No more one pagers please
July 29th, 2008 at 8:22 am by David FarrarColin James has beaten me to the punch, on the issue of National’s one page policy papers:
So in behind the bland one-pagers lies quite a lot of study, consultation with outsiders and internal shadow cabinet debate. A 34-page paper backed the workplace relations one-pager. Law and order policy was well footnoted.
That applies in all major policy areas. In some, such as education, welfare and the environment, the background papers have been reworked over some years. Immigration and local government papers have been honed down. In some, as in housing, science and in a complex set of policies on infrastructure, some work remains to be done. In some, the background is essentially a statement of principles.
In 2006 Key, freshly leader, backed an English programme to publish discussion papers, to be refined into policy after feedback (much as Kevin Rudd did in Australia). But only a handful emerged before the health paper’s bungled release last September abruptly ended the process. Now some policy is being released without the supporting papers. Outsiders have to take on trust that the policy is based on solid thinking. Key read out to me the workplace relations paper’s headings but I have not seen it.
Having previously worked in Parliament, I was pretty certain that there was a lot of work and detail behind the one page policy summaries, and Colin has confirmed this is the case – which is good.
99% of NZers are not interested in the details. In fact they won’t even remember too much from the one pagers – the average voter will have a vague idea of half a dozen key policy pledges probably.
But the 1% do not want the detail behind them. The 34 page backgrounder on workplace relations for example probably has some great details on how the 90 day trial period works overseas, the issues around the Holidays Act etc. Releasing the background paper doesn’t detract from the one page summary – it complements it. It demonstrates the work done by Spokespersons and staff over the last two years.
Yes, Mallard will jump up and down over a minor detail on page 27 and scare monger about it. But Trevor will scare monger on the smell of an oily rag. Don’t let the fear of scare mongering detract from showing to pundits and the public that the policies National is campaigning on are based on extensive research.
So can we have the full policy background papers please. If you don’t want to release them on the day of the main policy that is fine, but can we have them at some stage.
Related posts:
- National’s Benefits Policy
- National – Greens MOU
- NZCS on ICT policies
- Dom Post on Labour’s 1970 workplaces policy
July 29th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Reducing policy to one page summaries is a step forward. Even if the summaries were based on research that was never done it would still leave NZ in the same situation it’s in now. How does cherry picking your research; unilaterally awarding your reseach a higher quality rating than the opposing team; and ignoring perfectly sound evidence to the contrary a good way to form policy? What does it matter how a system has worked overseas? The system now has to work in a different culture and that makes more difference to the outcome than all the speculative reassurance in the world.
Research is a good thing and has a valid position in society, but I think National policy makers are realising that it has a limited role in our style of perpetual socialism. If 99% of the people don’t care, then you really can do anything, based on any whim – just like we’ve had policy formed on for the past 9 years. If the final 1% do care, and someone somewhere decides that’s more important than giving the people what they want, you have to build a ruling class so that they can tell us all what’s good for us.
Overall it’s an acknowledgement of reality. That in itself is a step forward.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:45 am
I agree with the comment by gg above- and think that the real fun of the one page and many page is that most critics will not read the many page document, and will parrot Mallard’s quackery- and can be then refuted by the facts…
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:47 am
The 1 page is John Keys attention span.
Remember his comments about some detail of ACC ( and Im not making this up)….. blah blah blah
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Thats an ornithological analysis GMM. Top marks.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Yeah GWW, he got promoted time after time after time because he has a short attention span. His former bosses, colleagues and competitors all rave about how good he was at his jobs because he has a short attention span.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:54 am
What were we talking about again?
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 8:56 am
GWW – did you get that? Are you listening or distracted with the 9th floor’s daily one page trolling guide?
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 9:13 am
David, good post. I can tell you the lack of detail has caused a lot of unnecessary confusion in the union movement, especially around union access rights (which differs between the PDF and the release), the protections for workers sacked in the 90 day period and the meaning of statements like making sure mediators are “properly qualified”.
Some clarity would be welcome.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 9:17 am
That would be Nationals greatest fear that Helen Clark would know more about Nationals policy than Key would in a debate.
My God they guy doesnt know which party he is running in some speeches, needs Crosby Textor ( not just for the campaign) but for his entire weekly sound bites.
As for his ‘great career, he seems to have got by on supreme self confidence, no wonder he ended up in the TAB equivalent for Merril Lynch
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Yeah Ghostie, thats right. John Key doesn’t know what he’s doing.
meanwhile, Helen Clark, who presumably you do think knows what she is doing, is increasingly falling behind the allegedly confused and hapless Key.
