Joyce on attack

July 23rd, 2012 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Audrey Young reports at the Herald:

Economic Development Minister made a stinging attack today on and the accusing them of being “snake oil salesmen” and by pretending they could stop development and still have more jobs.

“It’s fairy tale stuff,” he told delegates to the National Party conference in Auckland.
They had to be called out for their “intellectual dishonesty”. …

Mr Joyce said the greatest risk for New Zealand was that it could “ankle-tap” itself by not developing because of small vocal minority who hated change and hated progress.

“It’s about the mitigation of the risk, it’s not about saying no. Every time you say no, it’s less jobs.”

He said Labour behaved different in Opposition to Government. It opposed the part sales of State owned enterprises but in Government had supported the privatisation of SOE subsidiaries which was only a subtle difference.

This is absolutely true. In fact Labour Ministers approved the sale of a mine from Solid Energy to the private sector.

It had also encouraged oil and gas exploration and celebrated the building of the Sky City casino.

“Those people are beneath contempt because they want to slow down New Zealand’s development for their own political ends.”

Good to see Ministers willing to hit back.

Tags: , ,

24 Responses to “Joyce on attack”

  1. Pete George (23,803 comments) says:

    “Those people are beneath contempt because they want to slow down New Zealand’s development for their own political ends.”

    That’s the crux of it – they are not the only prties who do it but they probably try the most.

    Basically they see the job of Opposition as trying to subvert Government. They see a weakening of government – and if possible a destroying of government – as strengthening their chances of governing. This goes way beyond a robust holding to account. It’s a pile of ponzi undermining for selfish political interests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. tvb (4,554 comments) says:

    The greens are inflexible on anything they considers harms the environment no matter how hypothetical. This creates a problem for the labour party who generally favour development because it means jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Longknives (4,956 comments) says:

    Well said that man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. YesWeDid (1,056 comments) says:

    ‘In fact Labour Ministers approved the sale of a mine from Solid Energy to the private sector.

    No they didn’t. They approved a joint venture where one joint venture partner replaced another but took a bigger share. The mine, Spring Creek, is now back in 100% ownership by Solid Energy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. speters (108 comments) says:

    I don’t think there is anything wrong with the Greens campaigning on principle and then sticking to it. I completely agree that Labour at the moment is jumping on board any bandwagon it can get away with, but the Greens have always said environmental principles must be paramount. I don’t think the Greens see subverting Goverment as their job, the simple fact is that the Greens’ priorities are often the complete opposite of National’s.

    “It’s about the mitigation of the risk, it’s not about saying no.”

    Well actually, I’m happy to say no to development sometimes. Of course mitigating any risk is important once a project has been given the green light, but that doesn’t mean every project that will create jobs should be given the green light.

    And for the record I don’t support the Greens on a lot of issues, and I’m happy with the partial privatisation programme.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mikenmild (12,383 comments) says:

    Maybe it’s just easier to attack the opposition parties than describe your own successes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Ross12 (1,484 comments) says:

    I read an article in The Australian last week about Australia’s recently released ” National Food Plan”. Very interesting to see the differences in approach to what we see in NZ from the Labour/Greens — here is a plan from a Labor led Govt which is heavily influenced by the Aust Greens but it still recognises and encourages foreign investment in agriculture ( the Aussies must be laughing their heads off over the efforts / time wasted on the Crafar issue) , they don’t seem to get hung up on GM crops , they recognise the massive growth in the middle/upper income groups which will occur in Asia in the next 30-40 years and how Australia needs to be ready to invest to feed the growing demand.
    It’s having an attitude like this that gets you ahead not the “no development” ideology or the no because we are in opposition attitude we see in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,803 comments) says:

    I agree mostly with speters @ 10.42 – Greens don’t do the sustained subversion thing like Labour but they do come up with some whacky attacks at times.

    I don’t have a problem with Greens promoting their ideals on environmental issues, when they do that it provides balance and often important points to development versus environment discussions.

    I’m more concerned about some of the Green socialist ideals, although once again there’s no harm in their more extreme and impractical proposals being added to the discussion mix – as long as they are a modest sized opposition party.

    But I’d be concerned if Greens became 1/3 of a lurching Labour + Greens coalition government. And I hate to imagine what that would be like if Harawira held the deciding vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Michael (913 comments) says:

    They also sold Terralink – at least the bits that were left after they refused to bail it out and let it go into receivership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. fish_boy (152 comments) says:

    Imagine Steven Joyce making this speech in 1964, I could imagine him then: “Don’t save the whales! It’ll mean less job in whaling!” or maybe we could take him back to the 1860s – Don’t save the last of the Kauri forests, it’ll mean less jobs for loggers!”

    I am glad Joyce has been so explicit. He is the sort of Philistine who looks at the Taj Mahal and asks his aide what it does and is perplexed by the answer. He gazes at our national parks not in wonder at the beauty but rather he wonders how to exploit it. National’s next economic “plan” appears to be to go back to the 19th century, when they cut down the kauri then dug up the gold then burnt all the bush, like derelict junkies searching for their next hit of economic heroin. Now the easy stuff – alluvial gold, mighty 1000 year old kauri, Huia feathers, whatever – he is the fool who doesn’t reflect for a moment on the devastation caused and what was lost but instead immediately seeks a bigger machine to make a bigger hole.

    How can we have got to 2012 and still have the mindset of ignorant white settlers in a strange and distant land? Dispoil and rape and pillage then retire to a big house in the English countryside, how far have we really progressed from that thinking? Listening to Steven Joyce, i would say not very far at all in the National Party.

    New Zealand for the National Party is primarily a place for them and their privileged cronies to exploit for money. For me, it is primarily the place I live.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Viking2 (11,676 comments) says:

    It must be raining. all the useless have come to KB to expound on their theories of why we should remain poor.
    Go back out in the rain and play.
    Beter still piss off to Afghanistan or Iran or some comfortable wealthy place where you can really make a difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. hmmokrightitis (1,596 comments) says:

    Dear god fishfuck, at the risk of incurring DPF’s wrath, how stupid are you? First, you make shit up…

    “He gazes at our national parks not in wonder at the beauty but rather he wonders how to exploit it. National’s next economic “plan” appears to be to go back to the 19th century, when they cut down the kauri then dug up the gold then burnt all the bush, like derelict junkies searching for their next hit of economic heroin.”

    And then pillory him and National because you made shit up? WTF? Is this seriously the very best you left dead brains can do, make shit up and then moan about it? FFS, would you be up in arms if I said that mallard had just been caught hanging out of the back end of a goat, and as such, we should never vote labour again?

    Seriously dude, get a fucking grip.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    No they didn’t.

    Yes, they did.

    They approved a joint venture where one joint venture partner replaced another but took a bigger share.

    A bigger share of what? In return for what? And who received that?

    The mine, Spring Creek, is now back in 100% ownership by Solid Energy.

    Kind of shits on your point, doesnt it? You want to claim that Labours plan all along was to reclaim full ownership? Wouldnt that require they relinquish some ownership before hand?

    It looks like your argument is, “but it was just a PARTIAL SALE!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. YesWeDid (1,056 comments) says:

    @Kimble – my point is DPF is being economical with the truth, the mine was not ‘sold to the private sector’, it was partially privatised using the mechanism of a joint venture.

    Pointing out the facts of a situation hardly ‘shits on my point’ as I’m not trying to claim Labour didn’t allow some private ownership of SOE’s or that Labour had a plan to buy back the mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. wikiriwhis business (4,200 comments) says:

    When National takes taxes off employers we can listen to them instead of over taxing companies sending them off shore and creating social endemic violence that sees children and women battered and killed as a common practice

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. hmmokrightitis (1,596 comments) says:

    wikiriwhis business Im sorry, but WTF?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. kowtow (8,938 comments) says:

    Oh yes the Taj Mahal,that monument to imperial glorification of the foreign Muslim elite that invaded Hindu India and enslaved the masses in poverty and oppression. How “sustainable” is such a massive building ,a tomb for an emperors’ wife? Very green indeed:)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. nasska (12,101 comments) says:

    wikiriwhis business

    Could you rephrase your 12.44pm please…..I’ve run your comment through Google translate but it didn’t help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    @ fish-boy – that’s just exactly the kind of post Joyce is talking about. Replete with non-sequiturs, hyperbole, stupid comments that have no relevancy to anything today, weird sidetracks, emotional purple stupid lies, and a complete lack of basis in reality. You really do live on another planet with those kind of comments don’t you. It’s just sad that such a vocal idiot minority can stuff so much up in this country. Please go join a commune somewhere and let the adults in the country handle taking NZ forward, sustainably whilst managing our risk, progressively. My god.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    the mine was not ‘sold to the private sector’, it was partially privatised using the mechanism of a joint venture.

    So how do you privatise something without selling it to a non-public entity? Did Labour simply gift the equity to a private entity?

    Labour are deliberately ignoring the “partial sales” element of the National idea to drum up hysteria. So its only fair, if they insist on miscategorising the proposal as full privatisation, that anyone else get to call their efforts full privatisation too.

    See this is how it goes. Labour says National will fully privatise state assets. National says no, we are only selling part of it. Labour then says National will fully privatise state assets. National says, hang on, we are just looking to do partial sales, just like Labour did in 2007. The Labour says, National will fully privatise state assets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. YesWeDid (1,056 comments) says:

    ‘So how do you privatise something without selling it to a non-public entity? Did Labour simply gift the equity to a private entity?’

    It was a joint venture, so they created a new entity that has the ownership share based on the level of equity the partners contribute. Its not a sale as such more of a partnership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. niggly (832 comments) says:

    DPF: “Good to see Ministers willing to hit back.”

    I agree. Now also can a minister please put Labour upstart Ian Lees-Galloway in place?

    This is the sort of rubbish he spouts here – selective and misleading. Sheesh.

    Palmerston North MP Iain Lees-Galloway has launched an attack on new Transport Minister Simon Bridges, telling him to stop wagging his finger at drivers.

    “After an appalling month on our roads, Simon Bridges should reflect on the poor choices his own Government has made on road safety,” Mr Lees-Galloway said. “Under his watch, National has cut funding for road safety programmes, delayed road safety improvements and refused to act on safety issues in the trucking industry.

    “It’s a damning record for a minister who has only been in the job a few months.” Mr Lees-Galloway accused the Government of diverting funding away from safety initiatives so it could spend money on seven “anointed highways” – roads of national significance.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/7329348/MP-slates-new-minister

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    It was a joint venture, so they created a new entity that has the ownership share based on the level of equity the partners contribute. Its not a sale as such more of a partnership.

    When one entity owns 100% of a thing and then accepts money from another entity for a portion of that thing, thats a sale.

    Deal with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. burt (7,425 comments) says:

    Kimble

    But… but… it’s different when Labour do it….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote