Bollard admits risks in depost guarantee scheme
October 14th, 2008 at 7:04 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald reports Alan Bollard discussing some of the flaws in the Government’s hastily announced deposit guarantee scheme.
I am going to touch on that in a later post. First I want to reflect on whether Governor Bollard and Secretary Whitehead have acted properly during this period of Government. A reader (a former senior official in Government) makes the case in e-mail to me that Bollard and Whitehead should have insisted that the Government consult with the Opposition on the scheme, before announcing it. The reader says that “in his day” the Governor and Secretary would have threatened to resign rather than damage the independence of the public service and the Reserve Bank.
This scheme provides a guarantee of $150 billion for deposts – the largest contingent liability in history. It is being done without parliamentary sanction and by a Government in the period just before an election. Traditionally in this period major decisions are not made unilaterally, let alone one of this magnitude.
Did Bollard and Whitehead advocate for bipartisan consultation, and if so why did they not insist on it? Would consulting with the two people who might be Prime Minister and Finance Minister in less than a month have detracted from economic stability and constitutional integrity or enhanced it?
Think of what a disaster it would have been if the Government announced the scheme and the Opposition then did not back it? The result would have been worse than never announcing the scheme in the first place.
I say this with great hesitation and respect for the Governor and Secretary. But their actions have undermined confidence in a neutral public service. To not insist on consultation with the Opposition for a $150 billion guarantee, just four weeks before an election, was misguided at best, and reckless at worst.
Related posts:
- Sensible guarantee scheme but what is the secret agenda?
- Pity Dr Bollard
- What should Dr Bollard do tomorrow?
- NZ Herald on banking crisis
October 14th, 2008 at 7:08 am
It’s fun when you’re playing with other people’s money. Labour put the taxpayers money all on black and span the wheel. Turns out the country is in the red.
Anyone got the phone number for the IMF?
TIME FOR A CHANGE
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Big call Mr Farrar.
Should Bollard and Whitehead discussed with Key and English – Yes.
Why didn’t they? Hulun and Mikhael bullied them.
I expect one mitigating reason was that the AU banks were experiencing a nascent run on deposits to their equivalent of the Public Trust. I know my cash was destined to go there before this deal.
In summary, Hulun and Mikhael are cheating lying fuckers.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 7:23 am
DPF:
The move does not create any constitutional issues.
The measures have been intoduced under existing powers in the Public Finance Act. The government still has lawful executive authority and the caretaker convention does not apply until election day. See the extract from the Cabinet Manual on my post:
Vote:> LAWS179: “Pre-election period and the bank deposit plan”
October 14th, 2008 at 7:24 am
DPF…’a neutral public service.’
Are you joking David?
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 7:30 am
expectation that hulun and mikhael would play fair – zero.
i hope the nats have some very nasty dirt to pull out soon. oh, and get a better pr media person ffs john, enough already with the soft stuff
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 7:33 am
David, I want to know what was the advice given by Treasury and the RB? Did it include recommendations for a deposit guarantee AND a bank to bank guarantee? I’ll bet it did and Labour chose only the deposit guarantee because banks don’t vote. That’s the real reason they did not consult Key and English. That’s the real story which needs to be hammered home. Vote buying again. Labour governs for Labour yet again.
Just watch the avalanche of funds ripped out of NZ and pushed into banks where there is a deposit guarantee.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 7:35 am
expat, they need to shoot Maurice Williamson. Only a loser could go on TV at the party launch holding his sign upside down. Fantastic subliminal message for voters there, Maurice.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Maurice is a donkey – and has a beard. QED
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 7:38 am
who appointed them?
why were they appointed?
Bollard was put into the Treasury early in Cullen’s reign to emasculate it. Major policy emphasis: open plan accommodation and flattening the organisation structure. Job done, safe pair of hands Whitehead could be trusted to bog it down in meaningless process and ensure that treasury had nothing of use to say about anything for the last five years. Has anyone asked the Treasury what it thinks about fiscal management, economic performance or the policies necessary to move the economy up the OECD “ladder”. Of course not, why would you? It’s left to “mavericks” like David Skilling, who Treasury drove out because he questioned the unthinking orthodoxy of the place.
Job done in Treasury, Cullen moved Bollard to the Reserve Bank, where he has engaged in vital topics such as open plan accommodation and flattening organisational structures (hmm sound familiar?), and, to be fair, prudential banking regulation. But back to being unfair, squeezing the life out of the productive sector to provide space for the government’s reckless spending. which helps to explain why NZ “enjoys” the highest interest rates in the developed world.
So, nope, not even slightly surprised that they jump when the boss says jump.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Labour realise that their core support simply doesn’t give a shit about protocol or governance. They live on sound-bites “The government is guaranteeing your money”.
There is no repurcussion for labour in politicising the public service; it is probably a net vote winner.
Disgusting and despicable, but its about winning and power, right?
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Oh – and from stuff:
He was told by Bollard that any future briefings were at the discretion of Finance Minister Michael Cullen.
Cullen yesterday brushed off allegations the Government had politicised the scheme.
He said there had not been time to brief Key or his deputy, Bill English, and both had indicated in statements in the media last week that they would support such a move.
An official in Clark’s office said the Government had not put “any obstacles in the way of the Reserve Bank briefing the Opposition”.
Yeah – I know the readership are a bit slow, but wouldn’t you consider having to get Cullen’s approval an ‘obstacle’?
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Did Mr Bollard work that out for himself or did an illiterate eight year old help him?
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 7:55 am
DPF – look i hate to say it, but who gives a fuck? The electorate isn’t interested in whether Labour’s playing fair or not. It doesn’t matter if it’s “bad form” or “dirty pool” – no-one cares. They’re interested in how they are going to pay their mortgages, they want to know who can lead them in troubled times.
Vote:It’s time for Key to shed the Mr Nice Guy image, because it’s not working. Pin Labour down, tie a secret agenda to them. Key has got to become the Ghost of Christmas Future and show people EXACTLY what life will be like under a Labour/Green government on Nov 9th, because that is the only alternative to National.
October 14th, 2008 at 7:57 am
the jug skulling nymphette helped me.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 7:59 am
what neillr said. get fucking on track ffs john. dirt, dirt dirt. screw hulun and which way you can
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 8:00 am
And another point:
RE the costings? Remember how labour completely understated their costings of the student loan scheme at the last election, and it took (was it a court ruling, and OIA request or the ombudsman) to make them release the true costs?
Maybe they’ve just done that again here.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 8:00 am
or do you want to be known as john was ‘nice’ and ‘tried hard’ . FFS – screw labour to the wall.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Just say
“we support the guarantee – we will just not guarantee finance companies because that creates too much of a moral hazard and we will [fill in here whatever bright idea you have to get more value for our money out of it]“.
Better not to winge about it to much because the electorate will not care. It jsut fits with the meme of the right being upset tha they have been beaten to the punch and that labour did what ke was demanding but not yet offering and thus caught him out.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Just say
“we support the guarantee – we will just not guarantee finance companies because that creates too much of a moral hazard and we will [fill in here whatever bright idea you have to get more value for our money out of it]“.
Better not to winge about it to much because the electorate will not care. It jsut fits with the meme of the right being upset tha they have been beaten to the punch and that labour did what key was demanding but not yet offering and thus caught him out.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Dean Knight: As a university law lecturer, you know better than most that momentous decision matters should be judged in context. In the present situation, there were obvious contextual justifications for Government to have taken the statesmanlike, risk-averse course and briefed the Opposition, eg an unprecedented $150bn contingent liability being initiated, absence of a detailed implementation plan (acknowledged by Bollard), and need for bipartisanship to maintain confidence in the banking system (generously conceded by Key subsequently).
Let’s be honest, Dean – Clark and Cullen pulled a dirty trick by anybody’s standards, even their own.
That view is supported indirectly by the Cabinet Manual section that you quote: “Successive governments, however, have chosen to restrict their actions to some extent at this time, in recognition of the fact that an election, and therefore potentially a change of government, is imminent.”
So the situation was not covered by black letter law (with which you appear to be most comfortable to support your view) but is clearly implied as part of political and constitutional convention. Another two memos, therefore, for early action by an incoming National Government:
1. Clean-up the “catetaker” provisions of the Cabinet Manual.
Vote:2. Lead a large-scale, highly-publicised and cross-party exercise to de-politicise the public service and enshrine its political neutrality with appropriate checks and balances. (And announce that intention pre-Election as a significant policy, to sit alongside repeal of the repugnant EFA.)
October 14th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Cullen’s ambition was to spend the lot. I think he’s overshot the target.
He’s well into Tax, borrow and spend country now.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Don Brash been emailing you again David?
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 9:09 am
You’d have to hope at least that Bollard and Whitehead were not told that the policy would be announced at Labour’s election launch. Were we about last cab off the rank internationally on this kind of measure? How come?
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 9:19 am
calendar girl:
- If you read my full blog post, you’ll see I refer to the fact that the Cabinet Manual reflects present constitutional conventions. They may, of course, change. But unless and until that happens, it’s appropriate to judge the actions against this. (btw – the Cabinet Manual is hardly “black letter law”; it’s a reflection of those organice conventions you refer.)
- On the voluntary restraint of activities in the 3 months prior to the election, if there is any such practice (and the data on this is mixed), the examples mentioned are “significant appointments” and government advertising. The former types of decisions are unable to be unwound by an incoming government. The latter potentially (unduly) affects the election itself. I don’t think the present decision falls in that same league – it might be a big decision in politicing and the media at the moemnt, but it’s probably one would wouldn’t otherwise bat our eyes at.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 9:21 am
While watching the TV coverage of Helen announcing the new student ‘benefit’, I had to laugh due to her being lined up to an airbrushed poster in the near background…certainly was an excellent way to show up all her physical flaws! lol
I’d compare it to Shrek and princess Fiona’s switching between a princess and a Troll, but that would be very unfair to Trolls, whom are minority group and should be treated with absolute respect…
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 9:36 am
The entire public sector is pro-government. They earn 20% more than their equivelents in the private sector. My relative who is a spin-writer for MAF gets $100K a year to write fluff for press releases. Why would they ever vote for restraint? If by some chance national forms a government the first thing they have to do is reassign all the senior staff at Government Depts. i am sure they all have a “Other duties as required” clause in their contracts. Get them cleaning toilets.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Nobody really expects any convention relying on traditions of decency and fairness to be honoured by Klark and her ruthless corrupt power obsessed gang. Bollard and Whitehead’s failure to insist on bipartisan discussion not only means they risk being seen as collaborators, but also that traditions of public service neutrality are forever spoilt. How many wells is this now that have been poisoned by Klark and her gang?
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 9:50 am
“My relative who is a spin-writer for MAF gets $100K a year to write fluff for press releases. Why would they ever vote for restraint?”
Damn right. They just keep voting for the looters who steal by legislation and divide the spoils of that theft with them. Maybe its time that anyone who works in the government sector is asked to forgo their vote as a condition of that employment.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Its time to fire Bollard and abolish the Reserve Bank. Monopoly Government control and manipulation of the money supply is a recipe for ongoing cyclical crises and corruption.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Did you know that $150 billion is $33,000 for every man, woman and child in NZ?
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I’ve stayed out of these discussions on the deposit guarantees. It just leaves me with a feeling of hopelessness. There is in practical terms no real way that the government can ever guarantee deposits. The whole idea is just completely off the planet, and that so many people go along with such an obvious deceit just leaves me shaking my head. When will we ever grow up and take responsibility for our own actions?
Government in this country is a religion. Except its worse than a religion. The same secularists who direct scorn at Brian Tamaki (Klark and her gang) are involved in a fraud that is a thousand times greater than anything he has ever pulled.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 10:07 am
This corruption of the public service is something I want to see an end to – the quality of our democracy is abysmal at the moment and will only get worse if Labour get back in. Nov 9 is going to be a very interesting day for our family. In the meantime John Key and your fellow dullards – start acting like you give a fuck and get passionate and angry. There is a large section of the electorate that want strong leadership and so far Key has not really shown his capability. I cannot believe Tony Ryall did not respond to the drivel from Nicky Hagar on the weekend. It is symptomatic and will be the reason why not on 8/11.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am
When the Governor of the Reserve Bank runs scared of Clark & Cullen, you know the public service is politicised beyond redemption. What an abosolute disgrace.
I guess the term Helengrad, so wonderfully created by the public service, really has it’s roots in truth.
What a gutless bunch.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 10:26 am
How can this guarantee work? If two or three banks went belly up how could the state afford to actually guarantee depositors money? There isn’t any cash to guarantee it with. Am I missing something?
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 10:39 am
No Brian you are not. The whole thing is dependant on the banks not falling over. if that were to happen then the shit would really hit the fan.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 10:41 am
# Lee (49) 2 1 Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Its time to fire Bollard and abolish the Reserve Bank. Monopoly Government control and manipulation of the money supply is a recipe for ongoing cyclical crises and corruption.
I agree with firing Bollard, he’s an idiot who was obviously castrated a long time ago, and was appointed for purely idealogical reasons.
But getting rid of the reserve bank is about the worst idea I’ve ever read on this blog, you do realise what sort of stuffed up situation we’d be in if Cullen had direct control over our money supply don’t you? We’d make Zimbabwe look like a model economy.
Senior positions of govt departments, especially the key ones, need to be made by a committee made up of MP’s or others selected by MP’s of all parties (like a select committee), who are given a list of names by the state services commission, and they have to interview & approve or disapprove the nominee for the position. Then only people who can be trusted by all parties (or a majority of anyway), can lead govt departments, and hopefully the creeping politicisation of the public service can be stopped from the top down.
The Reserve bank governor should be the first to be put through this process
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Brian, I have no specialist knowledge to say how it works but I guess they could just print a shitload of money and dish it out with whatever consequences for inflation and the exchange rate.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Why does the Labour promise equate to $37500 per person in NZ when the US financial bailout equates to $3000 per person based on relative population?
The US plan requires funding that equates to 15% of GDP per capita. The NZ 150 billion bailout would be 214% of GDP per Capita if it was ever called upon.
Scared yet?
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Easy Brian, they’d just borrow it from Kiwibank. They’re owned by kiwis you know? It’s our bank, it’s got our money. They’ll make sure that your money is safe.
Every good kiwi voter knows that the government has its own endless supply of money. How do you think they give us so many of these nice free things?
You know, cheaper doctors visits? – it was only 70 bucks last time I went
Free childcare – only cos mummy and daddy need to work to pay their taxes. Did I mention the top up fees?
Welfare for families – because they love “families” so much.
A viable public service – someone’s got to employ all those arts grads.
kiwisaver – free money to match your savings, your boss will pay too.
1000 new cops – someone’s got give those speeding tickets and charge people who defend themselves.
The labour led government makes all of these things possible, out of the goodness of their hearts and the endless depths of their bottomless pockets. Silly boy.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 11:00 am
“I guess they could just print a shitload of money and dish it out with whatever consequences for inflation and the exchange rate.”
Meaning that money would be worthless.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 11:06 am
If it covers such investments as people make with finance companies I am totally against it. Why should tax payers bail out people who invest, solely for the higher interest rates than banks offer, with dodgy developers?
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Tonight’s meme for Key in the debate: “where’s the money coming from?”. He can tie it back to the bribe at the last election regarding student loan interest, which hasn’t kept a single student here in the country who wouldn’t have left anyway.
Simple and to the point, doesn’t need explaining – explaining is losing. You don’t want to lose, John.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Scared yet?
Vote:What, because Labour and Bollard have just thrown a lifeline to Hanover, Petrecivic and Bryers? Why would you be scared, they’re as safe as houses.
October 14th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Liarbore once again is playing to the braindead masses. Liarbore’s core voters couldn’t give a fat rats arse about banks and such things. Fuck, most of their core voters live for the moment and couldn’t give a shit about tomorrow, as long as nanny state is at hand and welcomes them into her bossom should they fall on hard times then everything is alright jack.
There will come the day when all these arse licking balless public service employees are kicked in the guts by those they have pledged there souls to. I wonder how much loyality will be shown to the PS by the corrupt socialists when times get tough, whats the bet the Liarbore leadership has made themselves comfortable should the shit hit the fan. This country has now more people with their hands out saying “give me” then people that can give. I long for the day these socialist grasshoppers go belly up because in there greed to distribute wealth they are slowly killing the golden goose, I hope the fucks starve!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Duuuuuuuh Liarbore. Doiiiiiiiiii.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 11:42 am
SSB, the trouble is that these socialist people are masters at supplementing their benefits by working for cash, and or for gangs as dope and P dealers…really they’ve got it made and must be laughing their arses off at us fools working an honest day, and paying excessive takes.
It’s really sad that by accepting MMP, we’ve given this minority the ability to keep hijacking the country…really it makes me so DamnedAngry!
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 11:52 am
“It’s time for Key to shed the Mr Nice Guy image, because it’s not working.”
I disagree. There is little National can do to make Labour look worse than they have already made themselves look. Their biggest need is to make National look good, to reassure nervous voters that National is a safe choice.
For Key to turn into Mr Nasty would be counterproductive. Labour’s obvious petty politicking just make them look bad. As Key said in his campaign launch speech, people are sick of that. So instead he is using the opportunities that provides to make himself look prime minsterial, rising above petty politics and putting the nation’s interest before his party’s.
It occurs to me that there is an interesting comparison here. Think back to 1984 and Muldoon vs Lange. Lange did a great job of making himself look bigger (in a moral sense) and more like a prime minister than Muldoon. Helen Clark is (I am sad to say) sounding more and more like Muldoon every day.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I agree.
Vote:There seems to be little point registering as a Bank in NZ and sustaining a high capital ratio, when finance companies can escape these requirements and still guarantee that deposits are safe. The point of distinction is that Finance companies offer a rates to investors because they are riskier. You need to preserve that distinction.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Think back to 1984 and Muldoon vs Lange.
Vote:The difference is that Lange’s wit ran rings around Muldoon and made him look like yesterday’s man. There’s no doubt that Key could do that to Helen, but he has to give it free rein.
I’ve seen him speak well in parliament (his budget reply was a classic), but he needs to pull that out now. He doesn’t need to become “Mr Nasty”, he just needs to show that he’s in command. At the moment he’s looking more like Wallace Rowling than David Lange.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Good comparison, NeillR. Mr Nice Guy Wallie. Mr Nice Guy John Boy.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
rolla_fxgt, I think Lee was coming from the Libertarian angle that abolishing the Reserve Bank meant that the Government has NO control whatsoever over money. I don’t think he meant the opposite to that as you have assumed.
I don’t think anyone has ever tried it, but it might well work. “Good money would drive out bad”, I can’t remember who said that. We’d use gold, U.S. dollars, etc.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“I say this with great hesitation and respect for the Governor and Secretary. But their actions have undermined confidence in a neutral public service. To not insist on consultation with the Opposition for a $150 billion guarantee, just four weeks before an election, was misguided at best, and reckless at worst.”
So, are they dirty Liarbore Sycophants (as Ratty would have it) or not?
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Slightly Righty, you know what? The crisis that has happened in NZ completely independantly of anything overseas, is much worse than anything else overseas. OUR house prices have become MORE overvalued by a long way. That is the root of the problem.
The USA is possibly the SOUNDEST country in the international community. If it was just California and New York and Florida, they would be just as stuffed as us. But they have so many states with a much more responsible attitude to providing affordable housing, that overall they don’t have the problem
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
In fact, the US people need to wake up to the fact that the bailout is largely the rest of the country paying for the Land use restriction follies of California, Florida, and New York. But here in NZ, and England, and Ireland, it is the problem of all of us.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Dean Knight @ 9.19am: “On the voluntary restraint of activities in the 3 months prior to the election, if there is any such practice (and the data on this is mixed), the examples mentioned are ‘significant appointments’ and government advertising.”
That’s right, they are merely examples, not intended to be exclusive of other government actions in the run-up to an election. To make a reasoned judgment, you might ask yourself how a new incoming government could undo a $150bn contingent liability already committed (but announced conveniently in the environment of a party political rally).
I don’t expect you, as an academic lawyer, to understand the full economic ramifications. None of us does, yet. But as an intelligent individual you must surely appreciate the magnitude of a $150bn underwrite. I’m aghast, therefore, at your conclusion viv-a-vis significant appointments and government advertising: “I don’t think the present decision falls in that same league – it might be a big decision in politicing (sic) and the media at the moemnt (sic), but it’s probably one would (sic) wouldn’t otherwise bat our (sic) eyes at.”
Yes I did read your full blog post after following the link provided. My only real surprise was to find you blogging your views under the insignia of the University of Victoria, Wellington. Still, they weren’t political views were they?
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
rolla_fxgt said:
“But getting rid of the reserve bank is about the worst idea I’ve ever read on this blog, you do realise what sort of stuffed up situation we’d be in if Cullen had direct control over our money supply don’t you?”
Sorry, but you misunderstand my position. I advocate the total privatization of the money supply. This the state would have no control at all. The only legitimate function of any government is to ensure honest coinage, and the only way to do this is to put an end to fractional banking and return to the gold standard.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Yep, Lee, I mentioned at 1.15 that that is what I thought you meant.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
calendar girl:
1a. Perhaps another way of looking at it is to ask what the view would be if the decision was taken at an earlier time within the 3 month period where restraint is identified. That is, could the goverment could have unilaterally implemented the measure in mid August, ie within the 3 month period? Clearly that would have been unobjectionable. Nothing has changed in terms of the government’s confidence; they are no more or less an “outgoing” government than they were then. There’s also nothing to stop an incoming government removing any such guarantee – that’s part of having lawful executive authority to govern (sf, say, a significant appointment, such as, a Supreme Court judge).
1b. The relevant Cabinet Circular (http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/cabinet/circulars/co08/COC-08-03.pdf), released in February 2008, more strongly restricts the voluntary “restraint” to the two enumerated categories. I’m not closing the door on evolution to create new convention, but (a) no such practice has been established; and (b) in my view, any principle for it in this case is dubious.
2a. Section 164(4)(a)(v) of the Education Act 1989, namely my role as an academic to act “as critic and conscience of society”. You’ll find many academics commenting, variously, on issues that have arisen in the context of the election – be it on the radio, tv, newspapers, and online. They’re not political views (except to the extent that my thinking on legal issues is necessary informed by own personal philosophies) but comment on issues which have arisen in the campaign.
2b. Personally, I find the discussion and debate around constitutionality of these actions interesting and valuable. If you and others prefer that those who job it is to study and teach these conventions not contribute to that debate and discussion, then we’ll happily withdraw from that discussion.
Vote:October 14th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I think you are right on the money here David.
Vote:There comes a time when public servants should fight back a bit more.
They did under Muldoon.
Why not under Clark and Cullen?
cheers
Bernard
October 14th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Dean Knight: Your 1b is incorrect. The Cabinet Circular (written for an encumbent Government that had just forced through the repugnant EFA after thumbing its nose at prevailing constitutional convention) does not restrict the voluntary “restraint” in any way. It refers to two main exceptions and to examples, thereby not excluding other self-imposed restraints.
It takes little more than common sense for most people to conclude that unilaterally committing the NZ Government to a $150bn financial exposure for two years was a huge decision to take five weeks out from an election. If the Government felt justified in taking that course, it should have had the decency to consult, privately but sincerely, with the Opposition.
If you genuinely believe that “There’s also nothing to stop an incoming government removing any such guarantee”, then I regret to say that I cannot help you further.
“They’re not political views ..” is your personal opinion which you are entitled to express. To the extent that you debate any of your views in the public arena, good on you. But I do not expect you to do so, or to feel a need to do so, under the banner of Victoria University of Wellington.
Vote:October 15th, 2008 at 8:18 am
calendar girl:
If you refer to the other thread on this topic, you’ll see I’ve posted the relevant test for the recognition of constitutional conventions, which suggests that voluntary restraint is not enough – the relevant actors must believe they are *bound* to observe the practice.
But I guess it’s something on which we will probably need to agree to disagree on. We obviously see this issue very differently.
Vote:October 15th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Calendar Girl: Nice One re: Dean Knights 1b. You win.
Vote:October 15th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
expat: if only life was that easy…
Vote:October 16th, 2008 at 3:40 am
Is New Zealand going to be one of the only countries where a Deposit Insurance Scheme causes the economy to collapse as a result of calls place on that scheme?
Labour really has exposed a future government to a large amount of risk, particularly default risk.
Vote: