Labour’s priorities
June 20th, 2011 at 12:24 pm by David FarrarTracy Watkins at Stuff reports:
Labour will introduce a bill preventing the sale of key strategic assets without a clear public mandate, says Labour leader Phil Goff.
Goff said the bill would require any future proposal to partly or wholly privatise a State-owned enterprise or Crown entity to gain support from 75 per cent of Parliament, or from a majority of voters in a referendum.
This is hilarious, because Labour is ensuring such a bill will never get drawn from the members’ ballot because they are filibustering the VSM bill.
A journalist should ask Labour if they will stop filbustering the VSM bill, in order to allow more bills to be drawn in a ballot, and giving their anti-privatisation bill a chance to be drawn.
I bet you the answer is no.
So what does that mean? It means that Labour value protecting compulsory student associations from voluntary membership more than they value stopping asset sales. Their number one parliamentary priority is stopping VSM at all costs.
Incidentially turning to the substance of their silly bill, I’ll support a law which requires a referendum to sell any asset, so long one also needs a referendum for teh Government to buy any asset (over a non trivial value).
June 20th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Do you really feel that Labour should have to drop their opposition to VSM to promote one of their other policies?
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
milkenmild: Do you really feel that Labour should deny their bill opposing Asset Sales a chance to be heard in the house to promote one of their other policies?
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Let’s remember that Labour approved the selling of Wellington’s electricity infrastructure. Their rhetoric on this is as hollow as heaven is wide.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Labour are rudderless at present not unlike national under English. They will be routed at the election unless National make a monumental cockup.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
I thought Labors priority was;
Vote:1. Get back into power.
2. Get back into power.
ad infinitum.
Although what Simon Power thinks about Labour getting into him is anyone’s guess.
June 20th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Rick
Vote:If we followed that logic, parliamentary parties would not oppose any legislation, so that more time would be available to press their own causes. So Labour would not debate the budget or any government legislation and hope that the time freed up would allow them to introduce their own bills.
June 20th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
I’m not sure that this is an entirely good attack to make on Labour.
Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether VSM and asset sales are good ideas, Labour’s chosen to oppose them both. But if it allows the VSM bill to pass, then what? The Prevention of Asset Sales Bill, or whatever it’s called, is unlikely to be drawn. If drawn, it might not pass first reading. If it passes first reading, it’s not going to be reported back on until after the election has put an end to it, right?
If I were playing chess, I’d hardly sacrifice a rook for a maybe 5% chance of getting the opponent’s queen later. And no-one would think me stupid for refusing to make that kind of sacrifice.
But I do think this bill is stupid, and struggle to see why Labour would be introducing it. Is it really something they would want when, in government, it would seriously restrict their freedom of action? And why on Earth are they trying to elevate asset sales to a matter of constitutional significance anyway?
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
This is just another attempt to snatch headlines from the rudderless, leaderless socialists.
They have fought tooth and nail (including filibustering), to deny the VSM legislation passage through the House. When the penny drops and they work out that there will be insufficient time for this bill to be drawn, they’ll bleat loud and long to their allies in the sympathetic MSM.
The vote that counts will be the one in November when Key’s Government goes to the country seeking a mandate to introduce some policies including that of partially selling assets. If enough people don’t like the idea, then they won’t vote National.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Mr Gronk
Vote:I agree with your analysis. I doubt that Labour are serious about this bill. Assets sales are a core issue for them though, and this bill provides them with a political opportunity.
June 20th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
I’m all for getting a mandate to do things like selling or buying major assets – it should be standard practice on many issues. That’s what we are campaigning on.
Your NZ will introduce a debate and poll/referendum system at electorate level (in at least one electorate) regardless of the outcome of the election with the intention of proving it’s worth to the voters, and then expanding it outwards and upwards.
Start simple, prove, fine tune, expand.
I wouldn’t rely on traditional party election rhetoric, we need to make it happen ourselves.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Oh dear. What a pity. Never mind.
Vote:Can we deal with realities?
The VSM has a PRIORITY that cannot be varied unless the house, without objection, also decides.
Ergo,
All LP Priv Membr bills on anyting will be at the bottom of the pile.
Mutch et al are still wet behind the ears. But then what can one expect from ex TVOne functionaries.
June 20th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
mikenmild, I agree. But I don’t think it comes across as anything more than grandstanding, and I certainly don’t think it’ll help them regain the Treasury benches.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
milkenmaid – can you not see the difference between debate and filibustering?
It is possible to oppose something without bringing all private member’s bills to a halt.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
What is it about freedom of choice (VSM) that the Labour party hate so much?
Vote:If student union membership is so popular, worthy and useful, the voluntary nature is no problem, students will want to be members. If membership brings no benefits, they do not deserve to have members. Simple as that.
June 20th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Do you really feel that Labour should have to drop their opposition to VSM to promote one of their other policies?
