — there is a “tight labour market”, we have “insufficient spare capacity”.
But the headless-chicken excuse-making by National makes it clear that they’re worried that Key might have said that and meant it.
DJP, as a nation we currently have around $12bn lost overseas as profits. I’m sure there’s some room for some of that to go toward higher wages. And yes I do advocate greater wealth distribution. It’s New Zealand’s workers who are helping create those profits through their labour and through their consumption.
djp. you are happy to see your wages fall or hold steady why inflation ablates your buying power?
No tape, no surprise so now we are relying a transcript of a tape that no longer exists so that we can prove the veracity of the transcript with sound analysis.
Straws, clutching, invent another beat up to try to distract the public who are no longer listening to either you or to you wonder infallible leader.
There are only so many polls that you can dismiss as being extreme before you start looking quite deranged.
Interesting comment over at Public Address:
http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,965,hard_news_what_the_people_want_to_hear.sm?p=42843#post42843
How would i go about posting an image response to the meme comparing key to obama. An iwi/kiwi style, titled ‘ambitious’.
barrack obama’s “If you work in this country, you should not be poor.” against
Keys “We would love to see wages drop’.
I guess it’s akin to campaigning on the platform of a maximum of 5% of taypayers at the 33% threshhold, then letting that creep out to 15% before you notice it’s election year again.
I guess it’s akin to campaigning on the platform of a maximum of 5% of taypayers at the 33% threshhold, then letting that creep out to 15% before you notice it’s election year again.
So you agree Key meant that he wants wages to drop then. How much do you think they should drop Inventory2? Do you think (as I do) that it’s more likely to affect the people who can least afford it (minimum wage earners and the like) as opposed to people in the top tax bracket?
P.S haven’t Labour won two elections since then, boss? Slip of the tounge there eh?
Inv2. No it isn’t. Bracket creep does not make anyone poorer, you have a higher net income on $60,000 than you do on $59,999, whether or not there the 39% bracket is in place.
Cutting wages would actually reduce most people’s net incomes.
Bracket creep affects 10% of taxpayers, making them pay 6 cents in the dollar more on an average of less than $10,000 than they would do if bracket creep had been eliminated. Cutting wages affects everyone deeply.
Inv2. Good to see you are conceding that those are John Key’s words, and he does mean that wages should drop.
Whaleoil. If you knew anything about journalism you would know that a transcript by a professional journalist is regarded as as good as a tape. Journalists regularly rely on transcripts from other journalists in their reporting.
And, who knows, the tape might still be out there.
IrishBill, thanks I am just trying to clarify. Why don’t you start a company based on the philosophy of profit sharing and collective ownership or something. The reason employers get the lions share of the profit is because they take the lions share of the risks. We all want financial security but if you start a company it is a very big capital risk. Surely there needs to be a reward for assuming that risk?
Steve, I am not happy if inflation effects my purchasing power negatively. In saying that I do not blame my employer if dairy products or oil is more expensive nor expect them to fix the situation for me. I work with the situation that life gives me (for example cheese is not very healthy anyway so I am happy to give it up). If my employer does not pay me what I think I am worth I will find a better deal elsewhere (supposing I wasnt so lazy
or figure out a way to better my situation by enhancing my skillset.
How do you reconcile the following apparently entirely contradictory statements:
1. “We would love to see wages drop.”; and
2. “The way we want to see wages increase is because productivity is greater.”?
They seem to reveal a desire for both increased wages and decreased wages. One of the statements muct have been wrong. What possible motive could you guys have for suggesting it’s the second?
How do you reconcile the following apparently entirely contradictory statements:
1. “We would love to see wages drop.’; and
2. “The way we want to see wages increase is because productivity is greater.’?
1. Key doesn’t want to see wage increases unless they are directly linked to productivity.
2. Wage increases above that (like to keep up with CPI) are inflationary and he wants to drive that out.
3. NZ’s wages are artificially inflated and should drop.