Andrew Little State of the Nation in 2015

Written By: - Date published: 8:00 am, January 28th, 2015 - 302 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, labour, Politics - Tags:

In 2005 when I led the EPMU we worked together with Air New Zealand to find a way to keep engineering jobs that were heading overseas. A lot of these workers were people I’d known for years and they were facing not just losing their jobs but not being able to find the kind of work they do without going overseas. A lot of people were facing personal and financial upheaval.

It was hard work but we kept more than 300 skilled and well-paid jobs in New Zealand.

And we managed to benefit Air New Zealand and its workforce with productivity gains too.

As a union leader I was always conscious that wealth had to be created first before it could be shared. We need to do what’s right for business so we can do what’s right for workers and their families and to keep skills in New Zealand.

My driving motivation for coming into politics was that I could see that without real change working New Zealanders, whether on a wage or salary or working on a contract or in their own small business, will be left arguing over how to share an ever dwindling national income.

As a new leader at the start of the parliamentary cycle I’m fully aware of the task I have ahead to build our organisation and the policy platform we will take into the next election. This is a major job.

I’m also aware of how important it is to be very clear about what kind of future Labour stands for and the direction I intend to take us in as leader.

So today I’m not going to focus on policy detail.

I’m going to tell you about the challenges New Zealand faces as I see them, how we will solve them, and what that means. I’m going to talk about our goals for New Zealand and our vision.

Labour’s vision is that New Zealand will once again have the lowest unemployment in the developed world.

When people have jobs, they have dignity, they have self-respect, and their families have the best future. The engine room of this job growth is small business.

I want to talk about what I think remains one of the biggest long-term challenges for our country; and that is, where the next generation of wealth creation will come from.

Not because wealth creation is an end in itself. But because a good quality of life for all of us needs strong economic performance.

Globally, the combined wealth of the richest 1 percent will be greater than that of the other 99 percent of people next year unless the current trend of rising inequality is reversed.

Right now many New Zealanders don’t have a good enough quality of life. In fact since this government was first elected there are 20,000 more children living below the poverty line.

Those kids would fill 95 primary school halls. And 40% of them come from working families.

In New Zealand, the incomes of the top 10 percent are nine times the income of the bottom 10 per cent.

In fact at the end of last year, the OECD told us that in New Zealand the level of inequality is now holding back economic growth.

Of course, this isn’t just an economic issue, it’s bad for our communities too. Inequality robs people of opportunities. It stunts potential. It’s wrong and it’s not the Kiwi way.

The social inequality we suffer today, built up over the last 30 years or so, must be the driving force for the change we need to make.

It’s a vicious circle. More inequality, slower growth, more inequality. It is so important that we all understand this: more inequality, slower growth, more inequality.

We have to break that cycle if we want to succeed. And working on how we do that will be the priority for me as the new leader of the Labour Party.

Part of that means recognising a world where technology is rapidly changing the nature of work and the opportunities for work.

In this regard I have already announced Labour’s Future of Work Commission led by Grant Robertson. This is a large and serious task and will be a major project for Labour over the next two years as we get around the country talking to New Zealanders about what that means.

Meeting the challenge of future wealth generation is getting harder.

As a party and as a country we need to be thinking about how we will deal with the change ahead of us. And we need to be thinking now.

The truth is stark. Doing more of what we’re doing today won’t support the standard of living we as New Zealanders want in the future.

As a country we need to do things differently. That is going to take courage.

Government can provide some of the leadership to make a difference. But nothing will change unless we are all in it together.

Because as a party committed to creating good jobs for New Zealanders, we know that many of the jobs we want to create will come from businesses like those represented here today. That is the only way to drive down unemployment. We can only do this if we’re all in it together.

I’ve seen this in my own working life.

I’ve seen how good management and a well led workforce working together can face difficult challenges, draw on each others’ strengths and insights, and create gains for both.

The best changes happen when we bring workers and businesses together, so that everyone can win.

During the time I was a union secretary, Fonterra embarked on a project to increase the productivity of their plant and machinery. They realised that for every 1% increase in plant reliability – that is, the time that the plant is operational – they could add an extra $100 million to their bottom line.

At the EPMU, we worked alongside Fonterra to help them change the way they managed engineering maintenance to deliver better results. It wasn’t about cutting wages, or insisting on longer hours. The upshot was they gave frontline maintenance engineers more responsibility and they increased the incomes of those workers. The jobs were actually more satisfying at the end of it.

Maintenance crews saw their pay increase substantially and they lifted plant productivity to levels even the plant manufacturers thought weren’t possible.

But working together, we did it.

That meant Fonterra was getting world leading levels of productivity. That meant better pay-outs for farmers, better staff retention, and more security for the families of those staff.

Everyone came out better off.

And just as importantly it gave everyone a stake in doing better and a sense that their contribution counted. Which is how it should be. Because work isn’t just about money. It’s about respect and dignity.

Too often that’s forgotten. Too often the government sees work as transactional and contractual and they legislate for it that way. Like hiring people is like buying stock or selling product.

Well, it’s not. At its best, like it was at Fonterra, it’s about a shared purpose.

That’s the philosophy we need to bring to Government.

For political parties occupying the Treasury benches, the choice is whether they want to be a small beer government or a government prepared to face up to the long term challenges.

Tinkering with the RMA instead of building houses, setting more hurdles for people out of work instead of creating jobs, and endlessly restructuring the bureaucracy.

These are the hallmarks of small beer government. It’s not where Labour is going.

We all understand that strong businesses and strong communities are two sides of the same coin. You can’t have one without the other.

For a political party with social democratic values at its heart, like the Labour Party, there is one crucial question. How do we create wealth generation that means everyone gets to fairly participate and share? Which is to say, wealth generation that is inclusive.

And when we talk of inclusiveness, we also have to include future generations. Because sharing with future generations means preserving and protecting our natural environment.

This isn’t just about businesses and consumers and the markets they make up. This is equally about citizenship and the proper role of government.

Our focus must be on what best suits New Zealand. On what honours our values and what best achieves the kind of country we all want to live in and want to pass to our children and grandchildren.

That country must be even better than the one we inherited. The country we received from the sons of Gallipoli has for a long time been the envy of the world.

In this special year of commemoration for New Zealand, we honour the sacrifices of previous generations when we staunchly defend the incredible, progressive freedoms we enjoy today. This lies at the heart of the Kiwi tradition of a fair go and a fair share.

We are a pioneering nation. From the first of us who navigated the Pacific, pulling the waka ashore in search of a new life, to those trying to shuck off the class- ridden world of old Britain, and forge new opportunities and a fairer way of living together.

Part of that was the Treaty of Waitangi, an agreement that is now vital to creating a New Zealand which is proud and unified. We may still be searching for its full meaning, even its true meaning, but it is inextricably a part of New Zealand and being a New Zealander.

We pioneered the idea of the state sustaining the poorest and most vulnerable with pensions.

We pioneered social security and a high quality public health and education system.

We pioneered the idea of orderly and fair industrial relations, from the forty hour week forwards.

We pioneered citizenship rights when women won the right to vote.

We pioneered state housing and the idea that when everyone has a good home to live in we can do better as individuals and as a nation (something this Government has gone back on with its secret plans to sell off our state houses).

In the 1980s we took a world-leading stand on nuclear weapons.

We pioneered. New Zealand pioneered again and again.

We didn’t look around to see what others were doing. We did what was right and fair.

The reason we did all this was because we wanted to build a better society where tomorrow is better than yesterday for everyone.

This is the spirit we must follow. In an ever changing, more open world, these values should still guide us.

A nation’s economic security is one of the government’s most important duties, next only to protecting its citizens from physical harm.

The right to live in dignity is as basic a human right as any.

How do we provide for economic security for New Zealand – for businesses, for households and individuals? Security that means Kiwis can enjoy the standard of living we have long aspired to. A standard of living which a growing number of New Zealanders are missing out on.

Our economic security is our greatest risk long-term.

We will hear from government representatives and some commentators that economically we are doing well. That the economy is growing. That the prospects look bright.

But this doesn’t tell the full story.

We will be told that GDP has grown by 3%. But GDP isn’t the last word. The problem with GDP as a measure is it doesn’t measure everything that is happening.

It doesn’t measure the loss of capability from businesses that have closed down and the loss of good, stable, skilled, well-paid jobs that we’ve seen; like those lost last year at Fitzroy Yachts and Tenix in my hometown of New Plymouth.

It knows nothing of New Zealand’s incredible volunteer sector, the strain on our social services, or the state of our environment.

GDP simply doesn’t tell us everything we need to know.

The reality is we have major issues we are not facing up to.

As I’ve said, the OECD told us at the end of last year that the level of inequality in New Zealand is holding back economic growth.

Already this year, the government has told working people not to expect a decent pay rise.

The truth is, it’s pretty obvious that this government has given up on fair wage growth and a fair share of the gains of a growing economy. They’ve just given up.

Well that’s not good enough. And it won’t be good enough for a Labour Government.

Because with that the Government has given up on the chance to turn those gains into long term wealth and wellbeing for all New Zealanders.

Our economy is dependent on commodity exports, and on too few markets. Dairy, timber and minerals have been strong sources of income for us when prices are high, but as they fall the impact on our economy is significant. We have grown our trade with China enormously, so that it has surpassed our trade with Australia. But between those two countries, they alone now represent about 40% of our exports.

When it comes to the workforce, we still have unemployment of around 5.5%, even after GDP growth and the continual claims that we are “on the cusp of something special”.

And too many jobs – especially the new ones – are part time, low paid, or under arrangements that provide no protection.

Like the alarming spread of zero hour contracts. Under Labour, those contracts will spread no more. They will be gone. We should not tolerate them and we will not tolerate them.

This government says all is well in New Zealand. But their dry statistics don’t tell you about the hundreds of thousands whose work is less secure than ever before, whether it is a skilled tradesman forced to do unskilled work on casual hours, or the new hire stuck on a zero hour contract.

They won’t tell you about the fact that a well-paid young couple in Auckland now has a harder time buying a house than they would in New York.

And they won’t tell you about the kids who fall into poverty and have to rely on charity for breakfast. Or shoes. Or a raincoat.

I’m here today to make one thing very clear.

The Labour Party I lead is about jobs. Good jobs. Skilled jobs. Well paid jobs.

That’s what a good, fair and wealthy society is based on. And it’s what Labour stands for.

A job is about more than just an income. It’s about dignity.

Good jobs provide economic security, they sustain our communities. They are a source of pride and confidence.

More than anything else they are the path to well-being, to living a good life and creating an even better life for your family.

Ten years ago, New Zealand had the lowest unemployment in the developed world. Today, we’ve slipped to ninth.

It’s no good blaming the financial crisis. Eleven OECD countries have lower unemployment now than they did at the start of the global financial crisis – ours is a quarter higher. And we hit the crisis in better condition than most of them.

High unemployment is a cost to our economy, it’s a cost to our communities, and a cost to the government. We spend around $300 million a year more on unemployment benefits now than we did six years ago – money we could be using to drive growth instead.

And it’s why the next Labour government will make sure New Zealand has the lowest rate of unemployment in the developed world.

Let me say that again – the next Labour government will make sure that New Zealand has the lowest rate of unemployment in the developed world.

New Zealand has always been a nation of world leaders and we can lead the world on jobs and employment.
We’ve done it before. Just ten years ago. And we’ll do it again. Because that’s the single best thing we can do to ensure New Zealanders have wealth, security, and dignity.

I know that to achieve goals like this we will all need to work together: government, business, and workers. And by business I don’t just mean large corporates. I mean placing small firms, small businesses, at the centre of growth and job creation.

This year, I will be talking about several things I believe need urgent attention to help grow our wealth:
• Harnessing the power of small businesses.
• Getting serious about housing affordability.
• Ensuring Auckland operates as an internationally competitive city, breaking free of the gridlock which is holding it back.
• Developing a manufacturing sector fit for the 21st century.

I will expand on these final three points in later speeches in the coming month.

Finally today I want to focus on how we help our small businesses get ahead so we can drive job growth up and unemployment down.

New Zealand is a pioneering nation and it is this spirit of innovation which drives our small businesses.

A lot of people don’t know that small businesses were responsible for nearly one third of New Zealand’s economy last year.

And that 41% of the jobs created last year were created in firms with fewer than 20 employees.

And yet the question of how we can help these vital businesses to grow is very rarely at the top of the political agenda.

Well, I want to change that.

Because as much as small business does now, I want them to do more.

As successful as many firms are, I want them to do even better.

Because I know there are huge opportunities for our economy in having a stronger small business sector.

In having more businesses that are nimble, flexible and innovative.

And I want to see us do more to promote entrepreneurism.

I want to make sure that when working people take up the opportunity to be their own boss and to make a living off their own ideas and ambitions, their own energy, they won’t face unnecessary hurdles to do so.

To do that, Labour will ensure the Government does more to support our small businesses.

I’ve seen first-hand how – through working together with their employees – businesses like Fonterra have created wealth in a way that benefits everyone. Labour will work with small businesses to draw on this best practice from some of our most successful enterprises.

We will make sure that small business owners get to spend more time focussed on making their business work, instead of working out how to fill in their tax forms.

We will make sure that more training is available to new business owners so that someone who has never owned a business before can get up and running without too much red tape.

And we will make sure that there is more investment capital than ever to support our small businesses by finding ways for our major investment funds like the NZ Super Fund to support promising local start-ups.

We will do more to use our tax system to support investment in innovation and Research & Development, so that more Kiwi businesses can compete on the world stage in the cutting edge industries that make up the 21st century economy.

We will help businesses that want to diversify their offerings because we know that it’s better for our economy when we don’t have all our eggs in one basket.
With Labour, it will be easier than ever to start a business and make it succeed.

Labour will make small business a priority.

Over the next two years, I’ve tasked our spokespeople with developing a programme of action in government that will make growing our small business sector a major part of our long-term economic plan.

We’ll do it by listening to business, communities, and workers and by acting to get the job done.

That’s how we can create better, higher paid jobs for everyone.

We will be a strong and pioneering government that works to grow our wealth and to do that fairly. And, most importantly, to do it together.

Over the next three years, that will be Labour’s mission.

To work with New Zealanders from every walk of life to build a long-term plan for the long-term challenges we face.

To tackle the rising inequality that is holding our economy back and build a New Zealand where everyone can get ahead.

To support our businesses to grow new wealth and protect our standards of living.

We can do this together. And we will.

Because if we don’t we will be poorer as a nation. Not just economically, but socially – in our communities – as well.

Labour stands for a better way. We stand for a wealthier, fairer New Zealand.
We stand for real solutions to the big challenges that lie ahead.

We stand for the future.

And above all, We stand for jobs.

302 comments on “Andrew Little State of the Nation in 2015 ”

  1. lprent 1

    Good speech.

    I particularly liked the point

    It’s no good blaming the financial crisis. Eleven OECD countries have lower unemployment now than they did at the start of the global financial crisis – ours is a quarter higher. And we hit the crisis in better condition than most of them.

    National squandered our excellent economic shape in 2007/8.

    The focus on building a more diverse economy with more of the take from it going to employees can only help our economy at this point. Our internal economy has been faltering because people haven’t been getting wage rises commiserate with growth, but they have been getting the cost increases – especially housing.

    It has to stop.

    • mickysavage 1.1

      Agreed. The speech talks more to the heart than the head which I think is something lefties need to learn to do more often.

      It will be interesting to see how the right and the media handle this speech. It is entirely different to Cunliffe’s speech given last year. This time Little has concentrated on values and he is in the process of creating a narrative using his personal experiences. The result is impressive and National will find this hard to attack.

      • Gosman 1.1.1

        He states Labour is all about supporting businesses in growing the economy. Nothing wrong with that from a right perspective. He certainly doesn’t sound like he is offering anything different to the prevailing consensus over the past 30 years.

    • meconism 1.2

      That is a brilliant faux pas lprent, wage rises commiserate with growth’ Brilliant,well done.

      • lprent 1.2.1


        because people haven’t been getting wage rises commiserate with growth, but they have been getting the cost increases – especially housing.

        If you are a dickhead who selectively misquotes then you too could be as ‘intelligent’ as Pete George or Prince Bradbury pumping up their egos.

        • John

          Iprent, meconism was trying to point out your Malapropism.
          You used the word “commiserate”. Clearly, you meant to use the word “commensurate”.
          Better luck next time.

          • lprent

            Indeed. Thank you.

            Hey, I am writing comments in the work day between bouts of coding, frigging drawing in visio and setting up some virtual servers. If someone wants to make a point, then it pays them to do it quite plainly. Going for some dickhead non-obvious passive aggressive stupidity usually just results in me biting peoples heads off – that is a whole lot easier approach than trying to see into the head of a fool.

            I certainly make the effort to make damn sure that I am crystal clear about what I am saying. Why do you think that this fool cannot? And you have to explain for them..

  2. coaster 2

    Labour =jobs, finally the distinction between other left parties and shows the difference between labour and national.

  3. Ron 3

    Labour finally has a plan and a direction. We all have something to work towards. Am so pleased that our leader is stating what to so many people has been obvious.
    +100 Andrew

    • “..Labour finally has a plan and a direction..”

      really..!..i just read the speech..and didn’t see that..

      ..could you detail what i obviously missed..?

      ..he talked about planning to have a plan..

      ..(what have they been doing for the last months..?

      ..came to the decision to plan to have a plan..?..well done..!..) was all arbeit macht frei!…and all aspirational..and little else..

      ..and repetition..repetition..repetition..

      ..he just said the same bloody thing…over and over again…..

      .if it was boiled down to a jaunty song chorus..’d be ‘jobs!!!’..

      ..that is the state of littles’ nation..

      ..a remarkably narrow/one-dimensionable view..

      ..and really..totally underwhelming…

      • lprent 3.1.1

        .if it was boiled down to a jaunty song chorus..’d be ‘jobs!!!’..

        ..that is the state of littles’ nation..

        I realise that the concept is unfamiliar to you. However paid employment is how most of us pay our way. Many of us actually enjoy doing it.

        Don’t carp on things that you don’t appear to understand.

      • Te Reo Putake 3.1.2

        Yep, he totes missed out any mention of that vital voting demographic, the willfully unemployed inarticalute dope smokers. It’s almost like they don’t count, maaan.

        • Rob

          P Ure, Andrew also stated in the first few paragraphs that he wasn’t going to release detailed policy in this speech and why would you at this stage.

          I am not always the most supportive of recent Labour activities, you may have picked up on that. But I am warming to this guy. There are actually a few of us in manufacturing businesses that do not want any more erosion of labour law as it has only served to strengthen less ethical & culturally weaker businesses.

          • One Anonymous Bloke

            Well said. You’d be better off if all workers were paid a living wage. Can you see any way to achieve this without strong unions, given the low ethical standards you mentioned?

            • Rob

              OAB I have to agree. Some balance is needed.

              On another point , when you look at legislative aspects such as OHS, which is there to obviously protect and drive safe and healthy practice, it is now very easily manipulated by some organisations .

              Many larger businesses are able to achieve tertiary ACC ratings fairly easily because they are very adapt now at understanding essentially what boxes to tick and how to fill out the forms and look good for the single day of audit. What does not get strengthened is actually practical health , well being and a safe and productive environment. For some businesses, having a tertiary rating essentially stops all opposing arguments in regards to OHS as you have this un-contestable proof of Tertiary rating. Once achieved in some organizations it essentially de-powers individuals from making further requests for improvement. In short I feel that the introduction of very complex admin processes around OHS and the achievement of ACC ratings has weakened the ability of workers to engage and improve environments.

              • framu

                i think its vital to keep in mind that whats good for the big players isnt always good for SMEs, and to always discuss along those lines

                All too often a policy written for/by the multi nationals is sold, and received as being good for all business when the opposite is the case

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                Another symptom of low ethical values: observing the letter of the law.

                I’m not sure there’s a way for businesses to fix that: the minimum acceptable standard is set by the government.

              • Rosie

                And another +1 Rob. Agree re manipulation of ACC auditing and subsequent undermining of genuine efforts to promote effective H&S practices.

            • Ron

              Yes strong well run unions with a stake and say in the business they are working for. No reason why companies above a certain size cannot have worker representation on the board.

              Well said. You’d be better off if all workers were paid a living wage. Can you see any way to achieve this without strong unions, given the low ethical standards you mentioned?

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                No reason why companies above a certain size cannot have worker representation on the board…and plenty of reasons to have them there.

          • phillip ure

            yes rob..u r happy with a neo-lib labour..

            ..anything else..?

            ..and i wasn’t expecting detailed policy..

            ..but i was expecting..something..

            ..not just a repetition of what has been said before..

          • Rosie

            “There are actually a few of us in manufacturing businesses that do not want any more erosion of labour law as it has only served to strengthen less ethical & culturally weaker businesses.”

            + 1 Rob

        • marty mars

          that is mean – phil is not inarticulate

          • lprent

            Indeed he can ‘talk’. He just seems to have a philu centric universe sometimes and doesn’t consider that others might not share his enthusiasm about himself and his reality.

            • phillip ure


     am i talking about ‘me’..?

              ..i am talking about labour/little..

              ..u may not like what i am saying..

              ..but is there really a need for serial ad-homs from u directed @ me..?

              ..especially when the power-imbalance here is such i cannot respond to u in kind..

              i mean..i can’t call you an f.o.h..can i..?

          • Te Reo Putake

            Yes, he is marty. He actually perfectly fits the dictionary definitions:

            ‘not able to express ideas clearly and effectively in speech or writing’

            ‘not expressed clearly or easily understood’

            ‘(unable to communicate) without joints or articulations.’

            That’s a deliberate strategy makes it worse. It’s an arrogant sign of disrespect to the would be reader.

            PS, before anybody pulls me up, I should point out I misspelt inarticulate in the first comment. Irony, eh?

            • marty mars


              his ideas are expressed clearly – you just can’t be bothered allowing yourself to let go of the tight constricted way you want things to be. That is your choice but it’s a defect in you not the way his ideas are expressed.

              • Te Reo Putake

                Nope. As I showed, his mangling of written English fits the dictionary definition of inarticulate. And to paraphrase a poet, a writer should show he has mastered the language before he seeks to change it. Phil ain’t no master.

                • sure – whatever – dictionary def and all – yet he has quite a few replies arguing against his ideas – funny that eh – funny articulate inarticulatedness that can be understood and replied to – debated even forshame

                  • Te Reo Putake

                    Exactly right, marty. But what success would Phil have if he expressed his ideas in an easily readable form? By alienating a significant segment of TS readership, his rhetorical device fails.

                  • McFlock

                    Some people might be able to understand him.
                    I find that after a few lines he becomes unintelligible without great effort (that, frankly, he isn’t worth).
                    I can imagine that someone with dyslexia or a similar condition (diagnosed or undiagnosed) who has spent years trying to read conventional composition would find it nigh impossible to understand many of his comments.

                    And I’ve no idea what those “text to speech” dohickeys would make of it.

                    Language conventions have evolved to maximise communication. If someone wants to play with those conventions out of some artistic motive, fair enough – but that logically decreases the number of conventional English-users who will be able to understand the meaning that he (presumably) wishes to communicate.

              • weka

                ” you just can’t be bothered allowing yourself to let go of the tight constricted way you want things to be. That is your choice but it’s a defect in you not the way his ideas are expressed.”

                I have a disability that makes reading phil’s posts very difficult. Is that my choice? My defect I suppose 🙁

                • quick..someone rush a ‘false-equivalence-award’ to weka..

                  ..and u have mentioned that before..

                  ..and of course u don’t have 2 answer if u don’t want to..but i have been wracking my brain to try to think what ‘disability’ cd make a lack of capital-letters and commas..

                  (..and writing in a sort of free-form verse..)

                  ..have such an impact..

                  • weka

                    Are you suggesting I am lying about having a disability?

                    • Te Reo Putake

                      As I said earlier, there is an arrogance to Phil’s scribblings, a form of contempt for readers. Phil lacks empathy or understanding in this matter, but has no lack of ego. When it comes to criticism of his far from unique ‘style’ he has blinkers on, so it’s no surprise he has to ‘wrack his brain’ and still can’t come up with anything.

                      The rest of us can easily think of disabilities that impact on reading and whatever yours is, you have my sympathy, weka. Good on you for dealing it with and producing so many eminently readable comments here.

                    • there u go again..putting words in my mouth..

                      ..forget i asked..

                    • weka

                      Thanks TRP, much appreciated.

                      Phil, I don’t understand your previous comment, so I’ve asked for clarification.

            • Ron

              Actually maybe we are being unfair to Phillip, I was just reading drugfree world website here Drug Free and I must admit that many of the symptoms of his messages could well be attributable to his lifestyle. The article describes rapid heart beat, disorientation, lack of physical coordination, often followed by depression or sleepiness. Some users suffer panic attacks or anxiety, brain abnormalities, psychosis, sterility, mental functions diminished, brain memory diminished etc etc. Maybe we should show some kindness and just refuse to read his ramblings

              • heh..! of the day..!

                • you know you’re getting under their skin phil when they drag out the old druggie chesnuts and a bit of unemployed on the side, balanced with with writing style critique “he’s not doing it proper!” – next the blog and so on. It’s reminding me of yesteryear when the kiwiblot masses used to rise up in indignation and you batted them away, insects that they are. I find it irritating that you have to do the same thing here.

                  • @ m.m..

                    ..i know..the echoes/mob-mentality similarities with kb are striking..

                    ..and like there..many of them have no answers to points/challenges raised..(mainly because they have no ‘answers’..)

                    ..and just pitch in/slag wherever they can…heh..!

                    ..(and seems most are having a lean-in..)

                    ..and to me..hardened in those kiwiblog-swamps..

           really is meh..!..

                    ..(or points for creativity/ with ol’ ron..

                    ..i mean..!..he went and did some research..!..and deserves brownie-points for the very least..)

              • BLiP

                Drug Free World is a Scientology front group. The information contained in its material is largely wrong. Its based on the teachings of L Ron Hubbard, a criminal conman who taught that galactic overlord Xenu is responsible for all humankind’s current woes. There are currently more than two dozen lawsuits going on against Scientology’s front group Narconon which uses L Ron Hubbard’s teachings to treat drug addicts.

                Seeking to shut phil down via attacking him personally rather than addressing the points he makes is one thing, but please don’t use the exercise as an opportunity to promote the organised fraud that is Scientology.

                • ron…ron…tsk..!..tsk…!

                • Murray Rawshark

                  The way PU writes annoys me, but I can choose whether to read it or not. People who get into the clutches of scientology lose their freedom of choice. L. Wrong Hubbard should have been imprisoned, and put Tom Cruise in there as well. I wouldn’t miss him.

        • phillip ure

          but he reassured rightwing

          those like you..who..despite our world-beating poverty/inequality..

          .. fully supported labour ’14 election-policies of giving nothing to the poorest..


          • Te Reo Putake

            That’ll be the dope ruining your memory, Phil. Sad that you can no longer even accurately recall the events of just last year.

            • phillip ure

              “..Sad that you can no longer even accurately recall the events of just last year.

              what events of last yr have i not ‘accurately recalled’…?

              ..did labour actually promise more than inflation-only adjustments to benefit-levels..?

              ..i must have missed that..

              ..and i look forward to you proving me a liar..

              ..and detailing those specifics..that i missed..

            • Te Reo Putake

              what events of last yr have i not ‘accurately recalled’…?

              labour ’14 election-policies of giving nothing to the poorest..

              You made the claim, but as it’s just a strawman, you won’t be in a hurry to back it up.

              • labour policy ’14 for the poorest..was to do the same as national..

       raise benefits by matching any inflation-rises..

                ..that’s it..

                ..that is a fact..

                ..w.t.f. r u finding so hard to understand about that..(unpalatable) fact..?

                • Te Reo Putake

                  Actual social development policy from last year:

                  “Labour believes New Zealand should be a place where everyone, no matter what their circumstances of birth or what unexpected troubles life throws at them, is included and has opportunities to get ahead: Labour will support people to build their capabilities, make their own contribution, and have a stake in society.

                  Labour wants to see all New Zealanders reach their potential, knowing that if hardship and tragedy happens, there will be real social security and a pathway back to hope. Labour does not want New Zealand to be a country where people lose hope, and disadvantage is reproduced across generations. To break this cycle, Labour has policies that go beyond the Social Development portfolio itself:

                  higher wages, a living income, fairer taxes, reduced inequality
                  training and other services to enable people to get (back) into work
                  healthy, affordable housing
                  access to healthcare for all, but especially for young children
                  access to childcare and adequate time to spend with children
                  equal educational opportunities moving from education into work
                  freedom from family and sexual violence
                  support for disabled people
                  security of income in old age
                  an active and well established community and voluntary sector working with communities, families and government

                  Labour will:

                  Hold an Inequality Summit to put in place policy priorities for the incoming Government to implement.
                  Get young New Zealanders off the unemployment benefit and into apprenticeships by paying the equivalent of the dole to employers willing to offer a permanent full time job.
                  Lift the abatement-free thresholds for all main benefits to $150 per week to provide a pathway into paid employment.
                  Introduce a $60 a week Best Start Payment paid to almost all families during a child’s first year of life, with ongoing payments through to the age of three targeted at modest- and middle-income earners.
                  Improve the experience of children in state care by establishing and expert advisory group and reviewing the Children, Young Person’s and their Families Act 1989 to better reflect the needs of children and their families.”

                  Plus, Phil, a wealth of policy around housing, childcare and education that all impact on ‘the poorest’.

                  But, yeah, nothing specifically financially beneficial for malingering dope smokers who can’t be arsed doing anything but clog blogs, but I’m sure that would have been addressed in the second term.

                  • ..yr reams of committee-written aspirational-bullshit to one side..

                    ..(along with yr ad homs..)

                    ..cunnliffe..on the week b4 the election..

                    ..confirmed labour policy re benificiaries was to do the same as national..

           increase them @ the rate of inflation..

                    ..i repeat..what do u find so hard to comprehend about that..?

                    ..the benificiaries understood what cunnliffe was saying..

                    ..that labour had nothing for them..

                    • Te Reo Putake

                      Ok, sure, the actual policy isn’t good enough for you. The additional policy platforms that impact positively on the poor also don’t count. Phil has a bat in his belfry and the poor thing must be allowed to squeak.

                    • the actual policy..was for benificiaries to see no relief from their day-to-day grinding poverty..

                      ..dead easy to understand..

                  • Murray Rawshark

                    That’s still heavily based on getting everyone into work, without a hell of a lot about increasing the actual number of jobs. Not everyone can. Labour do like holding summit talks though. I remember the unemployment summit, where all Roger’s corporate mates got to perve at Jane Stephens.

                    Then after the summit and all the “help” they give out, when some people still can’t work, they turn into NAct and treat those people like shit.

          • lprent

            The problem is that when you peer into the murky future and beyond the full milk powder commodity boom and the Christchurch rebuild, there appears to be a dearth of anything to give to the poorest or anyone else.

            We have a problem, as was pointed out in the speech, that we are getting way too overdependent on a small number of commodities and trading to a small number of markets. That makes us vulnerable to commodity downturns and to screwups in those markets. It also means that with the commodities that there are bugger all jobs derived from them.

            National has taken their eye off the long-term future. Even at a government fiscal level it doesn’t make sense. Something like 80% of the revenue collected by the government comes from wage earners and GST. They are effectively cutting the base of mid-income jobs that fund most of those.

            No tax = less support for the poorest and increasing inequality.

            Basically we are all in this together, so please concentrate on something that pays for what you want over the long term and stop screaming “wanna cookie now now!”

            • Colonial Rawshark

              The banks are removing an excess billion dollars a year out of the NZ economy. Let alone adding in the power companies, Spark etc.

              That in itself is enough to create a small business/technology investment fund which could create fifty thousand jobs.

              In our current system, creating jobs takes money, lots of money. And in our current system that means taking on a large amount of debt – whether private or public (or both) it doesn’t really matter. *OR* for NZ, stopping the drain of money being exported overseas.

              If Labour can demonstrate where its going to find the money for an extra billion to two billion a year in spending, then I’d say that we can have the quantity and quality of jobs that we want.

              • Jepenseque

                CR a business provides a service, people are free to take it or not. No one forces you or anyone else to get a mortgage with ANZ. Go to Kiwibank or Heartland or Co-op or TSB or one of the many other NZ fin institutions.

                Think of it in reverse, people in the US talking about fisher paykal healthcare “removing an excess billion dollars a year out of the US economy” we could use this for x, y, z.

                Obviously ANZ, Westpac, BNZ et al provide a reasonable service.

                PS the power sector is overwhelming NZ owned. Origin’s 50% odd stake in CEN the one exception. Out of interest NZ firms proably own as much of the Aus power sector as they do of ours eg MEL and TPW wind investment.


            • phillip ure

              what u have said just supports the status quo..

              ..(which supports yr self-admitted position on the right of no surprises there..)

              ..with a fret that ‘a dearth of anything to give to the poorest or anyone else’.



     i have to list the options little/labour has..?

              • Olwyn

                This is what I think you are missing phil – Little’s speech sets out 4 defined goals:
                Harnessing the power of small businesses.
                Getting serious about housing affordability.
                Ensuring Auckland operates as an internationally competitive city, breaking free of the gridlock which is holding it back.
                Developing a manufacturing sector fit for the 21st century.

                Today he discussed the first of those goals. Later we will see what he has to say about the other ones. It is a good faith speech in that the goals are put first – there is no if-I-do-what-Corporate-NZ-lets-me-do-it-might-lead-to-outcomes-you-like. Little’s speech is about creating a solid economic basis upon which to build inclusiveness. I can smell no whiff of trying to win people over while covertly pandering to the TINA thesis in this speech.

                • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark

                  Thanks, Olwyn.

                  It would be nice from this point, and running till next week, to hear those 4 goals being pushed by Little’s comms team and his front bench.

                  They will have to be quick off the mark. The presstitutes and corporatised media will have already started sown seeds of doubt and distractions.

                  • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark

                    edit: …… started sowing …..

                  • Tracey

                    it seems many labour mps have been quiet with little almost exclusively speaking and being quoted. long may it continue.

                    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark

                      to clarify, pushing the message does not necessarily mean individual MPs speaking out to the media

              • tricledrown

                Their was an alternate view promoted at the last election called Internet Mana Party.
                Phil you were singing its praises even though Hone was anti Dope.
                Well IMP got less than 1 seat so your policies are not supported by 99.3 of people who turned out to vote.
                Time to have a rethink Phil.
                Chris Trotter’s excellant summation of recent politics in New Zealand is Right on the mark incramentalism is the new reality!
                Time to take off the strait jacket Phil and stop having fits.
                If you want the Labour party of old back you will have to become involved on motivating the 900,000 plus voters who didn’t vote to support a change in govt!
                We have had no change in voter turn out recently so is that going to change not likely.
                Obama managed to motivate enough disaffected to vote for him in the presidential election was unable to get those to vote in House and Senate elections.
                We only have one election and the left are to busy fighting each other espescially on the street level when it comes to helping get voters to vote.
                All parties on the left should be working together their to stop wasting resources.
                Meaning when the Greens or Labour knock on doors and transport voters on election day they should drive or encouage what ever their persusasion to to get involved and vote.
                Each left-wing party is more interested in protecting their own vote rather than winning the election.
                So Phil Philisofigally speaking you need to pull ure head in as you and your left-wing policy are as popular as Pete George’s former party!
                Time for a massive change of strategy from the left.
                Now not 6 months out from the next election.

                • a big lurch to the right..?..y’reckon..?

                  • lprent

                    That lurch has been long since done.

                    The last Labour government limited it and reduced its speed. If you can remember the 80’s and the even more frantic lurch in the 90’s you will know what I mean. The 5th Labour government largely killed the momentum, but were politically able to move left very far because the voters simply wouldn’t vote them back in if they did.

                    I doubt that a 6th Labour led government is going to do a big lurch to the left. But there is a willingness post GFC amongst voters to start considering it. What has been the issue is for the bloody silly Labour MPs and portions of the left to stop making dickheads of themselves and start looking more like they can form and run a government together.

                    Basically if you want a more leftwards swing, then get left politicians to stop making such dorks of themselves and encourage voters to tolerate a more leftwards swing. Because what the voters made absolutely clear at the last election was that they won’t tolerate

                    • Tails wagging governments (IMP and conservatives)
                    • Unstable looking parties going into government. (changing your leader 12 months from an election doesn’t work, nor does forming the IMP on the eve of an election). This is a pretty obvious lesson to anyone alive who has watched the disintegration of the Alliance, Act, United Future, and (repeatably) NZ First
                    • They ignore silly stunts like the IMP townhall fiasco
                    • Overall voters really don’t give a toss about identity politics of any form. Politicians need to concentrate on what people who vote are interested in if they want to get elected. Jobs, taxes, costs and incomes are at the top of that list.
                    • Yet again this last election proved that youth voters are enthusiastic supporters – especially of new parties, but as a group they fail to vote.
                    • It also proved that low income voters are unenthusiastic supporters – especially of new parties, but as a group they fail to vote.
                    • And finally, if you don’t vote then you get the government that you deserve – one orientated towards middle-income mortgage belt suburban NZ

                    Want to change the government? Stop carping about “shoulda be” and start figuring out how to change a few of those realities.

                    • “..The last Labour government limited it and reduced its speed..”

            !..clark ignored the poorest for nine long years..and embedded poverty in this country..

                      (she also stripped financial support away from benificiaries..)

                      ..and in doing so just continued what rightwing govts did to the poorest..(

                      ..made it it was fucken labour doing it to us..

             i see no real ‘slowing’ there..

                      ..where was this ‘slowing’ u saw..?

                      “..I doubt that a 6th Labour led government is going to do a big lurch to the left..”

                      i agree with u there..and as i have pointed out..u wd b wise to note the fate of labours’ ideological first cousin in greece..

                      ..after ruling in the 80’s/90’s and now refusing ‘to move left’..

                      ..they got single-figure support in this election..

                      (and if i were the internet party..i wouldn’t be in such a hurry to take all the ephemera to the tip..

             i think in many ways 2014 was ‘too soon’ for them/the nz people..

                      ..what’s happening in greece..and what is about to happen in spain/portugal/ireland/scotland..

                      ..will show the nz voters that whaddayaknow..!..there is an alternative..

                      ..and if not them..a new party..that sparks the imagination/feeds off those left-victories elsewhere..

             well ride a wave..and see yr ‘stubborn’ labour party following the path of their greek-cousins..

                      ..and it will be all their own work..

                      ..and i am not sure who these ‘left-dorks’ who u r talking about r .?..

                      ..harawira..?..(on his pot-stance/intransigence..?..yes..)

                      ..and imp..? late..?

                      ..the greek party now in power has only been going for a short time..

                      ..(and i refute yr simplistic-reasons for defeat..we all know it had far more parents than that..)

                      ..and yr comments on the low-turnout of youth/the poorest..?

            !..labour had s.f.a. 4 them..?..and with the poor..a history of nine yrs of labour kicking them in the guts/labeling them ‘unworthy’..

                      .and in ’14 offering them nothing..

                      ..why the fuck wd they come out and vote..?

             blame them for labours’ crap-policies in ’ a tad rich..

             is the second comment this thread..that u have detailed why things won’t happen..

                      ..i ask u again..

                      ..what policies to address what i am talking about..

             u see as do-able..?


              • greywarshark

                @ phil ure
                Are you running down everbody’s favourable and hopeful comments phil? They actually are thinking to build policy on a stable base that will withstand critical analysis by RW and achieve an advance from NZs moribund economy and living standards.
                While you bob around like a cork on the surface, likely to be washed out to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

  4. mickysavage 4

    And an acknowledgement of the damage caused by Rogernomics:

    The social inequality we suffer today, built up over the last 30 years or so, must be the driving force for the change we need to make.

    It’s a vicious circle. More inequality, slower growth, more inequality. It is so important that we all understand this: more inequality, slower growth, more inequality.

    We have to break that cycle if we want to succeed. And working on how we do that will be the priority for me as the new leader of the Labour Party.

    • lprent 4.1

      Aye. That has to have been the lesson from the last decade. Plus the devestation caused by riding commodities. Good for crony capitalists like Key and his mates. Bloody useless for the country.

      • phillip ure 4.1.1

        so what policies wd u support to do that..?

        ..a u.b.i..?

        • lprent

          Not at present. I don’t think that even removing the dead weight malevolence of the current benefit systems isn’t going to provide enough to offer a realistic level of UBI running into the future.

          It’d run for a few years maybe and then run out of funds – which is worse than what we have now. The optimal way to increase misery is to not be able to sustain such a programme. Basically the super shortfall issue written wider.

          We need to get the damn economy more effective at lifting all kiwis rather than the few quite unproductive crony capitalists, land developers and landlords.

          Our productive sector from export farming to exporting software is still too small in terms of the number of people working and benefiting from it. It means that wealth gets far too concentrated in people making unproductive rents out of assets.

          • phillip ure

            so are you saying you see no ways to change our dire situation..?

            .basically..t.i.n.a..?..aside from work!!!..

            ..i repeat:..’what policies wd u support to do that..?’

   have told us you see no way for a u.b.i..or any increase in benefit-levels..

            ..what do you see as possibilities..?

          • Draco T Bastard

            We need to get the damn economy more effective at lifting all kiwis rather than the few quite unproductive crony capitalists, land developers and landlords.

            It means that wealth gets far too concentrated in people making unproductive rents out of assets.

            We need to get rid of the rentiers and that means major legislation change. The best way would be to tax them out of existence.

          • Colonial Rawshark

            We should relook what this term “affordable” means. We know every dollar spent into the economy in a UBI will be taxed back into the coffers at some stage.

            So what is unsustainable about it? Its just electronic values assigned in a banking system. There are no real constraints in terms of goods and services which can be provided.

    • Gosman 4.2

      Then Little should simply advocate for a massive wealth and income redistribution policy and claim it will lead to better growth and prosperity for all. Somehow I doubt he will do that.

    • Murray Rawshark 4.3

      We have to give up the growth addiction before it kills us. Slower growth is not the cause of more inequality and I’m disappointed to see that Labour thinks it is.

  5. heather 5

    A great speech, finally a speech from a real leader.
    This speech shows that Andrew Little really cares about those being left behind, he has a plan to make life better for them.
    We need to support him to do that and not sit around talking about it.

    • are these ‘new’ commenters just a tad suss..?

      ..ordering us to ‘ not sit around talking about it.’..


      [Heather has made a few comments since November last year all of which have been sound. How about you address the comment and not speculate on the motivation? – MS]

      • phillip ure 5.1.1


        ist line:..waffle..

        2nd..a claim there is a ‘plan’..!!..there is a plan to have a plan…

        ..and then we are urged to (uncritically) support little..

        ..with the bizarre final order of ‘not sit around talking about it.’.. i said:..that last order particularly..’suss’…

        • mickysavage

          We are potentially two and a half years away from the next election. It is a bit early to finalise detailed policy don’t you think? Now is the time to establish to establish general themes which the speech does well.

          And Heather is right. If progressives want to change the Government then actual campaigning will be needed.

          • phillip ure

            micky..i just see labour continuing to travel that neo-lib road taken by their greek counterparts..

            (..their ‘socialist’ party..which just got single-figure results..after dominating greek politics during the 80’s and 90’s.sound familiar..?..)

            ..what was different from that from cunnliffes’ election speeches..?

            ..this is the same ‘’ the only thing labour will talk about..

            ..since seemingly forever..

            ..i mean..!..key cd almost have given that speech..!

            ..what was new/different/exciting/visionary for a better nz..and addressing our that speech..?

            ..i saw zip/zero/nada of that..

        • tricledrown

          Phil I’ll intureprent for u…..
          It means instead of continually complaining while sitting around typing on your computer ,get out and knock on doors get involved in motivating those who don’t voting.
          As they are not interested in reading the standard or DB whoare!

        • Tracey

          Labour released about 60 policies prior to the last eelction and it got them NOWHERE. They went backwards. Little seems to have worked out that 2.5 years out from an election is no time to be releasing detail, if 2 months out is not the right time how can 2.5 years be?

          He is in NO position to “fix” anything that concerns you 2.5 years out from an election.

          He hasn’t made me change my vote to Labour yet, not from this speech or anything prior. BUT he is suggesting that Labour stands for something. You may not like what he is standing for but the big difference between today and 6 months ago, imo, is we have a better idea of who they consider they represent.

        • Murray Rawshark

          Many people will like what Little said. They are not our enemies but may well turn that way if we constantly belittle them.

  6. The lost sheep 6

    ” As a union leader I was always conscious that wealth had to be created first before it could be shared.

    Good concept that. (Someone tell Greece).

    Amazing how rarely the concept comes up in discussions on TS though….if this was all I read, I’d think The Left was solely concerned with the redistribution of existing wealth.

    Andrew is playing a smart game IMO.

    • Te Reo Putake 6.1

      I thinking you’re missing a salient point; it’s workers that first create the wealth.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.1

        Nah, it’s destroying collective bargaining and whoring out your father’s legacy. That’s what creates wealth.

      • Phil 6.1.2

        Actually, no.

        It’s ideas and innovation that create wealth. Putting a bunch of workers in a room does no more to create wealth than putting a wad of cash in a room.

        • Te Reo Putake

          Really? If that was the case, I wonder why the Government is so keen to make it harder for workers to go on strike. To use your analogy, ideas and innovation do no more to create wealth than putting a wad of cash in a room. No workers, Phil, no profit.

          All wealth comes from the efforts of people alienated from that wealth.

          • vto

            ha ha yep Phil really put his foot in it there exposing his complete lack of understanding of how the world works…

            put an idea alone in a room and see what happen Phil

            sheesh, conservatives eh, they need to stay in the hold acting as ballast

        • framu

          you replace me with a wad of cash and see how much work doesnt get done

          good grief – stoopid award for that one phil

        • Murray Rawshark

          If you put your idea in a room, it’d be lonely. All wealth comes from the application of human labour, which can be intellectual labour.

          • McFlock

            Putting a wad of cash in a room won’t create anything, amalgamate anything, separate anything, fabricate anything, evaluate anything… it’s just a wad of cash in a room.
            It doesn’t even get taken out of the room again without human labour.

      • The lost sheep 6.1.3

        A worker needs a job before they can work Te Reo.
        It is businesses that provide them.
        It is a partnership, as Andrew is pointing out.

        • Te Reo Putake

          It doesn’t have to be business that creates jobs and it certainly is not a partnership when they do. If it was, the workforce would get a share of the profits.

          • The lost sheep

            They do, and they are called wages and salaries.

            I’d love to debate this concept further, but ironically, as a hard working business owner, I have just been told by an employee that I need to get my arse into gear and organise some work for people to do today…

            • One Anonymous Bloke

              No. The wages and salaries are compensation for work, without which there wouldn’t be any profits at all.

              As a business owner, I find these are very very easy concepts to grasp. Perhaps you’ve never really thought about them, or perhaps you’re just mindlessly parroting tired self-serving right wing clichés.

            • Tracey

              not so hard working you are not playing on a forum at 9.28 😉

            • Colonial Rawshark

              Partners in a business own shares, mate. I thought that would’ve been obvious.

              Time to move to co-operative models of commercial enterprise, methinks.

              • millsy

                “Time to move to co-operative models of commercial enterprise, methinks.”

                That needs to be explored some more. Labour could be onto a winner if they moved down that course.

                • Colonial Rawshark

                  Yep a few of us are going to push Labour down this road.

                • Gosman

                  Or you could engage with businesses to do so now and show the benefits of such an approach so that people voluntarily create co-ops rather than government ‘encouraging’ them to do so.

                  • Murray Rawshark

                    The government helped plenty of private fortunes start off. Fletchers for one, and all the people who get cheap land and have it rezoned. Why shouldn’t it help start cooperative businesses that actually benefit more than one or two people?

                    Why didn’t the mums and dads who bought shares in the power companies build their own?

                • vto

                  The ironic thing millsy is that cooperatives are seen by right wingers as some sort of woolly-headed holding-hands type thing when suggested by the left, yet the right wing uses them constantly…..

                  all limited liability companies are a form of cooperative.

                  These mindless tories don’t even realise that what they rail against about the left they do themselves….. every day

                  but that is conservatives for you – they aint leaders or thinkers

                  • Gosman

                    Who rails against collectives? I am generally in favour of any business model that people voluntarily enter in to. If this is a collective or not it doesn’t bother me. I am against government forcing or favouring unduly some types over others.

                    • McFlock

                      slater for one.

                    • Gosman

                      So you are using Cameron Slater as some sort of blue print for mainstream right wing views are you?

                      Does this mean I can choose to use PhilU or Martyn Bradbury likewise?

                    • McFlock

                      Do they exchange frequent texts with Little?

                    • Gosman

                      Martyn Bradbury seemed to be quite close to David Cunliffe and Hone Harawira. However that is beside the point. You are making a guilt by association argument. That is usually bad form.

                      [lprent: Why? Have you looked at the side of this site at John Key’s face recently – that accurately expresses my opinion of his ethics of getting involved with Slater’s garbage diving. As far as I can see John Key has been politically profiting from having his head stuffed firmly in Slater’s faecal bacteria for the last 7 years. I can’t see any justification for having a dirty politician to not be called for what he is.

                      For the record, I have a number of politician’s numbers. I don’t use them unless I have to. They are mainly there for caller id when they (rarely) call me so that I pick up the phone. The only phone numbers that I ever call cold were those of Helen Clark. That was because I was part of the Mt Albert campaign team and I sometimes needed direct information about targeting.

                      As much as I think that Martyn is a bit of a dork, I don’t think that he is trying to blackmail journalists with prostitutes or any of the other crap that Slater did. I suspect Martyn mainly contacts them when he was organising events or pitching for work.

                      Answer in OpenMike, but I suspect that I am going to be completely unsympathetic to your theory of disassociation of a dirty politician and his dirty operatives. ]

                    • McFlock

                      Not at all.

                      You asked to name someone who rails against collectives. I named a prominant, award-winning tory blogger who has frequent direct contact with the PM.

                      You (typically) shifted the goalposts into “mainstream”.

                      Well, the PM maintained regular contact with blubber-boy (not to mention his office helping out slater with all sorts of nefarious acts). If the PM is as popular as fisi suggests, then that would at least suggest that association with a wingnut like slater is largely accepted by right-wing voters. I.e., “mainstream”.

                      As opposed to bradbury and ure – even if your insinuation about cunliffe were correct, then that rules out ure from being “mainstream left”. So you don’t get to call illiterate veganism “mainstream left views”.

                    • tracey

                      gosman, has Phil U got the direct mobile number of Andrew Little? has he been getting special tips from Labour party MP’s? Cos that is only part of what differentiates Slater from Phil U. But you didnt let that get in the way of your wrong headedness

                    • “ don’t get to call illiterate veganism “mainstream left views”..”

                      would that it were..(even an ‘illiterate’-version wd do..)

                      ..and it will be..

                    • McFlock

                      lol phil
                      I really hope not. AGW will already make life bad enough.

                    • @ mcflock..

                      ..there was a show on prime a way back where a couple spent each episode eating the diet of a different era..

                      ..and the differences between the eras was stark..

                      ..i was cheered by that clear evidence of the differences a bit of time can make..

             yep..vegan is quite likely the mainstream of the future..

                      ..(in that fake-meat etc. will also be people will still be able to slobber thru their burgers.. and the like..)

            • tricledrown

              The last sheep business needs a customer before it can sell its product or service.
              If the customer has no money because their wages are to Low or non existant.
              You have no customers you can’t run your business.

              Lost sheep your strawman argument is just right wing propaganda!

            • framu

              wages and salaries come out before profit genius

        • One Anonymous Bloke

          Nope. They need work to do. There’s never any shortage of that.

          Without workers, businesses not only couldn’t exist, they wouldn’t have any customers.

          Those who have the good fortune to be in a position to employ others should remember that.

          • tricledrown

            OAB with reference to wool puller. Henry Ford William Cadbury and many others recognized that in the past.
            Now global corpirates don’t give a sheep shit a shager they have Lost the human touch and are following each other like lost sheep down the global exploitative mantra driving many more into slavery to extract the maximum profit.

        • vto

          Lost Sheep: “A worker needs a job before they can work Te Reo.
          It is businesses that provide them.”

          Nope businesses do not first create jobs to do, society first creates jobs to do by its very existence… then follows business …

          you silly silly conservative. no idea

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.2


      Pointless shill concocts false narrative. Is boring and deceitful.

    • vto 6.3

      You need to get a bit more into it lost sheep…..

      The concept is not as simple as that. There is an underlying base wealth in every society that comes from working together to provide housing, food, basic supplies and the like. These aspects need to be shared first, before additional wealth, which is what Little is speaking of, is shared..

      … and you see the problem is that this government and right wing supporters to do not even want that base level of wealth spread, they want that too…. as evidenced amply by the housing crisis and by increasing inequality.

      You idiots don’t have the basic building blocks of society right in your head. Typical conservative

    • tricledrown 6.4

      The lost sheep shager looking at NZ statistics’s dept figures going back to when they were first taken.
      Shows when we have had periods of redistribution we have had the biggest expasion of jobs economic activity new business on average aprox 3× The economic growth of the Tax cuts for the rich tax increases for the poor jobs and economic activity declines.
      This govt has been riding a fair wind,with CHCH earthquake spending,high Dairy prices,giving a false picture of socold govt policy being responsible for econmic activity.
      When you look at the underlying reality this is a borrow and hope govt similar to Muldooms and the 1920’s and early 1930’s.

    • Tracey 6.5

      If you read closer you might find that on TS the view point mainly expressed is that workers are treated as though they are not part of the wealth creation process, used like commodities.

    • framu 6.6

      “Amazing how rarely the concept comes up in discussions on TS though”

      thats bullshit mate

  7. Colonial Rawshark 7

    All I heard was some thing like “we need to drive up economic growth and create wealth (then share it around better)”. This sounds like more pretend and extend of the status quo, with a good pitch to the middle class thrown in.

    Unfortunately I reckon the global energy/economic crisis will kick in harder over the next few years and by the time Labour gets in in 2017, it’ll be moot.

    Eleven OECD countries have lower unemployment now than they did at the start of the global financial crisis – ours is a quarter higher.

    There are 34 countries in the OECD. So 23 of them have higher unemployment now. We are one of them.

    • Tracey 7.1

      Yeah, I am not moved to change my vote by this BUT, as I said above, at least he is starting to put a line in the sand so voters can begin to work out what they stand for, and who?

      • Colonial Rawshark 7.1.1

        Yes I think the speech makes sense from the standpoint of making a good play in the field of politics as normal. More growth, more exports, more income, grow the pie and make sure everyone has a fair share. But as you know it’s just pretend and extend.

        Looking at examples throughout the 20th century world it takes an economy roughly 15-20 years at full tilt to transform itself from a commodities focus to high tech/manufacturing. (Germany, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, China, etc). And it relies on wealthy nations overseas to be strong buyers of your exports.

        But that’s a recipe which worked in its time and we are now in very different times.

        • tracey

          yup, it doesn’t make me feel that the LP can lead the kind of courageous change we need BUT the connundrum is always that if they fess up to radical change before being elected they believe the electorate would abandon them…

          Greece has shown where society has to be to take the leap.

          • Undecided

            Wouldn’t it be better to wait and see how it goes in Greece before heading down that path?

            • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark

              Your comment, well past expiry date, would have been more appropriately directed to Roger Douglas and the Fourth ‘Labour’ Govt in relation to neoliberal capitalism more than 30 years ago.

              • Undecided

                Well in this case we actually get to see the experiment unfold and see the pros and cons which is quite refreshing

                • Murray Rawshark

                  We’d already seen the Friedmanite experiment unfold in Chile. The main difference was that Douglas and Lange didn’t need hit squads. We didn’t fight back. The Chilean workers did.

            • tracey

              My point is that people generally won’t depart drastically from the status quo until enough of them feel they have nothing left to lose. I would like to think we would not wait til then. My point was NOT that we should do what Greece is doing in terms of its choices per se but to compare the state of citizens before a radical departure from something which doesn’t quite do what it promised is made.

  8. millsy 8

    I really dont know what to make of it. I like the idea of the NZ Super Fund investing in start-ups, but it seems to be the speech was targeted at centrist swing voters. Nothing inherently wrong with that for the moment I guess, but sometimes you have to give voters a choice, and core supporters a reason to keep supporting them.

    And it will be interesting to see what he wants to do with the ideas systems — the unis, polytechs and CRI’s — you cannot have small businesses without ideas.

    A fairly solid performance though, putting all that aside. Its still a long way till 2017.

    • Undecided 8.1

      Interesting he mentioned removing the zero hour contracts which is a safe announcement but nothing about the 90 day bill

      • Colonial Rawshark 8.1.1

        Even though most will not use it, small/medium business owners generally like the 90 day right to fire, a lot.

        • Undecided

          I guess the question is does the positives of the 90 day bill outweigh the negatives

          • Colonial Rawshark

            All I know is there are too many people out there who can’t be bothered turning up to work on time, every day, day after day, in a fit to work state.

            • tricledrown

              I know alot of small business owners with the same story workers not turning up turning up late turning up stoned or hung over not willing to do a fair days work with the minimum fuss.
              Labour could attract votes their by helping school leavers and the longterm unemployed to be ready to step into work!
              As well making it easier for small businesses to operate.
              While on the workers side secondry tax has to be abolished as their are so many partime jobs now its forcing low waged workers to work for less than the minimum wage!
              There are more independent contractors than ever the left are ignoring this large sector.
              Having a policy focusing on improved regulation around contract fulfiment like guarateed pay when the likes of subbies get left out of company collapses.

            • Olwyn

              It is possible to give reasons for not keeping people on in those cases. The problem is not so much the 90 day trial period per se, but that no reason need be given for firing someone during that period. If no reason needs to be given, there is no room for dispute, which is what the employers like about it. However, it does leave room for bad faith employment practices.

              • Karen

                Exactly Olwyn. The big problem with the 90 day rule is that it is open to abuse by employers. If someone is late, comes in stoned , doesn’t do their job properly then give them a warning. If the unacceptable behaviour continues in spite of warnings then the employer is perfectly entitled to sack them.
                The “no reason required” 90 day rule means some employers who have no intention of providing a longterm job are able to mislead prospective employees taking on what are actually temporary positions..

                • nadis

                  As a small business owner, the 90 day rule is very beneficial. I’ve never used it, but I can see the attraction. Whats not recognised by many commentators is the risky nature of most small businesses which run on a week by week basis where meeting the payroll is often a close run thing, and so many small business owners have provided the family home as security.
                  When viewed through that prism – you can see the attractiveness of the 90 day policy. I’d love to see any stats on how many employees don’t get kept on – does anyone know a number?

                  If an employer has form in churning, then bring in a rule that takes away their 90 day right for a 2 year period. Define churn as something like more than 10% of employee hours over a financial year or something similar.

                  Also bring in a rule that says 90 day let go employees get cash compensation – 3 weeks pay or similar.

                  A couple of rules like that would retain the good for thee employer aspects of the 90 day rule while penalising bad behaviour.

                  I’d like to see what Little proposes in actuality for boosting SME’s. Some quick ideas:

                  – retain a 90 day rule though with some protections
                  – change the provisional tax system to a pay as you go based on monthly cashflow
                  – streamline the provisions around firing and redundancy, too many confusing areas. A clearer process would be good for both employers and employees
                  – don’t tax retained earnings for the first 3 years of a business’ life – just tax distributions.
                  – give businesses (say) 50% of the dole for 2 years when they take on an unemployed worker.
                  – incentivise businesses to invest in third party provided training

                  Forget subsidies and funding initiatives – they aren’t necessary and will get siphoned off by unproductive businesses who know how to play the system. A well executed business with proper governance and sound practices can get funding already.

                  • i think the 90 day shd become a 14 day.

                    ..i can see the benefits of a trial-period..

                    ..but 90 days is far too long to be left hanging on tenterhooks..

                    if u can’t work out if someone will be able to do the job..

                    ..after 14 days..

           have the nous of a wet-mop…

                  • framu

                    ” Whats not recognised by many commentators is the risky nature of most small businesses which run on a week by week basis where meeting the payroll is often a close run thing, and so many small business owners have provided the family home as security.”

                    i disagree – most recognise this – and then point to the fact trial periods were in place before the 90 day bill came in and there appeared to be zero data that proved it was a problem

                    thats the BIG point that many keep missing

                    trials were OK before hand – what changed was the level of accountability of the employer

        • millsy

          I am actually thinking that Little will probably keep it.

          • Undecided

            If he keeps to the center and sticks with popular National policies then he’ll probably be the next pm of NZ

      • Te Reo Putake 8.1.2

        Current LP policy is for removing the 90 day provision. I don’t see that changing, though I doubt Little is likely to promote the policy when talking to or about small business.

        btw, the LP Policy Council has a few vacancies to be filled. I know of some very progressive candidates who are wanting to take the spots to help move the party in a better policy direction.

        • Karen

          RNZ are reporting Little confirming that the 90 day rule will be gone under a Labour government. Must have covered it in the Q&A session after the speech.

  9. Jrobin 9

    Clear contrast to the PM this am. Straightforward message and clear values from Little. More squirming and equivocating from Key on the latest scandal within the national party. Good to see Little addressing inequality as a vicious cycle.

  10. saveNZ 10

    Good speech and good focus on growing inequality. I would have liked to see more on the environment and getting rid of corruption and dirty politics. Without focus on these, no good having a job if at any time the state can come in and film you for 24 hrs without a warrant or cancel your passport or armed defenders can come and arrest you on the request of Warner’s via the US government or police take away your computers like Nicky Hager. Signing the TPPA and giving up our sovereignty to corporations is not ok by me. What is Labour’s views on that, I fear a NationalLite approach. I might be ok, but what about the affects on my kids in the future if we get involved in giving these up in some sort of compromise under Labour?

    Freedom of Speech tied into the aforementioned issues are pretty important to me and growing international issues. The cowardice on these issues shown by the Labour party makes me still wary of their motives and ethics, even if I think they are on the right track with their other issues.

    In short a good speech but want to see where they are on the other issues above and actually do something other that talk about it.

  11. Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 11

    Inequality robs people of opportunities. It stunts potential. It’s wrong and it’s not the Kiwi way.

    This SOTN speech and the reported words of former hedge fund manager in the link below raise this question for me:

    How can inequality be addressed and the Kiwi way be maintained, while still allowing the overseas super-rich to make Kiwiland their “bolt-hole” when John Key is no longer Prime Minister?

  12. saveNZ 12

    Labour need to talk about quality of life, that is what is now missing in NZ.

    Yep you can get into an affordable house but will we have to live in cheaply constructed concrete jungles like Albany in Auckland and have a pig farm pop up next door cos it’s so important to the economy? That is National vision but with mansions everywhere so you don’t have to bother talking to neighbours or fitting into a community.

    Is Labour’s vision a job, but pop down to your local beach and find the TPPA oil company has just had a breach like Rena and it’s tough bickies to the locals? In fact the tax payers will clean it up and no recourse to the polluter? Not sure that sounds like a good compromise to me.

    Will there be no fish left in the sea, cos of all the illegal fishing and pollution while they let the illegal vessels go about their business like Murray McCullay?

    Will there be Charter schools routing the system? Hospitals and the Judiciary run like Banks all about profits and the children and patients (clients) secretly despised?

    Will be all be drowned in debt that the National party has racked up while the MSM tells us how great they are doing in our rock star economy?

    Also I am for multination companies coming into NZ if they are good corporate citizens. Ie for me the message about investing in NZ is about Morality and ethics.

    • Karen 12.1

      +1 saveNZ

    • Tracey 12.2

      will those born with disabilities, or who develop mental illnesses or have accidents which render them unable to ever work doomed to subsistence until they get to 65 (if they survive that long) and then we give them a big pay rise? He could use examples of these folks to start to eat into the lazy faking bludger-meme that is prevalent.

    • weka 12.3

      “Labour need to talk about quality of life, that is what is now missing in NZ.”

      From what I can tell Little is saying that Labour’s position is that jobs are the centre of everything else. Once the quality, protected jobs are in place, all the other values that Labour holds will be able to be built on. The implication there is to trust Labour. I do to an extent, but that will only really kick in if I see them making good progress on relationships with coaltion partners. I don’t expect to see that yet though.

  13. Gosman 13

    Based on the main points of his speech I could even contemplate voting Labour. Supporting business to provide economic growth and high paid jobs is bread and butter right wing policy. Not sure how this fits with some of the more radical left views on show here at times.

    • Undecided 13.1

      The devils in the details I guess but yes a good start by Little

    • vto 13.2

      It doesn’t fit does it gosman

    • Colonial Rawshark 13.3

      Your current crop of right wingers are only interested in supporting big corporate business and bankers, not SMEs.

      • Gosman 13.3.1

        Yes because that is the policy. National has stated that they believe supporting big business is more beneficial than small business and they have policies to match.

        • Colonial Rawshark

          Of course its more beneficial, big corporates provide the cushiest best paid post Parliamentary positions.

          • Gosman

            Have they stated that is their policy though? They could quite easily make the case for supporting large scale enterprises by stating they employ large numbers of people and by focusing on them can get more bang for your buck. Have they explicitly stated anything suggesting they favour big business?

            • Colonial Rawshark

              pretty obvs they do.

              • Gosman

                To you. But then again you think their policy is to suck the planet dry and keep poor people oppressed and ignorant. I could equally make a case that left wingers just want to crush any individual initiative and subsume all to the collective will. This would be an allegation with as much support as yours but one that would make me feel smug, and superior just as I am sure your view on right wingers makes you feel all smug and superior.

            • McFlock


              Have they explicitly stated anything suggesting they favour big business?


              National has stated that they believe supporting big business is more beneficial than small business and they have policies to match.

              So according to you, yes they have stated they favour big business. Is that evidence enough for you? I mean, I wouldn’t trust you to say the correct time of day, but I assume you hold your reliability in higher esteem then I do.

              • Gosman

                Sorry. That should have had a /sar tag against it. I presumed it was so outrageous that even the most hardened lefties here would understand it was tongue in cheek. Obviously I overestimated your abilities in that regard.

      • saveNZ 13.3.2

        I think you will find National is only interested in supporting SOME big business – ones that like to make donations to National and have employees who are ‘in the club’ – generally giving out those tenders around golfing social events etc. Sky city etc etc

        There is a little clique of big business CEO’s and management team that support National or are ex National and it is those, that get the benefits. It actually harms other big business and competition if you know that your political views and donations are what gets you a home run in this country. Hello folks that is called corruption and it is embedding it’s way into NZ as we speak.

        Labour very silent on this issue. What harms the left, is when they try to paint everyone into boxes, farmers are bad polluters, big business bad, etc etc. They need to look at facts and figure behind that. i.e. with big business how many jobs created in NZ?, what is the median wage and how many on low wages or zero contracts? If more politicians and others looked at facts rather than just some common discourses, then you are more able to target change and work out good corporate businesses and bad corporate business. i.e. it’s come to light that petrol attendants are on zero contracts and low wages, but the oil companies are coining it in, and supposedly creating all these jobs?

        The issues on jobs should be about quality and risk (i.e. are a few jobs worth risk of massive pollution which wipe out many more jobs like Rena?) not about size or nationality.

    • Tracey 13.4

      small business is NOT who lobbies national. Small business are not in corporate boxes with MP’s and Ministers. This government has done next to nothing for small business.

      • Gosman 13.4.1

        I suggest the 90 day trial is quite popular with small businesses. It will be interesting if Labour drops their objection to it.

        • tracey

          that was late 2008 or early 2009 and according to many on the right that was mainly for the benefit of the unemployed. 😉

          • Gosman

            By giving the small to medium sized business owners the confidence to employ them.

            You have avoided my main point though. Do you think Labour will drop their objection to the policy?

            • McFlock

              Why would they?
              The 90-day trial is only popular with incompetent employers. How many small business owners are incompetent, do you think?

            • Skinny

              There is enough antidotal evidence that has been gathered which points to the ‘fire at will legislation’ is not being used as prescribed (spun) or a cynic would say used to an advantage by a scumbag employer.

    • Skinny 13.5

      It fits pretty good with me Gosman and by your comment your obviously your waking up to Teflon John Key. Excellent to hear 🙂

      High job growth, supporting small business, destroying zero hour contracts. Sorting out the ridiculous Housing issue in Auckland.

      • Gosman 13.5.1

        Other than the destruction of zero hour contracts that could be any political party’s proposed set of policies.

        • Skinny

          Dear boy it is the genuine tone of what’s been said by Little. One of a man you can trust to get the job done. A refreshing change from the broken promises and lies that flow from snake oil Key’s forked tongue.

  14. fisiani 14

    But where’s the beef?
    Good attempt but no cigar.
    Wishful thinking and empty promises do not grow jobs.
    He failed to point out that Labour would have to be in coalition with the nihilistic Greens. So less jobs in farming, mining , prospecting, road building and extra taxes on every business.
    Not a circuit breaker. I’m surprised. I thought he would do better. Oh well perhaps next time.

    • vto 14.1


    • Colonial Rawshark 14.2

      “Nihilistic” do you even know what the word means? “Nihilistic” is exactly where current day crony capitalism is taking us, fool.

      • McFlock 14.2.1

        I love it when tory morons use words bigger than their miniscule brains.
        Calling the Greens “nihilistic” is a bit like calling the pope an atheist – one might disagree with his brand, but that means he has a brand.

    • tricledrown 14.3

      Virtually all mining has collapsed
      Like wise exploration.
      Like wise your argument

    • tricledrown 14.4

      Virtually all mining has collapsed
      Like wise exploration.
      Like wise your argument

    • Chch_chiquita 14.5

      What is so brilliant about being reliant on farming, mining and roads? Dairy prices are in free fall mode, mining is on the downhill, roads are solving no problem at all and do nothing apart from lining the pockets of National’s mates. Maybe instead of being trapped in these last century industries we should be investing in technology and public transport?

    • Clemgeopin 14.6

      You are sounding as pathetic a misrepresenting spinner as Farrar, Slater, Hooton, Rudman, Key, Joyce, English and Cosby Textor. Par for the blinkered valueless narrow vision of the RW adherents of course.

      • fisiani 14.6.1

        Care to point out where I misrepresented National policy?

        Actually Duncan Garner has shown that the Little Emperor has no clothes.—is-that-it/tabid/674/articleID/69882/Default.aspx

        • Skinny

          We all know Garner is full of shit, he purports to be ‘A’ political as a commentator yet puts the slipper into any party outside of Nact. Together with his poorly trained puppy dog Gower they invent negative fantasy plots against the Left. They channel their spin through to a gullible audience on radio & tv.

          Lite weights the pair of them that attract dimwitted cheerleaders like you fisinani.

          • McFlock

            He has seen a letter being circulated, two weeks max…

            • fisiani

              Little gone by Valentine’s Day???? Surely not.

              • McFlock

                you wish, gobbler.
                That was Garner’s line re:shearer. Failed dismally, although it probably helped the eventual resignation occur. Like all good propaganda (as opposed to the incompetent propaganda you vomit up).

        • Clemgeopin

          “Care to point out where I misrepresented National policy?”

          * Where did I say you did? Stop writing crap.

          My response was for your RW spin and misrepresentation of Mr Little’s speech.

          You replied, ‘Wishful thinking and empty promises do not grow jobs’

          * It is an opening speech in which he is articulating his vision and indicating the direction for the party and the government under his leadership. If you were expecting detailed policies at this early stage, then you are a fool. This was not the occasion to spell out detailed policies. There is ample time for that as the election is nearly three years away. Andrew is no fool. He will formulate, based on his own personal experience and in consultation with the party, the caucus and experts, smart social and economic policies that are fair and good for the people and the country for the long term. So, stop your stupid RW spin.

          You said, “He failed to point out that Labour would have to be in coalition with the nihilistic Greens”

          * He also failed to point out that the present government is a crooked pro rich, pro corporate RWNJ of an outfit that will do immense harm to the country and its ordinary people in the long haul.

          That Labour HAS to be in coalition with the Greens is not a given under MMP. People may vote differently at the next election and the Nats may be under 30% for all you know.

          If there is a need for a coalition, it could be with the Greens and/or NZ First, Mana or some other new party. Labour has had coalition governments with NZF, Dunne and the Alliance. You should know that you can not blindly make assumptions based on past election results. For example, National got only 20.93% at the election in 2001.

          And if Labour were to go with the Greens, it does NOT follow that Labour will have to endorse and agree with ALL the Green policies, just as National does not do so with the ACT, Dunne or the Maori party. So, stop your lies.

          You said, “So less jobs in farming, mining , prospecting, road building and extra taxes on every business”

          * He did not indicate any of that in his speech today. Stop making things up like the rogue tight wing spinning merchants and corporate beholden MSM do. Little has indicated that he wants growth, jobs, better wages, a smarter economy and a fairer society. Wait for the policies. In the meantime, cut the crap.

  15. Michael 15

    A good effort however I question the venue. Surely Little would be better off pitching his message to people who might actually vote for Labour if he manages to convince them, as opposed to people who never will?

  16. Atiawa 16

    A wonderfully constructed and defining speech full of core party values often gone AWOL in recent years. He wasn’t afraid to use his union past and the experiences and successes achieved as a modern representative of worker collectivism.
    Families will now have a choice as to the path they take in their employment and communities Will they continue with the Sunday stroll in their thinking or will they put on their running shoes and begin a new fitness regime that readies them for 2017 & beyond?

  17. b waghorn 17

    Bravo Mr Little .
    Keep sticking it to Mr small beer key.

  18. Bill 18


    What he missed was the opportunity to name the one thing that could/would have galvanised broad and diverse sections of the population to pull together and get serious about making better and safer for all of us…

    Soft selling a better ‘business as usual’ off a (somewhat soft and obscure) rejection of 30 years of dismal economic theory is….weak, dangerous and irresponsible.

    It’s 2015. In as little as 30 years our infrastructure and production/distribution systems will be, at best severely frayed and more likely, be flapping around in tatters.

    We have one shot, spanning the period of just one generation, to complete a willful radical step change in how we live our lives. If we don’t, we’ll likely be sent spinning on to our collective arse by external impacts. Acting intelligently, we’d have taken the first step years ago. But we didn’t. So now, and with much less cause for optimism, we have to take the first step – today.

    It’s can’t be about ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’. It has to be about ‘people, people, people’. To be clear. It’s not even about people before profit. That simply accepts and promotes an ‘impossible’ economic model that’s driving global warming and, with that, the severest of repercussions for our physical society and all of us who will be trying to inhabit and survive within it 30 years from now.

    It would have been an acceptable speech in the 1980s or the 1970s or during any decade when we were genuinely unaware of what global warming was going to do to us and our world. It’s not acceptable to continue pedaling 20th C stories of ‘better times for all’ when it’s sealed with blithe ignorance and contains nothing more than vacuous hope – not in the 21st C.

    • Gosman 18.1

      Speak to The Greens. I’d love it if they started promoting such ideas.

      • Te Reo Putake 18.1.1

        Yep. Climate change is vitally important, but it’s no vote winner. Particularly as most parties accept it as fact nowadays and differ only in what they think the response should be.

        • Bill

          What any politician thinks the response should be versus what the science tells us the response must be. There’s the problem right there.

          These politicians – all of them(?) – are hung up on a 20C mindset that embraces a growth economy and, by dint of that ‘economic necessity’, kicking the AGW can down the road to when they ain’t in office no more.

          Now, how does that level of irresponsibility square with supposed ‘Labour Values’?

          A politician less cowardly…one with a modicum of integrity – would put the reality right out there and allow it to be digested and discussed. The proposed response to the very real and unfolding disaster of AGW – not the announcement of the blatantly fucking obvious – would be the potential vote winner.

          • Draco T Bastard


          • marty mars

            + 1 So true Bill – these politicians are irresponsible, self-centred and foolish – if they really cared they would be shouting from the rooftops but they don’t.

            • Gosman

              Why do you think The Greens aren’t doing this?

              • short answer:..a long history of being as useful as milk-dispensers on a bull..

                ..a long history of their ‘silences’ guaranteed by pissant ‘memorandums-of-understanding’..with both labour and the tories..

                ..(it’s astonishing how many yrs of silence on everything else a few pink batts will

                ..a hunger for power so acute..everything they supposedly ‘stand for’..

       ‘negotiable’/is able to be waved away..?

       is that for starters..?..i cd go on..

          • Clemgeopin

            The proposed response to the very real and unfolding disaster of AGW – not the announcement of the blatantly fucking obvious – would be the potential vote winner

            Are you SURE that would be a vote winner? Then strange that while Labour/Greens used that at the last election in their policies but National did not. We know what happened.

            • Bill

              Am I sure that policies espousing an intelligent response to AGW would be a potential vote winner? Put it in context will you?

              When (if?) the NZ population has been ‘given permission’ to consider AGW (the short term opinion poll dive is awarded to whichever political party grabs that mettle) and we, the public, have been subjected to the blunt scientific evidence, then what is there, bar a response?

              At that point, who gets votes? The Party that called it, or the ones who flapped around saying nothing was up? Who do you think will have the public’s trust?

              • Clemgeopin

                “Am I sure that policies espousing an intelligent response to AGW would be a potential vote winner? Put it in context will you?”

                It is the right thing to do to reduce carbon emissions and promote renewable energy methods for industries.


                This is a global issue that all nations, especially the BIG ones, that need to take the initiative in a big way and lead from the front.

                It is kind of unfair and impractical for a small nation like NZ to go ahead in a BIG way when it will cause economic difficulty for the people while the rest of the world isn’t really doing much. For NZ to take the moral high ground and do so will of course set a great example for the world, but will be at a great cost to us if not implemented gradually and carefully over time. That is the problem.

                To say it is a ‘vote winner’, I think, is wishful thinking. Otherwise, the Greens would have been polling over 50% by now.

                How do you propose we can practically do this in NZ a meaningful, painless way that the voters will be happy to support?

                • Murray Rawshark

                  Your arguments remind me of those the nuclear lobby made against the ban on nuclear ships. The right were also sure the NZ disease would spread and the nuclear peacemakers would be kept out of ports all around the world. Sadly, nobody followed, but neither did we suffer. Or maybe we did, if we can explain FJK’s adoration of the seppos by a desire to say sorry for our being naughty all those years ago.

                  • Clemgeopin

                    No, I am not a ‘denier’ nor do I not care. I do. I am not sure how we in NZ can make QUICK changes with voter support, while the world does it slowly or not at all!

                    How do you propose we can practically do this in NZ a meaningful, painless way that the voters will be happy to support?

                    • Murray Rawshark

                      What we’re doing at the moment is meaningless and painful. As to how to convince voters, I wish I knew. We probably need a campaign at least as big as 1981 or the ships issue.

                      I know you’re not a denier, but your arguments made me think of those used against the nuclear free business.

      • Bill 18.1.2

        The scientific data and analysis is a bit more than ‘an idea’, don’t you think?

    • tracey 18.2

      Great comment but please, please, don’t use “step change”. Like “brighter future” and “aspirational” they are just Crosby Texter generated hot buttons to manipulate folks…

    • Ovid 18.3

      NIWA outlines its projections for climate change in New Zealand here. The main risks to New Zealand’s infrastructure are around flood protection, storm damage and urban drainage/sewage systems. Nobody wins elections on irrigation and plumbing.

      • Gosman 18.3.1

        But we are all doomed Ovid. A politician on the Left needs to tell us this.

        • Bill

          No Gosman. A politician needs to stop spinning off the back of economic considerations and tell of the science like it really is.

        • Draco T Bastard

          Life on Earth now officially at risk, scientists say

          Don’t need them to tell us this, just need them to stop telling us that we can go on doing what’s killing everything.

        • tricledrown

          Gooseman Con Kochted denial!
          so why have National put a paltry$165 million over 4 years to mitigate climate change if nots not happening!
          and why did the National govt continue funding the Combined 4 Nations Ice drilling project in the Antarctic.
          The results of the drilling showed that the last time the CO2 levels were that high there was a climate catastrophe!
          Politicians on the left have been pointing out climate change!
          The flat earth dogmatic Deniers have all foolowed the oil Barron’s Con Kochted propaganda like leemings!

      • Bill 18.3.2

        Dunno Ovid. A projection that claims we are locked into a 0.6 degrees C increase in average surface temperature by 2100, when we are already 0.8 degrees C above pre-industrial average surface temperature levels, while the data provided by climate scientists is pointing at possible 4 degrees C average surface temperature increases by as early as 2050…

        Anyway, throw in carbon capture and storage as though it’s an already existing technology that works at the necessary scales and push out ‘allowable’ atmospheric CO2 levels so that your very much looking at odds as opposed to ‘certainties’ (the difference between 66% likelihood and 95%+ certainty) and you can have meaningless conversations about 2 degrees C. temperature increases if you want.

  19. nogodsnomasters 19

    “When people have jobs, they have dignity, they have self-respect”

    Fuck right off Andrew. Having a job is spending the majority of ones life inside a totalitarian, hierarchical, artificial, meaningless little world – nothing is more demeaning, humiliating and depressing.

    • Draco T Bastard 19.1


    • Undecided 19.2


    • Bill 19.3

      Almost agree wholeheartedly. Pretty sure there must be some things that are more demeaning, humiliating and depressing, but yeah, it’s right up there with the best of the worst.

    • @ nogod..

      ..+ 1..

    • b waghorn 19.5

      I tried unemployment and I’ve been under employed I like busy as long as the boss isn’t a dick head working works for me.

    • little shd try telling that to someone with their hands/head down a dirty toilet..@ 4.00am..most mornings..

      …and for minimum-wage.. fucken ‘dignity’ there..

      ..for the ‘dignity’ of a real/living-wage..maybe..

      …but not for fucken minimum-wage.. way..!

      ..and of course little continues clark’ depictions of ‘the other’..the ‘unworthy’..

      ..with his subtext of those not so fortunate as to be cleaning toilets.. obviously having no ‘dignity/self-respect’…

      ..ew..!..just fucken ‘ew!’..

      • b waghorn 19.6.1

        Have you asked the people that do that work how they feel about it or are you guessing

        • phillip ure

          missed the point again..?

          ..i said..what they are paid for that work…(then an $8-9 bus-ride back home..)

          ..and i have done crap jobs..for absolute power-crazy arse-wipe bosses..enough to have some idea..

          how about u..?

          ..had 2 get down and dirty..?..or a silver-spoon ride..?

          • b waghorn

            From planting pines to pulling dead calves out of cows and quite a few hard sweaty jobs in between any chance of a easier ride died with my father at 42.
            I tell my step daughters to get any job you can then look for better .

        • Te Reo Putake

          Heh! Phil talking about work is rather like the Pope talking about sex. And just as effective.

          The majority of people actually like work. Sure, they might prefer some other job or another $100 a week, but it’s part of what defines them as a person. It’s amazing that some commenters here think they have the right to sneer at what most workers consider an essential part of their self image and actualisation as an adult.

          anyhoo, here’s a song:

          • phillip ure



            i start between 5-530 am most mornings..

            ..40-50 postings a day..

            ..a hand-picked search-engine of approx 100,000 ‘best-of’s’..

   homs is really all you’ve

            ..and that is one cliched/boring band..i got to halfway thru the first chorus..

            ..that’s yr taste in music..?..


   it b more white-boy-rock..?..

            • Te Reo Putake

              Exactly my point, Phil. Why don’t you get a job? You’re obviously capable of it. At the moment, you appear to be in exactly the same space as the one Cameron Slater occupied a few years back; claiming to be too ill to work, but actually spending all day working on blogs.

              *Just for clarity, I don’t know you or your circumstances, other than what you have chosen to share here. Don’t feel that you have to go into detail and I’m fine if you don’t want to share. Ultimately, it’s your life and your personal business. I’m supportive of a UBI just so folk like yourself have options that include doing fuck all. It’s the hypocrisy of your lecturing others on work when you choose to live off their earnings via tax that I find hard to swallow.

              • and a special ‘selective-outrage-award’ will be couriered to you..

              • The Al1en

                Interesting the whoare website be classed as work. Is it paid? Is the question that needs to be answered. If it’s not, it’s a hobby and/or folly, and nothing more than that no matter how self aggrandising.

                Unless phillip is an invalid or sick with winz approved medical dispensation, if he claims a benefit, he is required to seek a minimum of 30 hours paid work per week or he’s wilfully defrauding the state. Only phillip can answer, which he won’t, but fraud is a serious offence. I trust he has what passes as a clear conscience, but the disservice to those genuinely in need isn’t lost on those who suffer his platitudes about helping those most in need. Hope your case manager, if you have one, doesn’t read political blogs.

                Of course if his incapacity is a by product of his drug addled history there may be some who will argue he should be disqualified from any state assistance as it’s self afflicted, but hopefully not any of us on the caring left. Sure it explains why his political analysis is consistently lightweight, but even munters are deserving of a hand up and a tax payer funded hand out. I don’t begrudge the self ruined a free meal.

                If phillip doesn’t claim a benefit, the likelihood is because he is wealthy enough to not need one which makes a liar of his recent claim to live in abject poverty, regardless of if having an asset like a pre stolen subaru station wagon which costs $5 pw to run or being a self confessed regular moderate smoker of cannabis fits the criteria.

                I do find it odd on the day AL makes his first big play as labour leader the one running most (if not all) flak and diversion isn’t the regular right wingers but the most left lefty in the village. Who’s side is phillip on? As conspiracy and false flag theories are all the go on here at the moment, maybe there’s one under your very noses and some have been blind sided by familiarity. Who would ever know?

                To end, an answer to phillip’s stated work will set you free stat reply – Yes ure, I’m sure it will if you’re genuine unemployed and doing it hard. It does for the rest of us.
                Try it, if you’re fit and able, you never know, contributing to society instead of standing there with your hand out might do wonders for your self esteem and if you look at the world through less cynical eyes you might find people are smiling back and not just laughing at you behind it.

                • The Al1en

                  Oh, and I could find a song on you tube called ‘Turn off the computer, get off your lazy arse and go get a job you ‘all about me’ over entitled piece of cabbage fucking frankenmilk swilling crudola’, but if you hum it I’ll sing it.

          • Bill

            The majority of people actually like work.

            Well, aye. But is there a majority who actually like their job? I’m asking because most of the people I’ve ever spoken to would, all things being equal, walk away tomorrow. And most people who have been made redundant miss their workmates and a sense of community – not their actual jobs.

            See, strip away the social mythology around jobs and the societal pressures to comply, and all that’s left is dismal wage slavery. The onerous sanctions (psychological as well as material) placed on those not in jobs should give a heads up to the real attraction of having a job, no?

            Oh yeah. And in keeping with the theme, here’s a song 😉


            • Pete George

              But is there a majority who actually like their job? I’m asking because most of the people I’ve ever spoken to would, all things being equal, walk away tomorrow.

              I like my job at times, at other times I find it a drag. I’d like a more interesting job, I’d like not to have to work for wages and do whatever I wanted.

              But like most people who work for a living I can’t just walk away. Others rely on what I do.

              And if masses of workers just walked away it would do a lot more damage to our society, just about immediately, than climate change might do some time in the future.

            • Murray Rawshark

              I like most things about my job. I consider myself extremely lucky. I used to like fixing Trumpies. I liked painting houses for a while. With both of the latter I was self employed. I haven’t really liked any of the other jobs I had in the past, although I did enjoy the other things like workmates that you mention.

  20. Draco T Bastard 20

    We need to do what’s right for business so we can do what’s right for workers and their families and to keep skills in New Zealand.

    Ask not what you can do for your country, but what you can do for the poor,struggling businesses.

    We’ve been doing what’s right for businesses for the last thirty years and it’s what’s caused that poverty and inequality that we see about us as Little acknowledges:

    The social inequality we suffer today, built up over the last 30 years or so, must be the driving force for the change we need to make.

    And yet he wants more of it.

    The best changes happen when we bring workers and businesses together, so that everyone can win.

    Actually, the best changes happen when we get rid of employers and change businesses to cooperatives. This will get rid of the bludgers that are ruining our society.

    We all understand that strong businesses and strong communities are two sides of the same coin. You can’t have one without the other.

    Actually, some of the longest lasting societies didn’t have businesses at all. The shorter lasting ones always did. This would indicate that getting rid of businesses and simply working as a community is a far better option. Of course, that does get rid of the rich and powerful but that’s ok as they’re the ones that are destroying our society.

    And when we talk of inclusiveness, we also have to include future generations. Because sharing with future generations means preserving and protecting our natural environment.

    Take a detailed look at what resources we have available and determine what is the sustainable use rate of those resources are using today’s technology. This will inform us what we can do with our economy as well as ensuring that it remains viable. Gets rid of the ever increasing use of resources that is used to push growth though.

    This isn’t just about businesses and consumers and the markets they make up.

    So far that’s all it’s been about – more business and how those business will continue to exploit people.

    This is equally about citizenship and the proper role of government.

    The people are the government and their proper role is to decide how we live and what we do with the resources that we, as a society, have available to us. It is not for businesses nor parliament to decide these things.

    We are a pioneering nation.

    Great idea, where’s our space program so that we can build a bridge to the Final Frontier? We can’t call ourselves pioneers when all we seem to do is farm and we do that unsustainably.

    How do we provide for economic security for New Zealand – for businesses, for households and individuals?

    Get rid of capitalism.

    The truth is, it’s pretty obvious that this government has given up on fair wage growth and a fair share of the gains of a growing economy. They’ve just given up.

    It’s not that they’ve given up – it’s that National have never believed that workers should have a fair share of the wealth that they produce.

    Our economy is dependent on commodity exports, and on too few markets. Dairy, timber and minerals have been strong sources of income for us when prices are high, but as they fall the impact on our economy is significant.

    And if we’d actually used those resources to the betterment of the country rather than chasing mere money we’d probably be better off.

    High unemployment is a cost to our economy, it’s a cost to our communities, and a cost to the government.

    We’ve had high unemployment since the 1980s and the reforms of the 4th Labour government when they dropped full employment as a government policy. It’s been kept high so as to keep wages down. This has, inevitably, resulted in our low wage economy with a few people getting extraordinarily rich.

    And it’s why the next Labour government will make sure New Zealand has the lowest rate of unemployment in the developed world.

    Not good enough. We have to go back to a policy of full employment, where everybody who wants a job can get one, where the only people ‘unemployed’ are the people transitioning between jobs. To do that the government needs to be soaking up those that can’t find work in the private sector but that shouldn’t be hard as the government should be the first port of call to actually get a job. A reasonable government space program would have work for 100,000 people or more.

    Ensuring Auckland operates as an internationally competitive city

    It is this goal of being more competitive that is destroying our country and our society. It is the drive that forces wages down and inequality up.


    ?? The word you were looking for is entrepreneurialism.

    I want to make sure that when working people take up the opportunity to be their own boss and to make a living off their own ideas and ambitions, their own energy, they won’t face unnecessary hurdles to do so.

    Actually, people wanting to go off and work by themselves is a major killer of entrepreneurialism as we end up having lots of people trying to do the same thing and thus using up more of our scarce resources in unnecessary duplication.

    And we will make sure that there is more investment capital than ever to support our small businesses by finding ways for our major investment funds like the NZ Super Fund to support promising local start-ups.

    That will do the exact opposite of what you say you want as the interest returns take money out of the economy.

    With Labour, it will be easier than ever to start a business and make it succeed.

    And thus it will be easier to destroy society.

    Over all score: Fail.

    • + 1..

      ..a good/useful unpacking..

    • TheContrarian 20.2

      “Actually, some of the longest lasting societies didn’t have businesses at all.”

      Which societies were these?

      • Draco T Bastard 20.2.1

        Australian Aborigines and a number of native North American peoples as well (David Graeber’s Debt: The first 5000 years). And there’s probably a few in the other continents that I haven’t heard about.

        Capitalism is not a natural state of being no matter how much the RWNJs would like us to think that it is.


          So that’s two out of many. And these two societies could hardly be considered the most technologically advanced or long-lived – in fact they barely moved technologically in thousands of years. The underpinnings of Western society (democracy, law, trade etc) go back thousands of years also – back to the Greeks and possibly further.

          Not to mention just having businesses does not make a society capitalist. No matter how much Draco misunderstands capitalism as “everything that doesn’t fit my preconceptions).

          • Draco T Bastard

            I only recalled two, I didn’t say that there were only two. And they may not have been the most technologically advanced but their longevity is proof of their success.

            Not to mention just having businesses does not make a society capitalist.

            Yeah it pretty much does. I don’t misunderstand capitalism – it’s a top down hierarchical system that drives accumulation by the few at societies expense usually through usury and private ownership of the commons.

            • TheContrarian

              They weren’t successful, they were almost completely wiped out due to their inability to advance technologically.

              No, Draco – business =/= capitalism

              • Draco T Bastard

                They weren’t successful, they were almost completely wiped out due to their inability to advance technologically.

                They were successful for thousands of years until they got wiped out by a young upstart that’s about to destroy itself – yet again. At which point, those types wise rise again.

                No, Draco – business =/= capitalism

                I’m really not having this conversation with you again. I’ve shown the research that shows that the ancient regimes had the same structure as capitalism and failed because of it. You, on the other hand, have only provided assertions that amount to you being upset that history proves your beliefs wrong.

                Now fuck off tr0ll.

                • TheContrarian

                  Such a stunningly ignorant and stupid reply.

                • Paul

                  Derrick Jensen argues that civilisation is the problem the world faces in his book the EndGame.
                  A compelling argument.

                • TheContrarian

                  And let’s just back the fuck up here Draco…

                  Firstly – these long lasting societies were ones that had no competing societies to contend with – but which fell when a competing society was introduced. The great empires of Rome, China, Byzantium etc all had neighbours and other civilizations all fighting on the same land mass. The Native Americans and Aborigines were largely left alone for 100’s of years, hence their endurance and then being felled at the first sign of competition.


                  “You, on the other hand, have only provided assertions that amount to you being upset that history proves your beliefs wrong.”

                  This coming from the guy who thinks that hacking, major hacking of large scale infrastructure, isn’t that big a deal, who pretended to not know who Jaques Fresco was despite being extremely familiar with all his works and who recently thought that smashing comets into Mars is a good way to increase its mass thereby making its magnetic field stronger and making more habitable was a good and rational idea. You proved my beliefs wrong?

                  You’re a delusional idiot whose beliefs break down on scrutiny and who throws down “Fuck off Tr00ll” because he has no reasonable retort.

                  Chuck that in your pipe and smoke it.

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    Firstly – these long lasting societies were ones that had no competing societies to contend with – but which fell when a competing society was introduced.

                    Well, that’s wrong as well. All those societies had other societies that they shared the land mass with gut they’d learned to get along with each other. Also I don’t really think you can call attempted total annihilation competing. And it really was only attempted as well as a lot of those cultures are still around.

                    But the real elephant in the room that you’re trying to distract from is that capitalism always destroys itself. It’s done this several times already so there’s absolutely no way that it could be called successful unlike the others that had survived thousands of years and were likely to survive another few thousand.

                    You’re a delusional idiot whose beliefs break down on scrutiny and who throws down “Fuck off Tr00ll” because he has no reasonable retort.

                    Not once have you proved that my ideas won’t work. All you’ve ever done is assert that they don’t work.

                    Take the comets to Mars idea. There are asteroids and comets out there that will hit Earth. That’s not an if but a when. Considering this many scientists have considered shifting asteroids so that they won’t hit Earth. Take that to the next step and have it so that they hit Mars instead. This accomplishes two rather important things:

                    1. It means that that space rock is never going to hit Earth and
                    2. Over time Mars will come to support life

                    On that second point even if it takes 500 million years total time that’ll still give us ~5 billion years of living on it which has got to be one of the best returns I’ve ever heard of especially considering that it’s a fairly minimal investment that we have to make anyway.

                    All you’ve ever done and which you just did again is attack me with ad hominem.

                    So, yeah, fuck off tr0ll.

        • McFlock

          On the face of it, debt is a reasonable mechanism to facilitate transactions, like cash-money rather than barter.

          Debt isn’t a problem.
          Usury is a bit of a problem, but controllable.
          Speculative bets based on which debts will make the usurous repayments are a massive problem.
          Speculative bets on which debts will make the usurous repayments (when those bets are rigged in favour of the “house” and “friends of the dealer”) are a massive problem that caused the GFC.

          • Draco T Bastard

            On the face of it, debt is a reasonable mechanism to facilitate transactions, like cash-money rather than barter.

            On the face of it the Moon is made of green cheese.

            Debt isn’t a problem.

            That depends upon the debt, who has it, who holds it and what resources it can make demands upon. A debt in NZ dollars can make demands upon NZ’s resources and thus making resources scarce for NZers.

            Usury is a bit of a problem, but controllable.

            Actually, it’s a major problem that can’t be controlled as Piketty just proved.

            Speculative bets on which debts will make the usurous repayments (when those bets are rigged in favour of the “house” and “friends of the dealer”) are a massive problem that caused the GFC.

            Actually, they’re just a part of usury.

            • McFlock



              • Draco T Bastard

                Such a stunningly ignorant and stupid reply.

                • McFlock

                  this from the “green cheese” guy who redefines usury.

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    And what else would you call all those bailouts that the banks got from taxpayers?

                    • McFlock

                      What else would I call the bailouts?

                      Depending on how close the individual legislators were to the corporations getting the bailouts:
                      demanding with menaces
                      fools paying tithes to cult leaders.

                      But none of those involve lending money at interest (or now it’s exhorbitant or unacceptably high interest), which is usury.

                      Yes, them oney went to usurers, who were gamblers and demanded with menaces. But criminal organisations often comit many different types of crimes, rather than just one.

  21. The Murphey 21

    Status quo it is

    Nice speach albeit a missed opportunity

    Q. How might a Labour govt alter the landscape created by the controllers of ‘money’ ?

    After that conversation is held and the elephant’s removed perhaps ‘innovation’ could enter the fray

    Without ‘innovation’ all talk is meaningless continuity of the slavery model we have lived with since day one

  22. As a union leader I was always conscious that wealth had to be created first before it could be shared

    Well, that is Andrew Little down the gurgler. Any politician who is unwilling to address the reality of our debt based system, money creation out of thin air and the privately owned banking cartel sucking the planet dry but instead goes with the old money is created by labor and hard slog is a big loser and unfit to bring us into a healthier usury free sustainable economic system.

    This quarter for example the ECB (European central bank) will be QEing (read printing money out of thin air to bail out the super rich) another trillion dollars. Greece has voted for a hardcore leftwing government hellbent on destroying the Greek oligarchy.

    If Andrew Little really wants to help the 99%ers here in this country he’d do better to look very carefully what will happen over the next year or so in Greece,

    • Gosman 22.1

      Yes, I agree. See if the Greeks get any major concessions on debt relief. Then he can promise to renege on our debt obligations if Labour got in to office as well. Would go down a treat with middle New Zealand I imagine.

      • travellerev 22.1.1

        As usual you get it completely wrong. If all the Greek want is concessions from the ECB and Germany they’re still barking up the worn tree. If they walk away from the Euro take back their own currency creation and start trading with say Russia (Something the Russians have already proposed) and other non Euro aligned countries they stand a chance. If they start arresting bankers and their politician puppets we will see entirely new Greece emerge. That is if they don’t get bombed back to the stone age by Israel which is already threatening them for having the guts to stand up to their genocidal policies.

        • Gosman

          The Russian economy is a basket case, especially with oil at $50 USD per barrel.

          If the new government wishes to exit the Eurozone they certainly didn’t campaign on it. In fact they specifically campaigned on renegotiating debt AND remaining in the Eurozone.

          Btw where is a link to support your claim that Israel is threatening to bomb Greece?

          • Paul

            Russia’s debt and the US’s debt.

            ‘According to the debt clocks available online, the Russian national debt as a percentage of Russian GDP is 11 percent. The American national debt as a percentage of US GDP is 105 percent, about ten times higher. My coauthors, Dave Kranzler, John Williams, and I have shown that when measured correctly, the US debt as a percent of GDP is much higher than the official figure.

            The Russian national debt per capita is $1,645. The US national debt per capita is

            The size of Russia’s national debt is $235 billion, less than one quarter of a trillion. The size of the US national debt is $18 trillion, 76.6 times larger than the Russian debt.

            Putting this in perspective: according to the debt clocks, US GDP is $17.3 trillion and Russian GDP is $2.1 trillion. So, US GDP is 8 times greater than Russian GDP, but US national debt is 76.6 times greater than Russia’s debt.

            Clearly, it is the US credit rating that should have been downgraded to junk status. But this cannot happen. Any US credit rating agency that told the truth would be closed and prosecuted. It wouldn’t matter what the absurd charges are. The rating agencies would be guilty of being anti-american, terrorist organizations like RT, etc. and so on, and they know it. Never expect any truth from any Wall Street denizen. They lie for a living.

            According to this site: the US owes Russia as of January 2013 $162.9 billion. As the Russian national debt is $235 billion, 69 percent of the Russian national debt is covered by US debt obligations to Russia.

            If this is a Russian Crisis, I am Alexander the Great.’


            As Morrissey commented the other day, you really need to do some reading.
            Following ZB and reading right wing blogs does not constitute an educated background to complex subjects like this.

            May I suggest Chris Hedges, Paul Craig Roberts as starters for you.

            • Colonial Rawshark

              As you know, the US incomparable advantage is that they issue the reserve currency of the world. As long as nations are willing to exchange real goods and services for USD, the USA can continue to provision itself simply by printing USD ad inifinitum.

              • Clemgeopin

                What will happen when or if the world decides to ditch the US currency?

                • Murray Rawshark

                  Just before they were invaded, Iraq was proposing to sell oil for Euros. Your answer may be there, if countries do it a few at a time. The whole world at once? Things could get exciting.

            • Clemgeopin

              Thanks, Paul.

              Your post is so astounding and mind boggling!
              How the heck will US manage this sort of ‘economy’ in the near and distant future?
              China must be laughing its head off!

              Actually, this whole thing is scary stuff!

  23. Rosie 23

    I felt a little lukewarm after reading Little’s speech. It did not make feel like hugging the man. Hug test fail.

    I understand the necessity of a return to a focus on work and employment for Labour (core Labour Party values) and Little is a suitable vehicle for honing that focus and developing policy from their observations and discussions with business over the next year or so.

    In this speech he expanded on the concept of the changing workplace and how we must adapt to that, first mentioned after he won the leadership election. He talked about inequality and loss of dignity. It reads well, but where was the worker content? Where was the talk about the draconian and regressive Employment Relations Amendment Act? Where was the heat on that most damaging piece of anti worker legislation?

    It was boss love heavy, which makes me feel a bit concerned, a bit “which side are you on?”

    On the other hand, is it just a straight forward practical strategy to bring those conservatives who are wavering over National, unhappy with the road their party has gone down, those traditional National voters uncomfortable with their Party’s unscrupulous behaviour with Dirty Politics, over to the middle ground? After all there was nothing in that speech that would frighten a socially minded traditional conservative voter.

    Thinking of two of my siblings who are SME owners, who are anti worker’s rights, and die hard Nat voters. (one was a former ACT member) They won’t be influenced by Little but others less overtly right wing may be. There may be others who get the idea that it’s their workers that make their profits for them, and may be encouraged to be open to voting Labour if Labour will look out for them too.

    Is Little promoting the idea that he is the one who can bring workers and bosses together, to benefit all of society, and that’s the difference between him and Key?
    The Great Uniter of the forces in the Old Struggle between boss and worker?

    • tracey 23.1

      I felt he was talking to the folks they think they lost to National in 2008. That would explain alot.

    • Karen 23.2

      I agree it wasn’t exciting Rosie, but my understanding is that this is the first of a number of speeches he will be giving in the next few months. This one was delivered to business leaders to tell them Labour’s priorities are reducing unemployment and creating well paid jobs by encouraging the growth of small businesses, manufacturing and diversification. Future speeches will be on housing, education etc.

      It was bound to be low key – this isn’t an election year speech. I think Little is looking to very slowly build up his image as someone who is honest, straightforward and is committed to making NZ a more egalitarian society. I preferred Cunliffe’s speeches but unfortunately he wasn’t convincing to a large proportion of the population. Unfair, but that is the way it was.

      • weka 23.2.1

        It looks like a building block to me, a foundational one.

        Myself, I trust Little considerably more than Cunliffe, although I am cautious still about Little.

      • Rosie 23.2.2

        I wasn’t really expecting fireworks, but was expecting him to plant his feet firmly on the ground and establish a starting point for his vision, which he did. And marking himself as a leader who does have a place to stand upon, does really set himself apart from Key, who doesn’t stand for anything, (except his mates). That is one positive I took from the speech.

        I’m no Kasper Juul, but I’m guessing even in these days of Crosby Textor spin, that folks still like a leader who has a strong platform on which to stand and deliver strong ideals. If he can build on this, and begin to show Key, in contrast as a BS artist, then good.

        To be clear, the speech didn’t appeal to me, but that doesn’t matter, because I wasn’t among his target audience and Labour has my vote anyway……….

        Cunliffe was my man, and I get that, sadly, he couldn’t get the voters on his side. Little may do better, hopefully a lot better. If that means appealing to the “middle ground” and winning 2017 then I can’t complain.

        • tracey

          he used the “union” label many times, thus framing it himself, not apologising for it and not on the back foot to any smears from the right. I thought that was very smart.

          • Colonial Rawshark

            It was a clever move – front footing the union framing which the right wing is no doubt preparing, and turning it into a strength.

        • Anne

          Well said Rosie.

          If that means appealing to the “middle ground” and winning 2017 then I can’t complain.

          It clearly is his strategy and necessarily so, but at the same time he’s letting voters know how proud he is of his union background. Clever move because at the same time he’s countering the negative perception of unions created by the Nats over many years.

          Oops, tracey and CR are already on to it. Come in late in the piece.

      • tracey 23.2.3

        business, union and non governmental organisation representatives.

  24. greywarshark 24

    Here is good news of the type that I hope Andrew Little will get Labour to repeat. Off Radionz Checkpoint.

    Wananga create carpentry app to help tangata whenua ( 3′ 04″ )
    17:52 Te Wananga o Aotearoa has designed a tertiary programme to help tangata whenua, who struggle with reading and writing – but want to learn how to become a carpenter.

  25. adam 25

    Don’t you just feel ripped off? I know that people are starving tonight, and living under bridges, and either tonight or tomorrow night someone won’t take this liberal nightmare any more and kill themselves. And that’s the true rib of the Little speech – it’s like the middle New Zealand of pull the ladder up jack-booting ourselves to a materialist heaven is the winner. Liberal economics is so nasty, we can’t even mention it’s name, it’s flaws, and the destruction it leaves in it’s wake.

    And what is worse, and what is so dam heart breaking – is the so called left in this country bend over backwards to support this economic system which is so destructive – not only of people, but appears on the verge of destroying the very world we live in.

    What’s wrong, why are so many desperate to win elections, and tinker? Why is it the you can’t, or won’t, or even dare think – we can make a better world? Instead, it’s like watching zombies walking slowly to their collective demise.

    If this from Little is all we have for hope – then, we are a lost and broken people.

    • greywarshark 25.1

      @ adam
      Cut the cackle. Fix in your mind that a journey starts with the first steps. And don’t rain on every positive thing that happens. It might not win through, it might not be enough but we have to get going on something practical and reasonable to build a better scenario than we have now. So knock off the night terrors will you. Rest your poor mind or you will go round the bend with anxiety. Take mind time out and look though something quietening – work in the garden, read a book that isn’t about the apocalypse.

      • adam 25.1.1

        Any reason for the sexist comment to begin with greywarshark? Fix my mind – sheesh in put down mood are we. And then you resign to loser comments – no wonder labour is such a weight around working peoples necks – people like you.

        • greywarshark

          @ adam
          Golly adam I was feeling sorry for you but now I can see that was a waste of my commenting time. I would like to move into a future where people could act in a thoughtful way to each other, with some understanding without too much PC impost. But can’t win them all. I hope we can all find an interactive concerned group that befriend and support each other, and interact with others. But I won’t be looking for people with your twisted response. I won’t bother to read about your angst in future.

  26. Murray Rawshark 26

    I was just thinking that one thing Labour (and Greens and Mana) could do would be rates relief for communally owned rural properties that were used for community purposes. I have no idea whether this already exists, but I like the idea of community gardens. Many Maori communities used to have gardens, but with the individualisation of title, these tended to disappear.

    • greywarshark 26.1

      @ Murray R
      There was something in the news akin to what you have just said. Someone else thinks much the same as you.
      Te Manu Korihi News for 29 January 2015 ( 3′ 23″ )
      08:47 The chair of Mangatawa Papamoa Block Incorporated in Tauranga says the fire that damaged part of its Marae building has left people devastated; An official trying to help the kauri tree survive says species such as birds, insects plants and fungi could suffer if the native rakau dies out; The Maori Party says it’s not confident the Prime Minister’s social housing announcement will deal with the immediate needs for the homeless and those living in substandard condition; An academic says multiple owners of unproductive Māori land should not have to pay their rates while wealthy non-Māori are given rates holidays by councils.
      (This refers to where firms are getting industry established. Maori could ask for rates relief like that too and for whatever program they start up that will help with hiobs, training, skills, niche businesses, basic businesses etc.)

      • Murray Rawshark 26.1.1

        Great. I used to walk through that block on my way across to Tauranga. I later met one of the hapu in Waikeria and he was a great guy. It was just an idea that popped into my head as I was walking home from the park, but now two academics have said it 🙂

  27. Pat O'Dea 27

    On Andrew Little’s State Of The Nation speech in the age of climate change.

    1939 Germany invades Poland. Imagine if, in the age of the rise of facism, former independant MP and backbencher, Winston Churchill ignored the crisis and delivered a rousing speech on the economy full employment and escaping the depression. (As all other political leaders were doing).

    Instead Churchill delivered a speech that thundered against the rise of facism, and was more reported than the Prime Minister’s.

    Later, following the then current administrations complete inability to meet this crisis, in an extraordinary move Churchill coming from the backbenches was elevated to the Prime Ministership.

    Should current wold opposition leaders and opposition leaders ignore the greatest threat to human civilisation since the rise of facsim?

    • tracey 27.1

      you are looking for a leader with courage. in NZ we just expect to like our PM and that is as high as our demands on them.

  28. Draco T Bastard 28

    I believe that this applies to this speech from Little.

    • Murray Rawshark 28.1

      I wonder how similar it is to her complete speech. There aren’t many truly original political speeches, apart from Tony Abbott and his inarticulate drivel at least.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Cost of living support for low-income homeowners
    Local Government Minister Simeon Brown has announced an increase to the Rates Rebate Scheme, putting money back into the pockets of low-income homeowners.  “The coalition Government is committed to bringing down the cost of living for New Zealanders. That includes targeted support for those Kiwis who are doing things tough, such ...
    2 hours ago
  • Government backing mussel spat project
    The Coalition Government is investing in a project to boost survival rates of New Zealand mussels and grow the industry, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones has announced. “This project seeks to increase the resilience of our mussels and significantly boost the sector’s productivity,” Mr Jones says. “The project - ...
    3 hours ago
  • Government focused on getting people into work
    Benefit figures released today underscore the importance of the Government’s plan to rebuild the economy and have 50,000 fewer people on Jobseeker Support, Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston says. “Benefit numbers are still significantly higher than when National was last in government, when there was about 70,000 fewer ...
    6 hours ago
  • Clean energy key driver to reducing emissions
    The Government’s commitment to doubling New Zealand’s renewable energy capacity is backed by new data showing that clean energy has helped the country reach its lowest annual gross emissions since 1999, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says. New Zealand’s latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory (1990-2022) published today, shows gross emissions fell ...
    7 hours ago
  • Earthquake-prone buildings review brought forward
    The Government is bringing the earthquake-prone building review forward, with work to start immediately, and extending the deadline for remediations by four years, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says. “Our Government is focused on rebuilding the economy. A key part of our plan is to cut red tape that ...
    11 hours ago
  • Thailand and NZ to agree to Strategic Partnership
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and his Thai counterpart, Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, have today agreed that New Zealand and the Kingdom of Thailand will upgrade the bilateral relationship to a Strategic Partnership by 2026. “New Zealand and Thailand have a lot to offer each other. We have a strong mutual desire to build ...
    23 hours ago
  • Government consults on extending coastal permits for ports
    RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Transport Minister Simeon Brown have today announced the Coalition Government’s intention to extend port coastal permits for a further 20 years, providing port operators with certainty to continue their operations. “The introduction of the Resource Management Act in 1991 required ports to obtain coastal ...
    1 day ago
  • Inflation coming down, but more work to do
    Today’s announcement that inflation is down to 4 per cent is encouraging news for Kiwis, but there is more work to be done - underlining the importance of the Government’s plan to get the economy back on track, acting Finance Minister Chris Bishop says. “Inflation is now at 4 per ...
    1 day ago
  • School attendance restored as a priority in health advice
    Refreshed health guidance released today will help parents and schools make informed decisions about whether their child needs to be in school, addressing one of the key issues affecting school attendance, says Associate Education Minister David Seymour. In recent years, consistently across all school terms, short-term illness or medical reasons ...
    1 day ago
  • Unnecessary bureaucracy cut in oceans sector
    Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones is streamlining high-level oceans management while maintaining a focus on supporting the sector’s role in the export-led recovery of the economy. “I am working to realise the untapped potential of our fishing and aquaculture sector. To achieve that we need to be smarter with ...
    1 day ago
  • Patterson promoting NZ’s wool sector at International Congress
    Associate Agriculture Minister Mark Patterson is speaking at the International Wool Textile Organisation Congress in Adelaide, promoting New Zealand wool, and outlining the coalition Government’s support for the revitalisation the sector.    "New Zealand’s wool exports reached $400 million in the year to 30 June 2023, and the coalition Government ...
    2 days ago
  • Removing red tape to help early learners thrive
    The Government is making legislative changes to make it easier for new early learning services to be established, and for existing services to operate, Associate Education Minister David Seymour says. The changes involve repealing the network approval provisions that apply when someone wants to establish a new early learning service, ...
    2 days ago
  • RMA changes to cut coal mining consent red tape
    Changes to the Resource Management Act will align consenting for coal mining to other forms of mining to reduce barriers that are holding back economic development, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. “The inconsistent treatment of coal mining compared with other extractive activities is burdensome red tape that fails to acknowledge ...
    2 days ago
  • McClay reaffirms strong NZ-China trade relationship
    Trade, Agriculture and Forestry Minister Todd McClay has concluded productive discussions with ministerial counterparts in Beijing today, in support of the New Zealand-China trade and economic relationship. “My meeting with Commerce Minister Wang Wentao reaffirmed the complementary nature of the bilateral trade relationship, with our Free Trade Agreement at its ...
    3 days ago
  • Prime Minister Luxon acknowledges legacy of Singapore Prime Minister Lee
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon today paid tribute to Singapore’s outgoing Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.   Meeting in Singapore today immediately before Prime Minister Lee announced he was stepping down, Prime Minister Luxon warmly acknowledged his counterpart’s almost twenty years as leader, and the enduring legacy he has left for Singapore and South East ...
    3 days ago
  • PMs Luxon and Lee deepen Singapore-NZ ties
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon held a bilateral meeting today with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. While in Singapore as part of his visit to South East Asia this week, Prime Minister Luxon also met with Singapore President Tharman Shanmugaratnam and will meet with Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.  During today’s meeting, Prime Minister Luxon ...
    3 days ago
  • Antarctica New Zealand Board appointments
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has made further appointments to the Board of Antarctica New Zealand as part of a continued effort to ensure the Scott Base Redevelopment project is delivered in a cost-effective and efficient manner.  The Minister has appointed Neville Harris as a new member of the Board. Mr ...
    3 days ago
  • Finance Minister travels to Washington DC
    Finance Minister Nicola Willis will travel to the United States on Tuesday to attend a meeting of the Five Finance Ministers group, with counterparts from Australia, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.  “I am looking forward to meeting with our Five Finance partners on how we can work ...
    3 days ago
  • Pet bonds a win/win for renters and landlords
    The coalition Government has today announced purrfect and pawsitive changes to the Residential Tenancies Act to give tenants with pets greater choice when looking for a rental property, says Housing Minister Chris Bishop. “Pets are important members of many Kiwi families. It’s estimated that around 64 per cent of New ...
    3 days ago
  • Long Tunnel for SH1 Wellington being considered
    State Highway 1 (SH1) through Wellington City is heavily congested at peak times and while planning continues on the duplicate Mt Victoria Tunnel and Basin Reserve project, the Government has also asked NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) to consider and provide advice on a Long Tunnel option, Transport Minister Simeon Brown ...
    3 days ago
  • New Zealand condemns Iranian strikes
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters have condemned Iran’s shocking and illegal strikes against Israel.    “These attacks are a major challenge to peace and stability in a region already under enormous pressure," Mr Luxon says.    "We are deeply concerned that miscalculation on any side could ...
    4 days ago
  • Huge interest in Government’s infrastructure plans
    Hundreds of people in little over a week have turned out in Northland to hear Regional Development Minister Shane Jones speak about plans for boosting the regional economy through infrastructure. About 200 people from the infrastructure and associated sectors attended an event headlined by Mr Jones in Whangarei today. Last ...
    6 days ago
  • Health Minister thanks outgoing Health New Zealand Chair
    Health Minister Dr Shane Reti has today thanked outgoing Health New Zealand – Te Whatu Ora Chair Dame Karen Poutasi for her service on the Board.   “Dame Karen tendered her resignation as Chair and as a member of the Board today,” says Dr Reti.  “I have asked her to ...
    6 days ago
  • Roads of National Significance planning underway
    The NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) has signalled their proposed delivery approach for the Government’s 15 Roads of National Significance (RoNS), with the release of the State Highway Investment Proposal (SHIP) today, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.  “Boosting economic growth and productivity is a key part of the Government’s plan to ...
    6 days ago
  • Navigating an unstable global environment
    New Zealand is renewing its connections with a world facing urgent challenges by pursuing an active, energetic foreign policy, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.   “Our country faces the most unstable global environment in decades,” Mr Peters says at the conclusion of two weeks of engagements in Egypt, Europe and the United States.    “We cannot afford to sit back in splendid ...
    6 days ago
  • NZ welcomes Australian Governor-General
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has announced the Australian Governor-General, His Excellency General The Honourable David Hurley and his wife Her Excellency Mrs Linda Hurley, will make a State visit to New Zealand from Tuesday 16 April to Thursday 18 April. The visit reciprocates the State visit of former Governor-General Dame Patsy Reddy ...
    6 days ago
  • Pseudoephedrine back on shelves for Winter
    Associate Health Minister David Seymour has announced that Medsafe has approved 11 cold and flu medicines containing pseudoephedrine. Pharmaceutical suppliers have indicated they may be able to supply the first products in June. “This is much earlier than the original expectation of medicines being available by 2025. The Government recognised ...
    6 days ago
  • NZ and the US: an ever closer partnership
    New Zealand and the United States have recommitted to their strategic partnership in Washington DC today, pledging to work ever more closely together in support of shared values and interests, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.    “The strategic environment that New Zealand and the United States face is considerably more ...
    6 days ago
  • Joint US and NZ declaration
    April 11, 2024 Joint Declaration by United States Secretary of State the Honorable Antony J. Blinken and New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs the Right Honourable Winston Peters We met today in Washington, D.C. to recommit to the historic partnership between our two countries and the principles that underpin it—rule ...
    6 days ago
  • NZ and US to undertake further practical Pacific cooperation
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has announced further New Zealand cooperation with the United States in the Pacific Islands region through $16.4 million in funding for initiatives in digital connectivity and oceans and fisheries research.   “New Zealand can achieve more in the Pacific if we work together more urgently and ...
    6 days ago
  • Government redress for Te Korowai o Wainuiārua
    The Government is continuing the bipartisan effort to restore its relationship with iwi as the Te Korowai o Wainuiārua Claims Settlement Bill passed its first reading in Parliament today, says Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith. “Historical grievances of Te Korowai o Wainuiārua relate to 19th century warfare, land purchased or taken ...
    7 days ago
  • Focus on outstanding minerals permit applications
    New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals is working to resolve almost 150 outstanding minerals permit applications by the end of the financial year, enabling valuable mining activity and signalling to the sector that New Zealand is open for business, Resources Minister Shane Jones says.  “While there are no set timeframes for ...
    1 week ago
  • Applications open for NZ-Ireland Research Call
    The New Zealand and Irish governments have today announced that applications for the 2024 New Zealand-Ireland Joint Research Call on Agriculture and Climate Change are now open. This is the third research call in the three-year Joint Research Initiative pilot launched in 2022 by the Ministry for Primary Industries and Ireland’s ...
    1 week ago
  • Tenancy rules changes to improve rental market
    The coalition Government has today announced changes to the Residential Tenancies Act to encourage landlords back to the rental property market, says Housing Minister Chris Bishop. “The previous Government waged a war on landlords. Many landlords told us this caused them to exit the rental market altogether. It caused worse ...
    1 week ago
  • Boosting NZ’s trade and agricultural relationship with China
    Trade and Agriculture Minister Todd McClay will visit China next week, to strengthen relationships, support Kiwi exporters and promote New Zealand businesses on the world stage. “China is one of New Zealand’s most significant trade and economic relationships and remains an important destination for New Zealand’s products, accounting for nearly 22 per cent of our good and ...
    1 week ago
  • Freshwater farm plan systems to be improved
    The coalition Government intends to improve freshwater farm plans so that they are more cost-effective and practical for farmers, Associate Environment Minister Andrew Hoggard and Agriculture Minister Todd McClay have announced. “A fit-for-purpose freshwater farm plan system will enable farmers and growers to find the right solutions for their farm ...
    1 week ago
  • New Fast Track Projects advisory group named
    The coalition Government has today announced the expert advisory group who will provide independent recommendations to Ministers on projects to be included in the Fast Track Approvals Bill, say RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones. “Our Fast Track Approval process will make it easier and ...
    1 week ago
  • Pacific and Gaza focus of UN talks
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters says his official talks with the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in New York today focused on a shared commitment to partnering with the Pacific Islands region and a common concern about the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.    “Small states in the Pacific rely on collective ...
    1 week ago
  • Government honours Taranaki Maunga deal
    The Government is honouring commitments made to Taranaki iwi with the Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill passing its first reading Parliament today, Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith says. “This Bill addresses the commitment the Crown made to the eight iwi of Taranaki to negotiate ...
    1 week ago
  • Enhanced partnership to reduce agricultural emissions
    The Government and four further companies are together committing an additional $18 million towards AgriZeroNZ to boost New Zealand’s efforts to reduce agricultural emissions. Agriculture Minister Todd McClay says the strength of the New Zealand economy relies on us getting effective and affordable emission reduction solutions for New Zealand. “The ...
    1 week ago

Page generated in The Standard by Wordpress at 2024-04-18T03:49:37+00:00