That is not what is being suggested. We, the people, elect parliament to represent us, and Labour is entitled to vote against the bill. They are also entitled to filibuster legislation if they want. However, it seems most unwise to continue to stall a vote on VSM when there are much more important issues facing New Zealanders which they could be fighting. The sale or share distribution of albatross SOEs and white elephants (“asset” assumes they are valuable) is one of those issues. I am sure most New Zealanders, especially those holding the contrary opinion, would agree with me. So why is Labour in bunker mentality protecting its precious compulsory unions when it could be grandstanding in parliament on this issue instead – possibly the only issue which has any chance of getting their vote up?
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Crusader, I don’t know why Labour would care, though no doubt older and wiser heads than I have views on that. I do recall the anti-VSM arguments that were made in Australia a few years back (I was living [EDIT: and studying] there when the Howard government was pushing for that law, and think it eventually passed). I think it boiled down to the idea that for a “positive student experience” some students had to have services that they weren’t paying for, which meant that other students would have to pay for services they weren’t using.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Do you really feel that Labour should have to drop their opposition to VSM to promote one of their other policies?
That is not what is being suggested. We, the people, elect parliament to represent us, and Labour is entitled to vote against the bill. They are also entitled to filibuster legislation if they want. However, it seems most unwise to continue to stall a vote on VSM when there are much more important issues facing New Zealanders which they could be fighting. The sale or share distribution of albatross SOEs and white elephants (“asset” assumes they are valuable) is one of those issues. I am sure most New Zealanders, especially those holding the contrary opinion, would agree with me. So why is Labour in bunker mentality protecting its precious compulsory unions when it could be grandstanding in parliament on this issue instead – possibly the only issue which has any chance of getting their vote up?
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Rick
Point taken – the filibuster is unnecessary.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Test…..
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Crusader
Student Associations are the recruitment centres for up & coming Labourites. A degree in Social Sciences, unfettered idealism & no outside work experience is the recipe for the perfect socialist.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
I’d have thought taking the publically announced policy of partial asset sales to an election would be a fair sort of mandate (as would be taking the opposite policy in labours case).
Rick are is correct the labour action is not debate just granstanding ans relying on their typical big lie.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
nasska
As I understand it, the Labour position is one of preference for the status quo, which allows associations to decide by student vote whether to be voluntary or not.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
A journalist should ask Labour if they will stop filbustering the VSM bill, in order to allow more bills to be drawn in a ballot, and giving their anti-privatisation bill a chance to be drawn.
Agreeing that the VSM bill could pass through all its remaining stages on a single voice vote without debate would not enable a single bill to be drawn from the ballot before the election. Serious suggestions, please.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
mikenmild
Sounds okay in theory but doesn’t work in practise. An individual attends university for an education & most of them have better things to do with their time than concern themselves with student politics……things like studying & finding sufficient part time work so they can eat. Consequently a relatively small number of like minded people share the power of the associations.
If it were possible to arrange a vote, essentially stripping these same self servers from the money that compulsory membership provides, they are going to fight long & hard & since they are socialists, probably dirtily.
Without legislation to force voluntary membership the status quo will prevail.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
nasska
I’m not arguing about student union membership status. It is a tiny thing of little relevance to the real world. Jus wanted to point out the basis of Labour’s opposition was a little more principled (not a prinicple I agree with) than some had assumed.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Pretty sure the Nats could just introduce a government bill if they REALLY wanted VSM to pass.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
mikenmild
The fee for the current year at Victoria is $143.70 for a full time student. Presume that a degree would involve no less than three years study that represents over $400 taken at the point of a gun by a pack of budding socialists. Some students may think it a bargain….I suspect many consider it to be a ripoff.
Labour & principles parted company many moons ago.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Has anyone from Labour said this won’t be part of Labour policy if they are elected?
There seems to be a public mandate to protect public assets. So if somehow Labour managed to win the election, then even if they didn’t get 75% majority from Parliament then a referendum could still bring it in.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
nasska
I’m no fan of compulsory membership of any kind. If student associations can’t make a case for subs on the value they provide to students, then that should be their bad luck. This is a minor issue anyway. As Labour amusingly point out, all the want to do is keep the law the same as passed by the National govt in the 90s!
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
mmmmm remind me again why it’s in National’s interest for Parliament to consider Private Members Bills?
I would have thought the current extended debate on the Royal Society Bill suited National down to the ground.
Whatever National’s position on VSM, Labour are in essence assisting National’s domination of Parliamentary business. They are upping the already high status of Govt Bills.
The risk to the Govt’s political management is zero if private members bills are stalled.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Labour will introduce a bill preventing the sale of key strategic assets without a clear public mandate, says Labour leader Phil Goff.
Did the Sue Bradford Bill (supported by both Labour/National) get a mandate from the public?
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Why 75% ? Why not 99 or 100%. Why should say 74% Ayes be denied by a tyranny of 26% nays. Clarkism at its’ worst.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
So, they’re not against asset sales then.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Does it take a 75% vote of parliament to introduce a bill that requires 75% vote to do certain things?
Could a party introduce a bill that caps government budget increases to CPI less 0.5%, and requires a 75% vote of parliament to pass any budget with a higher increase?
I think you might see why I reckon this is a dumb idea.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
PaulL
Vote:My understanding is that this sort of ‘entrenching’ legislation is usuallydone by a simple majority. So, from memory, certain sections of the Electoral Act are entrenched against simple changes, but a simple majority could remove that entrenching. I don’t think any legislation is ‘double entrenched’.
June 20th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
The only place I’ve read about Labour’s filibustering to delay the VSU bill is here on Kiwiblog. Kinda reflects poorly on the mainstream media.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Now, remind me again; who sold assets holus-bolus between 1984 and 1990? And who was a Minister at the time, bound by Cabinet collective responsibility?
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
NX
Vote:Maybe the ‘mainstream’ have some actual news to report.
June 20th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
There is a further issue here – Labour seem determined to “protect” the electorate from their “stupidity” should they elect a National government. A mandate by general election is not good eough it would seem.
And wtf is a strategic asset? An asset that is politically expedient to defend?
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
It is nothing more than a cheap political stunt and Phil Goff knows it.
Parliament is sovereign and can make or unmake any law it likes. Even if the Act said it required a 75% majority to pass legislation to effect an asset sale, it would still be open to Parliament to pass a bill making it a simple majority instead.
Without a written constitution as supreme law, there is no such thing as entrenched law in New Zealand.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
David, its a nice idea, but its value is relatively limited now that the government owns so much! 56% of the country’s assets I believe. There is less to buy and it already owns.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
mikenmild wrote:
I’m not talking about front page of Stuff, but an article on the politics page seems appropriate. Perhaps there has been, but I’ve missed them.
Volunteer student unionism & filibustering of private members bills seems news worthy to me. I’m curious that you seem to think it’s not.
I would like to know Labour’s ‘official’ reason for blocking the passage of the bill.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
NX
I think I reported their reason earlier. Labour believe that as the issue of compulsion is already in the hands of students themselves that there is no reason to change National’s law allowing student referenda on the subject. Why they are resisting the particular bill so vehemently, I have no idea.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Not having had the luxury of higher education at university , what would occur if you refused to pay the $143.00 to the student union.?
I do know in previous jobs there were threats of physical violence made and the with drawl of a job offer because of refusal to join a union but surely a students refusal would be supported by the lecturers because universities are the home of free thought
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Paul
Vote:If you don’t pay; you don’t get to enrol. The universities collect the fees and pass them to the student associations. The lecturers couldn’t care less, firstly because they wouldn’t see it as an issue of freedom and secondly because it doesn’t affect them!
June 20th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Thanks – Interesting, education can be withheld unless funds are extorted and the education supplier is tacit in the extortion
That would be the same education supplier whose total funding in New Zealand come from the tax payer in the first place, what a great system
No wonder labour MP’s arrive from university already totally corrupted
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
@Graeme Edgeler
“Agreeing that the VSM bill could pass through all its remaining stages on a single voice vote without debate would not enable a single bill to be drawn from the ballot before the election. Serious suggestions, please.”
Really? So there is no chance this bill could possibly be raised and debated this term? So what you are saying then Graeme is that introducing this bill is pure grandstanding by Labour…
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
bhudson
Vote:I think most people realise that the main purpose of a private member’s bill is its announcement. It is a policy ploy to get a bit of publicity. Most private bills are never drawn from the ballot; even fewer are passed.
June 20th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
mike,
Nonsense. That can be achieved with a simple press release. To the extent that private members bills will not likely be passed they are an opportunity for a member to show they are a hard-working MP with value to add – party policy platforms get more ready air time through press releases and well-timed speeches at events.
Nice try, but you’ll only make yourself dizzy if you get spinning without a break
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
bhudson
It’s not spinning, as I said above I have no idea why Labour is pushing this one. Just pointing out what members’ bills are typically used for.
Vote:June 20th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Or, if you don’t believe me, check out the current members’ bills at http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/Default.htm.
Vote:The ones from Government members are more individualistic, but the opposition one are statements of party policy.
June 20th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Mikey,
I commend your diligence for having read all of them [although I suspect you haven't.] As I noted, private members bills are typically an opportunity for individual MPs to show they add value by being in the House.
For any party to use that platform for party electioneering a few months out from an election reinforces that they are about them showing their ‘value’ rather than any other greater purpose.
Which neither deflects nor detracts from the actual point back at Graeme E which was that his acknowledgement that supporting VSM would not get this announced bill heard is tantamount to an admission that it is not a serious attempt at law making, but a piece of grandstanding – for apparently it cannot be heard, irrespective of any other actions taken in the House
Vote:June 25th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
“Labour believe that as the issue of compulsion is already in the hands of students themselves that there is no reason to change National’s law allowing student referenda on the subject”
Actually that is not true. The law as it stands was introduced by National, but after winning the 1999 election, Labour changed the law to make it significantly easier for student associations to stack the ballot process in their favour. There were a lot more voluntary associations before then and there are a lot fewer now as a result.
Vote:June 25th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
@mikenmild “As Labour amusingly point out, all the want to do is keep the law the same as passed by the National govt in the 90s!”
But that is not true. The law now is not the same as passed by the National govt in the 1990s. Labour changed it when they were elected in 1999.
Vote:June 25th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Swampy
I didn’t know that. How was the law changed and what element of it promotes stacking?
Vote: