Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

The Council of Trade Unions (CTU) has welcomed the Government’s decision not to support the reintroduction of youth rates.

So the CTU is happy.

Opposition leader Phil Goff welcomed the decision.

“It’s crazy to suggest that any young person doing the same job exactly as older people should be paid automatically at a lower rate. It didn’t add up,” he told reporters.

As is Phil Goff. This means it must be wrong!

Goff’s own statement shows a total misrepresentation of the situation. Having a lower minimum wage for teenagers is exactly that – a lower floor. How the hell you translate that into “should be paid automatically at a lower rate” I do not know. Once again, for the really stupid people, – this is about a floor – not a ceiling, not an automatic rate that you must apply to teenagers.

In today’s NBR 24/7 column I rip into the Govt’s decision:

It really brings into doubt the seriousness of the Government in terms of job creation, when it persists with a law that has clearly priced many teenagers off the job market. …

Most teenagers are not seeking full-time employment. What they desperately want is to gain some work experience, and to gain some extra money on top of whatever parental or student support they have.

By agreeing to vote down Sir Roger’s bill, the Government is saying we want young people to be unable to gain work, unless an employer thinks they are worth almost $13 an hour. …

Later this year, overall unemployment should start tracking down. If youth unemployment remains persistently high, the Government will have no one to blame but themselves.

There are 45,000 teenagers unemployed. This decision is a very bad one.

I take what is probably a final look at the Hollow Men e-mails in NBR 24/7 this week:

The illegal (and it was almost certainly illegal) obtaining of the e-mails, and their subsequent publication, had a major impact on New Zealand politics. They effectively forced Don Brash out of the leadership of the National Party, despite the fact National was ahead of Labour in the polls at the time.

It is very unusual for an Opposition Leader to resign, when his party is leading in the polls. And the Hager book based on the e-mails did not in fact have any smoking guns. However, Brash correctly judged that he would have been unable to make traction in the face of the book, and resigned.

If Brash had not resigned, it is quite possible National, under his leadership, would have gone on to win the 2008 general election, and while it is conjecture what policies a Brash-led government would have had, suffice to say that it is hard to imagine it being happy to borrow $240 million a week to fund interest free student loans and working for families.

And the usual conjecture on how they were obtained.

Over at NBR (sub needed), I review the Government’s 20 year infrastructure plan. A couple of extracts:

The most under-reported story of the week was the release of the country’s first ever 20 year infrastructure plan. The 141 page plan is our first ever stock-take of the national infrastructure yet it got a fraction of the headlines given to an MP musing on a blog about financial incentives to child abusers to get sterilised.

It is tempting to ridicule the notion of a 20 year plan, recalling that even the Soviet Union only had five year plans. But when it comes to capital spending on infrastructure, it does seem sensible to be looking beyond the next election. …

And on the roading side:

A user pays principle does raise the issue of whether or not the Government should have a fixed amount of petrol tax, or whether it should simply vary the petrol tax, so there is sufficient funding to pay for all roading projects that have a positive benefit to cost ratio. This could mean petrol costing $2 a litre, but it would mean safer and faster roads.

And some scepticism about the airports:

Rather boldy the Government declares that ports and airports operate within a competitive market, and the Government does not need to intervene with their investment decisions. I’d like to know how Auckland International Airport is in a competitive market. If Air New Zealand objects to increased landing charges, what are they going to do – land in Hamilton instead?

The full column is at NBR 24/7.

This week’s Dispatch from St Johnnysburg for NBR 24/7 is on Labour. A couple of extracts:

Labour have had a good couple of weeks.

First of all, something has happened to Phil Goff over the break. He has come back a far more relaxed and engaging politician. Yes, his party’s supporters may still pine for Helen, but over time they may appreciate a less polarizing leader.

And on the tax issue:

Labour has been making waves on the GST issue. As the Government has yet to detail its tax package, Labour is doing it for them. They assume that the top tax rate will be dropped to 30c, and a pliant media report their scenarios that Telecom CEO Jack Paul Reynolds will get a tax cut of $150,000 a year and Joe Average will get a few dollars a week.

National needs the debate on tax to be about the macroeconomic effects – the desire to increase the incentives to work, to invest and to save and to reduce the incentive to borrow and consume. If the debate becomes one of simply who gets how much, they will have problems.

I conclude by saying the next set of public polls will give some idea as to whether the public have started to tune into what Labour are saying.

This week’s Dispatch from St Johnnysburg is online (but subscriber only).

I comment on the package this week:

Normally a programme like this would be greeted with howls of outrage from the left. A dozen unions would be announcing strikes. Scores of lobby groups would be howling in anguish. The rhetoric would be that the Government has turned into a combination of Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson.

Instead the over-whelming message was that the reforms announced do not go far enough.

I also note:

Labour has never known how to try and paint John Key. Half the time they claim he is a do-nothing Prime Minister who won’t do anything unpopular, and half the time he is an evil uncaring rich prick oppressing the poor. And the problem is the two propositions are largely contradictory. Until Labour have the discipline to go down one path only, I suspect they will not change many people’s opinions of the Prime Minister.

The only discipline from Labour has been the constant references to “ordinary New Zealanders”!

This week’s Dispatch from St Johnnysburg, at NBR, is titled “The summer the tide went out on global warming”.

It is one of my longer columns – 1,300 words, and I think a good summary of the political climate around this issue, such as China and India now refusing to even sign the non binding Copenhagen Accord. A couple of extracts:

I believe the chance of there being a post-Kyoto agreement in the next five years or so to now be minimal. In reaching this conclusion, I look at recent reports of opinion within Governments, then the public and finally what it may mean for the NZ Government. …

The loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat has been a clear message to the Government to focus on the economy and jobs. This is reflected in a Pew Research poll on priorities for 2010. Citizens were polled on 21 potential priorities, and asked for each issue whether it should be a top priority. The three top issues were the economy, jobs and terrorism – all at over 80%. The very bottom issue, of all 21 issues, was climate change at 28%. Three years ago it was at 38%, so has been declining every year. Amongst the all important “Independent” voters, it is bottom ranked at 25%,

My conclusion, focused on what it means for New Zealand, is somewhat provocative.

My first Dispatch from St Johnnysburg is at NBR 24/7. An extract:

So why are things so good between the Obama administration and the Key administration? Is it the rapport between Obama and Key? Is it the wooing of Hillary Clinton by Murray McCully?

Nope. While both may be factors, the majority of the credit goes to Winston Peters.

My column this year is now subscriber content, so you need to be a subscriber to access it.

My Dispatch from St Johnnysburg is titled The rise and rise of Andrew Little. An extract:

Now under the leadership of Helen Clark, the parliamentary leader was the supreme leader. There was no question of the party president questioning her in public, or some decision being made she did not agree with. Clark’s great legacy to Labour was the unity it had under her rule.

But Phil Goff is no Helen Clark, and the power of Andrew Little is on the rise.

Comments and feedback can be made at NBR.

This week’s Dispatch from St Johnnysburg looks at the toll the ETS has taken in New Zealand and Australia. I note:

So it has been quite a torrid time for National, who had days and days of negative headlines. Finally they got the changes passed into law, with some medium to heavy political bruising as the cost.

However painful those bruises might be, they pale into insignificance with the crippling wounds the ETS legislation has inflicted on the Australian Liberal Party. Despite only being the Opposition, not the Government, the ETS legislation resulted in a move to their fourth party leader in just two years.

I also look at what may become an ETS referendum election in Australia:

While it is difficult to imagine that Tony Abbott could win such an election, it would pose a fascinating dilemma for NZ National if Abbott did. There would be great pressure on New Zealand to delay or further amend its ETS, if Australia abandoned having one. After working so hard to get the genie into the box, it would be a political nightmare to have the issue flair up all over again.

So it poses the question. If Australia does go to the polls early next year to an ETS triggered election, will John Key be quietly hoping for Labor’s Kevin Rudd to win?

Comments and feedback can be made at NBR.

My weekly Dispatch from St Johnnysburg at NBR, has become a Dispatch from Tel Aviv, on Middle East politics.

I discuss Iran and nuclear weapons and Palestine.

Comments and feedback can be left at NBR.

My Dispatch from St Johnnysburg is about the Emissions Trading Scheme. AN extract:

So it is not a matter of choosing the right option, and not choosing the wrong option. All options around the ETS will lead to a decrease in living standards for New Zealanders. And that means that regardless of what happens, the Government is likely to end up getting blamed.

Comments and feedback can be left at NBR.

In my weekly Dispatch from St Johnnysburg at NBR, I look at the various air travel perks for MPs, and rate how justified each one is. The summary is:

• Domestic Air Travel for MPs 9/10
• Domestic Air Travel for Partners 8/10
• International Travel for Parliamentary Purposes 10/10
• Private International Travel for MPs 3/10
• Private International Travel for Partners 1/10
• Domestic Air Travel for Children 8/10
• Former MPs (and partners) Travel – 0/10

Feedback and comments can be made at NBR.

As everyone else has done it, I’ve rated the Government’s first year in my weekly Dispatch from St Johhnysburg.

Unlike others, I have rated policies, not Ministers. My ratings range from 4/10 to 9/10 with an average 7/10.

Comments and feedback can be made at NBR.

Great party last night, hosted by LM and J at the Green Room. They are a Wellington instiution.

This is why there has been no blogging this morning. In fact have just finished my NBR online column. It is on the forecast that income tax rates will have to increase by 5.5%, if we don’t make changes to superannuation. Apologies to NBR for missing the deadline.

At NBR today, I blog on the Government’s triduum horribilis. The opening para:

It is hard to recall a more chaotic few days for the Government. It is not that any wheels totally fell off the wagon, but all four wheels seemed to come loose at the same time, with John Key trying to refasten them all simultaneously.

Comments and feedback can be left at NBR.

Most of my NBR online columns I can do in a couple of hours. This one is a lot longer than normal and has taken half a day or so. Even got up at 3 am to finish it!

It is on the sentencing of Phillip Hans Field, and has (if I can say so myself) a nice mixture of research (including how the British House of Commons in 1695 first made bribing an MP an offence), explaining why the sentence is longer than many people expected and then diving into the politics and comparing how Labour dealt with Field and ACT dealt with Donna Awatere-Huata.

The column is here. Some extracts:

Field was convicted of 11 charges under s103(1) of the Crimes Act 1961, being “Corruption and bribery of member of Parliament”. This has been an offence under New Zealand law since at least 1908. Its history though in fact goes back to 1695 in the United Kingdom, when the House of Commons resolved that offering a bribe to a Member of Parliament shall be a high crime and misdemeanour which subverts the English constitution, and that an MP accepting such a bribe shall be a matter of privilege.

In New Zealand, both offering and accepting such bribes are deemed serious crimes with a maximum sentence of seven years jail. …

As Field’s offending was unique in New Zealand’s parliamentary history, the Judge had no direct precedent to guide him in sentencing. The closest cases he could find was a Customs officer who took bribes and got four years jail. However he, unlike Field, pled guilty and co-operated fully. Without that he would have got six years.

An overseas precedent was a Canadian MP who got five years jail for a one off 10 years $10,000 bribe. Closer to home a New South Wales Minister got ten years for taking bribes to let prisoners out early.

You can read the sentencing notes here.

And then I look at how ACT handled things, compared to Labour:

Some time ago I phoned up then ACT Leader Richard Prebble and asked him if he could detail to me everything they did to force Awatere-Huata out. I explained I wanted to contrast their resolve to condemn such corruption, with Labour’s defence of Field.

I was staggered when Richard said he did not want to be held up as a role model. He explained that he actually felt guilty that they didn’t do more. Perhaps they should have asked questions earlier he said, as there was the odd rumour about her.

I leave readers with that comparison. One party that went all the way to the Supreme Court to force a corrupt MP out of Parliament, and then still felt guilty that they didn’t do more.

And another party that received a 158 page report detailing the numerous abuses and lies of one of their own MPs, and resolved to defend him. Desperate not to upset a core constituency their leader said one day he could be a Minister again. Their deputy leader said his only crime was to work too hard. They posed with him for the TV cameras as he claimed to be exonerated. And then two years later after he is sentenced to six years jail, the new leader and deputy leader still refuse to condemn him. They refuse to say whether or not they think he did in fact break the law. They refuse to express any remorse, shame or disgust over not just his behaviour, but their party’s behaviour in defending him.

Can Labour ever be deemed fit to hold office again until they do so?

Your views and answers can be left at NBR.

In my NBR online column, I praise Phil Goff for the outstanding results from the China Free Trade Agreement and lambast the Government with continuing existing tariffs until 2015. Some extracts:

So in the week we should be celebrating the success of free trade, the National-led Government bizarrely decides to continue with our current tariffs on imports, freezing them in place until 2015.

A 5% tariff on processed foods, machinery, steel and plastic continues on, as does a 10% tariff on clothing, footwear and carpets. …

Tim Groser surely knows that even without a free trade deal, it makes economic sense to reduce tariffs. It incentivizes capital and labour to flow into industries where New Zealand has a competitive advantage. We unilaterally reduced tariffs in the 1980s,1990s and 2000s, and up until the global recession had the lowest unemployment rate in the world.

So why is a National/ACT Government failing to reduce tariffs, when even a Labour/NZ First Government managed to do so? And was this not a missed opportunity for Phil Goff? He could have brilliantly done a Clinton triangulation and claimed credit for the 60% increase in exports to China, and lambasted the Government for being protectionist. That would have caused shockwaves, and forced Tim Groser to front up and explain why he thinks a 10% tariff on footwear should continue until at least 2015.

Comments and feedback can be left at NBR.

I talk about the Government’s spending problem in my Dispatch from St Johnnysburg. An extract:

The simple fact of the matter is that Dr Cullen’s spending spree over the last nine years may well turn out to be unsustainable. Rather than borrow $400 million a week to fund it, why not reduce it by $400 million a week!

Today’s Dispatch from St Johnnysburg talks about how ‘It was within the rules’ are dangerous words for MPs to rely on.

Feedback and comments can be left at NBR.

Today’s Dispatch from St Johnnysburg at NBR is on the MMP referendum.

Today’s Dispatch from St Johnnsyburg asks “Which eggs will make up the omelette?”

As usual, comments can be left on NBR’s site.

This week’s Dispatch from St Johnnysburg at NBR asks whether John Key is being brave or foolish with his refusal to support the Boscawen bill to amend the anti-smacking law.

As usual, comments and feedback can be made on the NBR site.

My latest Dispatch from St Johhnysburg for NBR is titled “The first wobbles”. An extract:

This week we have seen the first wobbles in the National-led Government’s stability. They are not big wobbles, but they are wobbles. And like all wobbles – they can go only one or two ways – grow into bigger wobbles until something falls off, or subside away. …

The concern is that an e-mail that was between MPs only was leaked to the media. That is a sign of a lack of discipline, and the public (and the polls) have a history of turning on parties than are undisciplined and fight in public.

As always, comments and feedback can be made at NBR.

My NBR column is now online.

I discuss the suggestion by a Maori Party MP that a Maori Flag fly not just on Waitangi Day but on all days of significance.

Mu weekly Dispatch from St Johnnysburg is online at NBR. It is called Spend Baby Spend. Extracts:

Labour activists will be wondering if their party is ever going to do due diligence on the people it puts forwards as victims of the National Government. The choice of Natasha Fuller as battling underdog is looking to be just as flawed as their choice of Bruce Burgess as am impoverished property owner and Neelam Choudary as a timid helpless victim of harassment. …

I point to the recent Populus poll in the United Kingdom on how the UK government should reduce debt and balance its books.

Only 11% of voters said they do not want any cuts in public spending. A further 11% said they want the main emphasis to be on tax increases with fewer cuts in public spending.

So only one in five voters there said that there should be no or minimal spending cuts. If this proportion holds true in New Zealand, Labour is running a campaign that at best will appeal to 22% of New Zealand. And bear in mind that the UK population is generally more left-wing than in New Zealand, so that 22% may be generous. …

Labour do not seem to be able to understand that many Kiwi families are struggling during this recession. They have cut their spending and are making sacrifices and expect the state to do the same. This partly explains the absolutely ferocious reaction to Natasha Fuller’s demands for further welfare, despite earning on the DPB $715 a week – the equivalent of a gross wage of close to $50,000 a year. Hundreds of thousands of low to middle income working class families resented the hell out of the fact she is earning well above the average wage for being a solo mum, and that Labour champion even greater levels of taxpayer assistance to her.

The full column at at NBR, where feedback and comments can be left.