Vale atque ave

Written By: - Date published: 3:35 pm, October 5th, 2011 - 10 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

Three Labour MPs gave their valedictories last night; Lynn Pillay, Pete Hodgson, and Jim Anderton in that order. Jim’s career path in political employment was a bit roundabout, Lynn’s the shortest (she’ll kill me for that!), and Pete’s the longest.

All have made a huge contribution to the labour movement in its various forms and to the country, with the standout undoubtedly Jim’s dogged and determined fight to set up Kiwibank, with help he acknowledged from Annette King. Pete Hodgson held 14 portfolios in the fifth Labour government, an indication of his energy and competence. Feisty Lynn did the hard yards, steering the Electoral Finance Bill and the Section 59 changes through Parliament committees.

Most valedictories speak of past achievement. Unusually, Pete Hodgson focussed more on the future, so his valedictory became manifesto and challenge. Poverty and sustainability were the main themes. His speech hasn’t got much coverage in the media, and I think more of it is worth sharing here:

Valedictories are supposed to be about the past, but my head lives mostly in the future. So let me give one portfolio, climate change, a bit more attention, because the world’s response has barely begun. There are 3 key problems. The first is the global addiction to cheap oil. It is an astonishing fuel but they are not making it any more. The second is that climate change is the only area of politics where, when the proof of the need to act finally arrives, the ability to act will have long since gone. The third is that we do not have governance structures that are equal to the task. Disturbingly we may even have discovered the limits of nation state democracies as an idea.

In New Zealand we have an opportunity and obligation to contribute to agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation because we can, and because success increases agricultural productivity. I commend the current government’s commitment to continuing and expanding that science and I wish all involved success and patience in equal measure.

Of course one way to reduce CO2 emissions is to run out of cheap oil. Inevitably we will. That requires a public policy response. Sure, the market will play its part – when a tank of petrol costs $300 not $100, behaviour will change.

But the market alone cannot deliver. Governments need to help. Most governments have started. We have stopped. Fuel efficiency standards scrapped, the biofuels sales obligation scrapped, curtailed sustainability measures in general – indeed the very word has been scrubbed off documents in a frenzied cleansing of the lexicon. This is unfortunate expensive behaviour. I spoke with a New Zealand biofuels company recently which is pulling out of here and investing instead in Thailand and the US. We need to be smarter than that.

Which leads me to sustainable development in general. I view it as a uniting idea, capable of creating wealth, creating ecological room, creating economic diversification and resonating strongly with the Kiwi ethos. Certainly cows and tourism, alone, are not a future, precisely because those activities are not scaleable. There are now three dairy cows for every one that existed when I was in rural practice. If three cows are not a limit, four will be, or eight or some such number. Tourism is similarly not scaleable in New Zealand; the Galapagos effect will see to that at some point.

I define sustainability very simply. If we can’t do it forever then sooner than later we can’t do it at all. Mining national parks is a case in point. So is an energy strategy based on offshore oil and gas production. So is getting rid of public debt by selling public assets. These are all things that can be done but once. They are unsustainable by definition. Sustainable development is very strongly associated with technology. But also with design, with intellectual property, and sometimes with new business models. Whether it is applied to a further advance in some primary product, or whether it is headed in the direction of clean energy, or the creative sector, or weightless exports or whatever, sustainable development demands high skills.

So it is a hi-tech, hi-skill future. Here is another observation. There is a strong association between private sector R & D investment, and exporting. An association is not a cause, and not all exporters research. But nearly all research intensive companies export. Look more closely and those same companies are likely to be developing sustainably. And usually very quickly.  So, policies such as cancelling the R & D tax credit make no sense to me. The government said they couldn’t afford it. Fair enough. But the very next year they lowered company tax from 30c to 28c, which cost even more. We must pay more attention to those firms that owe their existence, not to local domestic demand, but to some technology or some clever entrepreneur or both. Their sand pit is global not local. They usually export, they usually grow quickly, they usually pay high wages. They are the game changers. Not all firms are equal.

But sustainable development does not address the rich-poor gap. It is growing inexorably around the developed world, for many reasons. One is the tension between global salaries and local wages. More than one labour market is at play. I think our approach to poverty has just started to change. It has always been a social justice issue – poverty is unfair on the poor. I think it is now being viewed also as an issue of social dysfunction – poverty is bad for everyone. There are strong links between the rich-poor gap and many social ills – teenage pregnancy, obesity, violence – you name it. Research, including New Zealand research, is beginning to unravel the detail. Addressing poverty matters.

I think we have underused the minimum wage as a tool. We were the first nation in the world to regulate a minimum wage, back in 1894. Since then it has variously risen above two-thirds the average wage and fallen below the depths of irrelevancy. Currently it is a bit below half the average wage. If we are to reap the benefits of a relatively flexible labour market, we should also provide a bunch of civilised minima that endure. In New Zealand the debate is usually framed around the idea that raising the minimum wage will throw the low paid out of work altogether. Many crocodile tears are shed at that altar. But research suggests the opposite – that raising the minimum wage can stimulate local economies and reduce unemployment, though only slightly. The current chair of the Council of Economic Advisors to the US Presidency, Professor Alan Krueger, is one such researcher. He is a mainstream empirical researcher, dealing in the practical, not the theoretical.

I appreciate this House is some distance away from doing for the low paid what we have already done for superannuitants – establishing an agreed floor. But I will leave folk with the idea anyway.

They’ve all done well – but there is still lots to do.

Update: Videos of all the valedictories can be found on Red Alert. Here’s Pete Hodgson’s:

10 comments on “Vale atque ave”

  1. wobble 1

    Ka pai Pete. Excellent speech. And the hallmark of exactly the kind of person who should be a politician – someone who keeps on wanting to fix injustice.

    Will be sorely missed.

  2. Colonial Viper 2

    A good crew, all of them. The Left is going to miss you all on the front lines aginst those Tories. One more Tory scalp wouldn’t go amiss before Nov 26.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.1

      There’s a reason why we have replacements – it’s so we don’t get caught up in the delusional Randian Super-hero meme.

  3. r0b 3

    Thanks Pete.  And a great note to go out on.

  4. millsy 4

    Too bad Jim Anderton made his peace with Labour by helping to destroy the Alliance as a left wing force in this country. Helen Clark, Lynne Pillay (who took Waitakere in 02) and the Engineer’s union also had their hands in that particular pie.

    IMO that is the reason why this country has drifted slowly right wards since the 2002 election. I would still vote Alliance if they had a decent chance at getting into Parliament.

    But you cant bedgrudge him for Kiwibank. A member of an old forum site I posted to owes me $500 over that 🙂 Of course I’ve written the debt off since I lost contact with him 🙂

  5. Misanthropic Curmudgeon 5

    Interesting that you call Jim (“Bannit”) Anderton a Labour MP: Will you be asking that he return his party leader entitlement?

  6. Anton 6

    If Labour are so concerned about poverty why did they abolish the special benefit back in 2002, introduce the Social Security Amendment Act 2007 which destroyed the concept of welfare as we know it (including work-testing invalids beneficiaries) and a whole host of other nasty right-wing reforms? Labour have never fronted to any of these concerns when asked. One must be left with the conclusion, therefore, that if re-elected they’d continue down this destructive path, pandering to the red-neck talkback radio bigots, flapping around in a kind of hypocrisy they’re now famous for. When anyone from Labour talks about “poverty” I want to vomit.

    • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 6.1

      You forgeot to mention how beneficiaries were still _worse_ off under Labour than _after_ the ‘Ruthenasia’ benefit cuts

      [lprent: You’re starting to look like a white noise troll making rhetorical statements that don’t particularly relate to the post or surrounding comments and seem more designed to start flames than engage in debate. Have a look at the policy if you want to avoid the usual fate of trolls here who are unable to engage in actual discussion.

      Update: Ummm I see some earlier comments that were more mana acquiring. ]

      • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 6.1.1

        I am not lprent, and have never posted under that nym here.

        The only nym I have posted under on The Standard is this one, ‘Misanthropic Curmdgeon’.

  7. Anton 7

    “You forgeot to mention how beneficiaries were still _worse_ off under Labour than _after_ the ‘Ruthenasia’ benefit cuts”

    No, that’s exactly what I was saying. Benefit rates after the 1991 benefit cuts are in fact in dollar terms (save CPI increases) the same as we have now. Labour promised to reverse those cuts but then backtracked. From 1999 Labour picked up where National left off and continued along the path of destruction with the “reforms” I’ve given two examples of. So, saying that beneficiaries were worse off under Labour than after Richardson’s ‘mother of all budgets’ is precisely what I am saying.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Maintaining momentum for small business innovation
    Small Business Minister Stuart Nash says the report of the Small Business Council will help maintain the momentum for innovation and improvements in the sector. Mr Nash has thanked the members of the Small Business Council (SBC) who this week handed over their report, Empowering small businesses to aspire, succeed ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Seventy-eight new Police constables
    Extra Police officers are being deployed from Northland to Southland with the graduation of a new wing of recruits from the Royal New Zealand Police College. “The graduation of 78 constables today means that 1524 new constables have been deployed since the government took office,” says Police Minister Stuart Nash. ...
    3 weeks ago