National are clearly practising the mathematics of defeat, because with their record polling that keeps going up, soon there will be so many National MPs for the Labour opposition to attack. Labour will be able to use their much reduced numbers in Parliament to stealthily creep up to the unsuspecting National majority and thump them one when they’re not watching.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 9:57 am
As for ascribing my views to the 9th floor . I have never met or spoken with Helen or any labour minister or official for that matter. Ive never even seen her from a distance, nor do I belong to the labour party or attended any labour meeting.
But I do know the Candy floss man is entirely a creation of others. Dont say you werent warned. But it will come back to bite you lot hard on the bum.
As for DPF comments about Keys ability ??
Its laughable.
Vote:Take Lockwood Smith, does all the spade work in policy and in government and where does it get him. Stephen Joyce will probably get a higher ranking in cabinet
July 29th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Steven not Stephen.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 10:23 am
gww2: troll. Bout time for another banning I reckon. You’re stringing together one thing that happened once (a misspeak at a party conference) plus some smears from The Standard that really haven’t stuck (“candy floss man”).
Detailed policy is the right way to go. Again, I suspect there is a desire not to give Labour enough detail to copy – so when they do copy there will be a detailed National policy that actually works, and a half-thought-through policy from Labour that clearly won’t work, and that clearly is just a rip off.
That might be a wise way to handle things even for a little while longer – Helen still hasn’t announced the election date.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 10:34 am
DPF:
“……..99% of NZers are not interested in the details. In fact they won’t even remember too much from the one pagers – the average voter will have a vague idea of half a dozen key policy pledges probably.
But the 1% DO NOT want the detail behind them……..”
EH? Isn’t that a significant little “typo” in that last sentence?
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Paul L – a google search of “Candy Floss Man” at The Standard shows only one reference – a comment by GWW himself.
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=%22candy+floss+man%22+site%3Athestandard.org.nz&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 10:48 am
>>As for ascribing my views to the 9th floor . I have never met or spoken with Helen or any labour minister or official for that matter. Ive never even seen her from a distance, nor do I belong to the labour party or attended any labour meeting.
Well that’s not surprising, it is quite difficult to turn your head 180 degrees and look down
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Good business practice is that policy should be kept short and effectively covers the very important points and intent coupled with the desired outcomes and perhaps the high level intended inputs and outputs etc.
Policy then would be supported by the meat of the details.
Thus when ones has to update to meet the changing environment, one initally reviews the policy to gain assurance that nothing has changed especially with the intent and desired outcomes. Once that is done the how are we going to get there (the meat) can be reviewed in detail.
Whilst I totally agree the detail is required to support the policy, given the history of Labour of blowing away all the money and leaving the books in a total shambles, I support the current practice of one pagers as National are pretty certain they will be facing an abhorrent shambles when they win later this year.
If National do not win, I would like to know from Labour how they are going to fix the mess they have created due to being totally spiteful and placing New Zealand in such bad shape going forward.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 11:41 am
This country needs one page policys not the hundreds of pages of socialist tosh dished out by the suckholes. Most of what counts can be said on one page, why the fuck does it take a forest of trees for the socialists to expound one simple policy? Prehaps they believe one must baffle the people with bullshit and show off some percieved wisdom to con the people into believing they actually know what they are doing, which as we all know is fucking unlikely.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 11:49 am
good policy is short policy
I mean Look at the 10 Commandments
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
David, you may be surprised to hear that I largely agree with you.
I think a short, sharp one pager is probably enough for most of the electorate if they set out clear and measurable policy/programs that are comprehensible as stated.
That they might then be fleshed out in larger and more technical papers is fine by me.
The risk is that the one-pagers are anemic and vague and/or do not make sense without more detail.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
DPF:
“99% of NZers are not interested in the details. In fact they won’t even remember too much from the one pagers – the average voter will have a vague idea of half a dozen key policy pledges probably.”
I but I disagree Mr Farrar. For instance, I think a large portion of the public would be very interested to know about some details of National’s Industrial Relations policy.
For instance, in one policy document, National states that entrance to the workplace by union members would be conditional upon the employer’s consent, and in another (the PDF version) they state that access cannot be unreasonably denied.
Now if you take the latter version, and combine that with the fact that National intends to allow employers to appoint their own non-union bargaining agents to draw up a collective contract on behalf of their employees (the employer holds all the power when bargaining), you’re essentially back to the Employment Contracts Act, which an overwhelming majority of New Zealand’s public opposed because of the deterioration in wages and working conditions that it caused.
For instance:
Here’s an extract from my thesis which show’s what it meant (during the ECA), and may mean in practice if National is able to form the next government…..
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Nome, take your threadjacking somewhere else, nobody is buying it
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Nome, bullshit. You are probably entirely correct that you wrote that in your thesis. And entirely correct that you quoted Danin. But you are wrong in two areas:
1. In suggesting that a significant percentage of employers used this mechanism to appoint bargaining agents for their employees against those employees will, or that they used lockouts to force that through.
2. In suggesting that a rule that says “access to the workplace will not be unreasonably refused” would be a problem. Unless your definition of unreasonable doesn’t match mine.
You continue to argue that the ECA significantly reduced working conditions and wages for many NZers. And you consistently argue that it was the cause of the deunionisation of NZ that occurred in that period. Did you give any consideration at all to the possibility that NZers left their unions as soon as they could because those unions delivered nothing of value to them, and took it upon themselves to represent those same workers in the political process irrespective of the actual beliefs of those members? We aren’t living in the ’50s any more you know – the ‘workers’ don’t all have to vote Labour by law.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
There was a “mis speak” or foot in mouth at the party Conference, but who knows what he said during the secret parts of the party conference. pLUS THE ‘BLAH BLAH was very recently when he was trying to show off his general knowledge about ACC. Of course lets not forget the ‘ we want wages to drop’ comment which was blamed on everybody except Key but in the end the Board and CEO of the newspaper group rewrote history to get it changed.
Vote:Good to see you are still playing self appointed blog cop ( there s the n word but it might get me banned) You really should get your own but then DPF must think you are so important that one word from you and he jumps. Do you work for the Candy Floss man himself
July 29th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
PaulL:
“1. In suggesting that a significant percentage of employers used this mechanism to appoint bargaining agents for their employees against those employees will, or that they used lockouts to force that through.”
The fact that someemployers may be able to do this to employees if National wins is unnaceptable, and I’m absolutely sure that most New Zealanders would oppose it.
On the macro scale, There’s another way in which the employer could use the above provisions to force acceptance to a new agreement. – They simply refuse to bargain with the union (the union isn’t allowed on the work-site) because their lawyer has drawn up an agreement that the employer likes a whole lot more. If the employees refuse to sign the new agreement, the existing agreement stands, and wage levels degrade with inflation.
If only National were honest and released the details, then New Zealand could learn if their wages really are under that much threat in the event of a National Party victory.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Roger, please provide evidence where National are being dishonest. If said evidence is that all the detail isn’t released yet, then please explain whether there are any details whatsoever of Labour’s post-election plans that haven’t been released yet.
Your comment is foolish.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
PaulL
“Did you give any consideration at all to the possibility that NZers left their unions as soon as they could because those unions delivered nothing of value to them”
You really just have no idea of what you’re talking about. Whether or not people belonged to a union they were covered by minimum standards negotiated by a union. It’s called centralised collective bargaining, and the ECA did away with it.
Anyhoe – it’s self evident that the ECA caused “wages to drop”. In fact you have to be pretty ignorant to argue against that idea.
http://rogernome.blogspot.com/2007/07/ok-so-this-section-follows-on-from-my.html
http://rogernome.blogspot.com/2008/07/national-prepares-to-make-war-on-poor.html
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
PaulL – National is sending a confused message. In one release it has stated that union access to the workplace would be conditional on the employer’s consent, and in another it’s saying that access couldn’t be unreasonably denied.
Which one do we believe? We need to know, because if its the former, there may be many people who would choose to not vote for National based on that. Or do you want people to be voting for a party that they would actually be voting against, were they not being deceived?
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
They are not conflicting Roger. Unless you are actively trying to whip up dissent. More detail will be issued as we get closer to the election, as happens in every election campaign. You are really dragging the bottom of the barrel in finding something to not like about National – why don’t you just give up and agree that they are better than Labour? Really, if this is the best that you can come up with:
– the summary document says that access would be conditional on employer consent
– the detailed document says (in more detail) that the consent cannot be unreasonably withheld.
And you consider that to be confusing, and dishonest.
Give it up if that is all you have.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
“More detail will be issued as we get closer to the election,”
Perhaps in other fields, but that looks like all they’ll be releasing on industrial relations – why would they reveal more detail if it’s likely goign to lose them votes?
“You are really dragging the bottom of the barrel in finding something to not like about National – why don’t you just give up and agree that they are better than Labour?”
lol -better for who? From 1990 to 1997 the inflation-adjusted median hourly wage rate dropped by 6.1% – see page 77 off the following document:
http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?hl=en&q=author:%22Dixon%22+intitle:%22The+Distribution+of+Earnings+in+New+Zealand+1984-94%22+&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholarr
But PaulL responds “the tories will be different this time. I promise! They won’t cut your wages and make you work langer hours to make the same amount of money. All at a time when the economy has grown larger by 20% and corporate profits have grown even faster”.
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Actually this is the correct document:
http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?hl=en&q=author:%22Dixon%22+intitle:%22Growth+in+the+dispersion+of+earnings:+1984-97%22+&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholarr
Vote:July 29th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Sorry Roger, get back to your claim. It is not confusing, it is not dishonest. One is a summary, one is more detailed. Surprisingly enough, the more detailed one has more detail in it. Where exactly is the confusion? For someone who supposedly has a first class honours and straight A’s, you seem awfully slow. Admit that you were wrong on confusion and dishonesty, and I will engage on your other points.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Journalists and Campaigning By Michael Bassett 17/07/2008
“How many people have wakened to the assistance that is being given to the Labour Party by state-paid broadcasters and a collection of Labour supporters within the print media? For months they have been crying for the National Party to release its policies. We’ve had editorials and speeches from them accusing National of being a me too party, with suggestions that John Key is too scared to front up. However, those cries are now being revealed as nothing more than strategic ploys by Labour and a swag of sympathetic reporters in the media. The position is becoming so serious that some might find themselves caught up under the Electoral Finance Act unless they mend their ways.
Of recent weeks National has been releasing policy on a variety of subjects. This week it’s been early childhood education, the arts and ACC. But before the policies appear, Labour seems to have primed media types with headlines and slogans to attack those policies, no matter their merits. I have been watching the way the media handled National’s plan for early childhood education and ACC. The first thing to remember about early childhood education is that Labour’s new scheme is not working as promised. In other parts of the papers there is evidence that many providers don’t qualify for government subsidies, especially in Auckland. But in the Herald and on TV1 the headlines attached to National’s plans were Labour’s negative comments rather than the proposals themselves. The Nats, they say, will destroy Labour’s free scheme. Hello there? If people aren’t benefiting, how can change / destroy that scheme? Why has no journalist been able to put these facts together and expose Labour’s claims for the fraudulence that they are?
It’s the same with ACC. For perfectly sensible reasons National has suggested that they would investigate opening the area to competition. They want to scrutinize the components of the existing scheme, and in particular investigate cross subsidies that usually occur everywhere in monopoly arrangements. And in particular, the Nats want to have an independent disputes tribunal so that ACC isn’t judge and jury on disputed claims. Perfectly sensible, I’d have thought. The present system is certainly open to the charge that lack of competition enables it to work in that way.
But no, a collection of doom merchants with slogans that bore little relationship to the most important parts of the Nats announcement, received prominent coverage in radio, on TV, and in the print media. Only Geoff Robinson of Radio NZ this morning made a valiant effort to sort the wheat from the chaff, and the lines coming from Helen Kelly and Hazel Armstrong of the CTU were quickly revealed as being the latter. After Armstrong had been reminded on air that National’s policy made no reference to any intention to privatize all ACC, she went on using the word, presumably because her minister Maryann Street had told her to do so.
My plea to the media is not to ignore criticism of National policy. But journalists most certainly need more guts if they are to avoid being labeled biased. Surely they have an obligation to do what Geoff Robinson did and try to get beneath the patch protection that underlines so much of the primeval protests from Labour’s piteous parade of privileged people?
Before 1984, and during the years of reform that followed, the same sorts of interest groups wailed about the erosion of their privileges. The then Labour government sought to sift genuine concern from the bleats of people like Kelly and Armstrong. What eventually resulted from those years was an economy where inflation, never a friend of the worker, was reduced, and the country’s economy started being competitive with the wider world. It is impossible ever to freeze any economy for long periods of time. Entrenching inadequate people in privileged positions is a sure fire way to make New Zealand an irrelevant backwater.
Let’s hear some more National policy. And let’s also demand higher standards from the journalists dealing with it.”
Vote: