From Facebook. You wonder if Andrew and Metiria bother to read what they are signing!
Metiria Turei appears to be at odds with her Green Party co-leader James Shaw on whether they would work with National, under questioning from Paul Henry.
Less than 24 hours after announcing a marriage of convenience with Labour, Mr Shaw and Ms Turei have given differing opinions on cooperation with National, should it get them into power.
Mr Shaw says the party’s first preference is Labour — hence yesterday’s show-and-tell of the two parties’ memorandum of understanding.
“When we’ve cooperated, both of our polls have actually gone up — and when we haven’t cooperated, we’ve tended to take votes off each other,” he told Newshub this morning.
“Preference” is the key word here — Mr Shaw wouldn’t rule out National altogether, saying it’s up to the membership.
But Ms Turei says it is “absolutely definitive” the party is committed to removing National from power.
“Our 100 percent commitment is changing the Government because they are so terrible for this country,” she told Paul Henry this morning.
So Shaw says it is up to the members while Turei says it is up to her and no way.
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei has posted a barrage of unusual tweets from the Hunt for the Wilderpeople premiere.
Repeatedly using the hashtags “#wilderselfie” and “#shite”, the tweets began with a series accompanied with black images. In one of them she describes “hooning on low alcohol cider”.
Photos did follow of her in a vehicle with a friend holding what looked like a beer or cider, then blurry images of her attempting to get out of a vehicle.
I’m all for MPs being able to relax and party and have a good time.
But why on earth would you think you should live tweet yourself doing so?
Yes I’ve done it occasionally (in the past), but I’m not a party leader advocating I should be Deputy PM.
The Herald reports:
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei has also hit out at Prime Minister John Key’s comments on so-called “jihadi brides” – saying they are particularly insulting to Muslim women and show he thinks “the only good use of a women going overseas is as a wife”.
This is beyond pathetic. Once upon a time the Greens claimed not to do personal attacks, but that is long dead.
In case anyone else is stupid or malicious, Key was not talking about all women going overseas or all Muslim wonen going overseas. He was talking specifically about women travelling to Syria where it is controlled by the Islamic State.
Does Turei think they are there for the jobs, the tourism, the shopping, the beaches, the educational opportunities, the practice of medical skills?
It is not unreasonable to suggest that women travelling to Islamic State controlled areas are going to be jihadi brides, considering there have been numerous reports of women travelling there to do exactly that, and almost no reports of women travelling there for any other purpose.
But never mind, let’s just try and smear John Key as a sexist neanderthal because you know the Greens don’t do personal smear attacks.
Radio Live reports:
He’s only been in the job for a little over a week, but already new Green Party co-leader James Shaw is flexing his muscles.
Mr Shaw has fired long-time chief of staff Ken Spagnolo, replacing him with communications director Andrew Campbell.
It has not yet been announced who will take Mr Campbell’s position.
Mr Spagnolo had been chief of staff for eight years.
Metiria Turei has attacked Patrick Gower as sexist for tweeting the story:
— Metiria Turei (@metiria) June 8, 2015
In follow up tweets, Turei says it is sexist for suggesting that she was not part of the decision. It may be wrong to suggest that she did not concur, but that is an assumption over the fact it happened as Shaw became co-leader with her, not when her and Norman were co-leaders. I’m not sure calling gallery reporters sexist is a smart thing to do – especially as Gower didn’t even write the story – it’s a Radio Live story he tweeted.
As to the substance, well it is a significant change. Spagnolo is liked and respected – including by those in other parties he has worked with. But his replacement Andrew Campbell is also a very smart operator, and also quite reasonable and personable. Id’ say Spagnolo is the better policy and relationship manager, while Campbell is the more skilled political and communications guy. Both good at their jobs, but different skill sets.
It will be interesting to see who Campbell hires to replace himself.
The statistics in the latest Household Labour Force Survey show that while unemployment had dropped to 5.8 per cent, underemployment had risen by 21,200 in two years.
Statistics New Zealand began measuring underemployment in 2013, defining it as the “grey area” where people have a job but have similarities to unemployed people because they face a “partial lack of work”.
It is when a part-time worker is willing and available to work more hours than they usually do. The statistics are limited to part-time workers.
“We know have 103,000 underemployed, but Government treats them as employed for their figures,” said Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei.
“The Government is massaging their employment figures in order for them to look like they’re doing way better, when in fact these are people looking for more work and many of them are unpaid.”
That is a stupid and false thing to say.
Stats NZ does the classifications. Is Turei accusing the public servants who work at Stats of fraud by massaging the figures?
Or is she claiming that someone working 25 hours a week, but seeking 35 hours, should be classified as unemployed?
The definition of unemployed used by Stats NZ for the HLFS is the same definition used by every country in the OECD. It is someone not in work, who is seeking and available for work.
It is not the only important piece of data in the HLFS. The working age participation rate is important. The FT employment rate is important. The number of hours worked data is important. The underemployment rate is important. But that’s a very different thing to what Turei has done – claiming Stats NZ is committing fraud by massaging the data.
The Herald reports:
A bill in her name, originally known as Hone Harawira’s “feed the kids” bill was defeated in Parliament this evening, by 59 votes to 61 at its first reading.
She inherited the bill from Mr Harawira after he lost his Te Tai Tokerau seat at the election last year.
The bill provided for state-funded breakfast and lunches at all decile one and two schools.
Why not dinners also? I mean if a family is so incompetent that can’t arrange breakfast or lunch for their kids, then surely we can’t trust them to do dinner also. We can’t have kids going to bed hungry. So I think we also need huge state owned dining places where kids can get their dinners for free.
Last week Ms Turei claimed that KidsCan had said that up to 90 per cent of kids in schools went to school without lunch every day – a statement she later corrected and apologised for.
Today she visited Windley School in Porirua where 50 children were fed with peanut butter and jam sandwiches and criticized Mr Key for not agreeing to go with her.
She tabled a KidsCan document showing that KidsCan fed about 15,000 across 448 schools, an average of 33 pupils in each of the participating schools.
KidsCan do a great job, and they get government and private sector support. The Greens and Labour want to replace that with a government funded and managed feeding scheme in all low decile schools regardless of need.
I note the figure of 15,000 students. We have 767,258 students in our school system. So that is 2% of total students. Not 90%.
Mr Key said while some children went to school without lunch, he did not think it was widespread.
He said he had asked Hekia Parata at 1.41 pm today to call three schools, decile one or two, and ask them how many of their students had arrived at school without lunch then he recited the results.
“These are the facts,” Mr Key said. “At Te Waiu o Ngati Porou School, Ruatoria, Decile one, how many children came to school without lunch – answer – zero.”
At Sylvia Park School, decile two – there one or two kids, and at Manurewa Intermediate, a decile one school with a roll of 711, perhaps 12 had gone to school with no lunch, he said.
“Yes there is an issue where some children come to school without lunch. That number of children is relatively low,” Mr Key said.
Yet the Greens and Labour want parental responsibility for feeding kids to be abdicated to the state. Its an appalling idea.
We should target and help the families who are not properly feeding their kids. But you don’t do that by having the state step in as the provider of two of the three meals a day.
In Parliament yesterday:
Metiria Turei : Will the Prime Minister vote for the “Feed the Kids Bill ” in Parliament next week, so that all political parties can work with experts to develop the best legislative solution so that all of our kids are being fed at school?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : No, and no for a very good reason. The vast majority of kids are actually fed by their parents. Their parents, irrespective of their economic circumstances, actually do a very good job of providing breakfast and lunch and the Government would far rather direct those resources, on a targeted basis, to those in need. The Government already supports the breakfast in schools programme. I am advised that 791 schools out of the 2,500 schools approximately in New Zealand take up that programme in some part, and I think the Government has got its target in the right direction.
Metiria Turei : Will he at least commit to his Government working with cross-party agreement to provide food in schools, given that KidsCan says that 23 percent, on average, and up to 90 percent of kids in schools are going without lunch every day?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I look forward to the quote from Julie that says that 90 percent of kids going to school, in the approximately 2,550 schools in New Zealand, are going without lunch. I hate to tell the member, but I reckon I have been to way more schools than she ever has. I have been a prolific visitor to schools in the 7 years I have been the Prime Minister. I will tell you what. Of the 500 schools I have been to, if 90 percent of the kids did not have lunch I would be pretty surprised, because I tell you what, I have seen a lot of them munching their way through lots and lots of lunches. If the member wants to come with me to a school, and I will name the school, and 90 percent of the kids do not have lunch, I personally will buy them lunch for the whole year.
So who was right. Was Turei correct that up to 90% of kids in schools are going without lunch every day?
She later facebooked:
Bugger, I was unclear in my question today. I meant to say that Kidscan says about 23% on average and up to 90% of the kids in the schools it works with need lunch everyday. Not 90% of kids in all schools.
So 23% on average of the 449 schools (out of 2,500) that have Kidscan involved. That is around 4% overall.
Whether 10% or 90% its bad enough that our kids need government to help.
Actually it does matter whether it is 4% or 90%.
And the Government does help, as reference above. Bit what Turie wants isn’t the Government to help – but the Government to replace parents as the primary feeder of school children.
Hat Tip: Pete George
Fran O’Sullivan writes:
If the Greens are intent on becoming a mainstream political party with sufficient cachet to be a credible Government partner they should persuade Metiria Turei to join Russel Norman in resigning. Norman’s resignation – announced with a great deal of dignity yesterday – has switched the focus to Turei. …
Turei’s personal brand is associated with oppositional politics.
Many centrist voters would vote for a true Greens platform if they were sure it wasn’t going to be accompanied by the resurfacing of Alliance-style policies. Arguably that won’t happen until the Greens elect a modern politician whose focus is square in the mainstream – like Julie Ann Genter – to a leadership role.
Genter has built a strong constituency in Auckland which is starting to transcend party lines. She’s a credible commentator on transport and could easily take a ministerial role in a future government if the Greens get serious about getting into power.
A Shaw and Genter co-leadership of the Greens would give them youth and energy, and allow them to build appeal outside their core hard left constituency.
Stuff has a gallery of some of the great photos their photographers have taken this year. Go check them out, but also I couldn’t resist borrowing this one (by David White) for a caption contest. As always go for funny, not nasty.
Hamish Rutherford at Stuff reports:
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei is accusing National Party MPs of “pure racism” after comments in Parliament about her home and clothing.
Pure racism? What did they say?
East Coast MP and Police Minister Anne Tolley said today that Turei, lived in a castle and wore designer clothes.
Speaking during the debate on the Prime Minister John Key’s opening statement to Parliament, Tolley said she was insulted by Green Party claims that she was out of touch.
She said said her role as an electorate MP included meetings with constituents who were among the poorest in the country.
“I’m actually insulted to be lectured about how out of touch I am with average New Zealand by a list MP who has no constituents, lives in a castle and comes to the House in $2000 designed jackets and tells me I’m out of touch,” Tolley said.
I don’t think Turei’s choices of clothes are relevant, and Tolley could have made her point without referring to them. But how in God’s name do you conclude that her comments are racist?
MPs often have a go at each other for their apparent wealth. We hear all the time about John Key having a holiday home in Hawaii, or David Cunliffe living in Herne Bay. This may be petty, but it is not racist.
Asked about Tolley’s comments, Turei said racism was behind the attack.
“I’m shocked that the National Party would attack me and my home and my appearance. I think it is a racist attack,” she said.
Turei is playing the race card, as a defensive measure.
“I think they seem to think it is all right for them to wear perfectly good suits for their professional job but that a Maori woman from a working-class background is not entitled to do the same. I think it is pure racism.”
Ask how the attack was racist, Turei said she shopped at the same place some of her opponents did.
“They do not think that a professional Maori woman from a working-class background should be able to wear good suits to work,” she said.
Turei seems to be projecting, to put it mildly. They were attacking her for being sanctimonious, not Maori.
Turei said it was unfair to attack her home.
“MPs’ homes have always been outside of the acceptable realms of debate, and so this very personal, very explicit attack, I think, comes from their inability to cope with my work and the effectiveness of my work, and an inherent racism.”
Oh what nonsense. Opposition MPs rant and rave about John Key’s house all the time. Cunliffe’s house also comes in for mention on a regular basis. Neither of them claim it is racism.
Asked whether there was any irony in a Left-wing political leader wearing expensive clothing, she said: “Do you ask that question of David Cunliffe? Do you ask that question of any other political leader or any other politician?
Basically yes. People comment all the time that Cunliffe lives in an incredibly expensive house in a very expensive suburb. Now one can have a view as to whether that is relevant – but Turei is not alone in having jibes about the contrast between claiming to represent the down trodden and their lifestyle. Also Winston Peters choice of expensive clothes have received lots of comments in the past.
“I’m simply not prepared to pander to that. This is a racist attack by National and I’m not prepared to pander to it.”
Tolley described Turei’s comments as “absolute nonsense”.
“The Greens’ co-leader is entitled to turn up in Parliament every day in expensive designer clothes, and good on her for doing just that,” Tolley said.
As I said, I don’t think what Turei wears is relevant. But Turei playing the race card as a defence is rather sad.
Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei has been criticised by fellow MPs for breaking ranks over the sensitive issue of MPs’ travel entitlements.
A bill to hand over the setting of many of the MPs’ perks and entitlement to the independent Remuneration Authority was back in Parliament for the first time yesterday after being changed by the select committee so the Speaker would retain control over domestic travel entitlements for MPs.
Ms Turei was on the select committee which agreed to the change unanimously, but yesterday put up an amendment to change it back so the Remuneration Authority did take over control – apparently ambushing the other parties who had been expecting a united front on the issue.
That is grandstanding. If you don’t agree with it, you do a minority report at select committee. But to vote for it at select committee, and then oppose it at the next stage is playing politics.
Speaking in Parliament, Labour’s Trevor Mallard criticised her for grandstanding, saying she voted in favour of the decision to keep domestic travel with the Speaker in the select committee.
“Having not given a peep in opposition, she was a lamb in the committee. For her to come to this House now with amendments attempting to reverse that is an indication of someone who is either not on top of their job, or is a political grandstander.”
Trevor is right on this one.
Mr Mallard’s colleague Ruth Dyson also voiced disappointment at Ms Turei’s decision to lodge the amendment, saying there had been unanimous agreement on it in the committee after extensive consideration.
Ms Turei said the Greens had made it clear they did not agree with the decision to allow the Speaker to keep control of travel, but supported the bill as a whole as it made progress toward ensuring MPs’ entitlements were decided more independently.
Bull. If that is the case, you do a minority report saying exactly that. They didn’t.
The Herald reports:
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei
Paid $214,000 for a three-bedroom wooden villa in Dunedin’s North East Valley in 2007.
She and her family left Auckland in 2002, partly because of the cost of housing on an MP’s salary.
She says there were good homes available in Dunedin for $140,000 to $180,000 when she was house hunting.
But her bank wouldn’t lend her less than $200,000 as she had no deposit and had to take out a 100 per cent mortgage.
You’re an MP on around $130,000 a year, and you claim you couldn’t save for a deposit.
Wait until they’re in Government and running the economy!
Sadly I was overseas last week and didn’t get to cover at the time the massive blunder by Metiria Turei on The Vote. It was so bad, that even before the episode went to air, she was on Firstline admitting she doesn’t know their own policy.
Extracts from what she said:
Garner: Would you like to see house prices fall in New Zealand, Metiria?
Turei: Well, yes actually. We would like to make sure that they are affordable. Oh – shocked look on your faces , how dare, how terrible if young families could actually afford to buy a home.
There is a big difference between saying prices should stop rising so rapidly, and saying we want to see house prices fall.
Garner: So, if house prices fall as you would like, you’d like the house prices to fall, that means that some families could have negative equity which could be an economic disaster for New Zealand!
Turei: Yes, that’s right that’s right so you have to be extremely careful….would you like to listen to an answer Duncan?
Garner: I think I heard enough!
Turei: So you have to make sure…
Peters: Hang on, hang on, hang on…
Turei: You have to make sure that if you’re going to change any of those, those economic levers you have to do it extremely carefully and over a long period of time and the first priority has to be building affordable homes – now those are homes…
And here Turei says she wants some home owners to have negative equity.
“that means that those holding onto the wealth now will have to be prepared to let some of it go…”
And she went further and advocated that it would be good to have some home owners forced to sell their homes because the prices drop.
Won’t a Labour/Green Government be a lot of fun!
Since I blogged on it weekend before last, there has been a lot of comment and criticism on Rachel Smalley of The Nation asking Hekia Parata if she is a bitch to work for, and “How Maori are you?”. Rachel herself has said she didn’t write the questions, and felt a bit uncomfortable with them. Of course she could have refused and said I’m not going to ask any guest if they are a bitch, unless I can ask male guests if they are a prick.
I dont believe that the question Rachel Smalley asked of Hekia Parata: “How Maori are you”? was in anyway appropriate. I have a huge amount of respect for Brian Edwards and have read his blog which justifies Rachel’s question on the basis that was relevant to “Parata’s childhood and upbringing in a Maori family and Maori community”; that it produced a revealing and relevant response; that she handled it well and hasn’t complained.
The last three justifications are meaningless. It makes no difference to the appropriateness of the question whether she answered well or not, whether she complained or not. As to whether it was relevant to Parata’s childhood, that issue was canvassed earlier in the interview and could have been discussed more without forcing Hekia to justify her identity.
Thats what I have a problem with: Hekia was required by the question to justify her identity. The criteria Hekia then applied to herself is the criteria Maori have been forced to use to justify ourselves for decades: blood (whakapapa), language and whanau. It is a question based on New Zealand’s assimilationist history, when the degree of a persons “Maoriness” led to more or less entitlement, when being judged as having abandoned our cultural practices and language, we were therefore more like Pakeha and so more acceptable.
It is a grotesque irony that these days Maori are asked that question so that their right to speak on Maori issues can be judged, mostly by Pakeha, as legitimate or not.
I don’t agree with most of the policies Metiria puts forward, but I do respect her for criticising TV3 for the interview, despite the fact the question was to a political rival. It’s nice to put principle ahead of politics.
Metiria Turei’s claim that Maori growing marijuana are developing entrepreneurial and horticultural skills has been slammed as “mind-blowingly ridiculous” by Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne.
The Green Party co-leader made the comment on Maori TV’s Native Affairs programmethis week, but she has been cut down by Dunne, who branded the claim as “ridiculous” and “irresponsible in the extreme”.
In the show, Turei said growing the illegal drug helps develop “real skills” among Maori, particularly in disadvantaged areas.
This is what you have to look forward to if there is a change of government. I wonder if you will be able to apply for an entrepreneurial grant to help pay for your cannabis plantation?
He said her claims that growing cannabis could teach people much-needed skills, was akin to saying “a safe cracker is teaching his apprentice engineering skills”.
Peter Dunne is talking common sense on this. I actually support a change to our drug laws, but the last thing you want is MPs praising drug dealers as entrepreneurs.
However, Labour’s social development spokesperson Jacinda Ardern said Turei’s comments highlighted the difficult situation many families find themselves in New Zealand.
Oh, Good God.
Incidentally the video clip used by TVNZ appears to be taken from the Whale Oil blog You Tube channel, without attribution!
John Key showed his mastery of the political process when, with one verbal swipe in Parliament, he demolished what appeared to be a promising line of attack by Opposition parties on his coalition’s social policies. Armed with a report on child poverty, Green co-leader Metiria Turei was demanding Key acknowledge inequality in NZ has increased to the highest it has ever been, and institute a universal child payment. Key’s response “let us run through the logic of what the member has said. She says we are an unequal society, because the rich are getting richer, and now she’s on her feet telling me to give the rich families even more for their kids. What a dopey idea that is!” Turei was left complaining “I am not thinking straight.”
This is the great mystery. The left call for less income inequality yet fight for universal rather than targeted government support.
Claire Trevett at the NZ Herald reports:
Prime Minister John Key has followed US President Barack Obama and said he is not opposed to gay marriage – an apparent change in his stance. …
But yesterday, in a response to the AP news service after President Obama said gays should be allowed to wed, Mr Key said he was “not personally opposed to gay marriage” and it was possible Parliament would consider a member’s bill at some stage. …
Labour Party leader David Shearer said he fully supported marriage equality in principle but would like to see the detail of any legislation before giving it formal support. …
Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia said she would support same-sex marriage, as individuals and whanau had the right to choose for themselves whether to marry. …
Greens co-leader Metiria Turei said she was pleased President Obama had taken a stand on what was a very difficult moral issue in America. …
She said the Green Party supported same-sex marriage in New Zealand and had argued for it when the Civil Union Bill was being passed.
I have to say I’m very proud to be a member of the National Party today, and also proud to be a New Zealander.
Leaders of four of the five largest parties in Parliament have all said they are not opposed to gay marriage. This is a good reflection on New Zealand. It also reflects our leaders being in touch with younger New Zealanders. On issues such as gay marriage, there is overwhelming support amongst younger people. Today we consider it incredible that 30 years ago people could be jailed for consensual sex among adults of the same sex. Likewise in 30 years time people will find it strange that there was once a time when a same sex couple couldn’t get married.
The National Party is a mixture of liberalism and conservatism, and overall is more conservative than liberal. Hence it is no small thing to have its leader, and the country’s prime minister, say he is not opposed to gay marriage.
Labour MP Louisa Wall, in a guest post at Whale Oil, says she is working on a bill to amend the Marriage Act. Once submitted to the ballot, it might not be drawn for years, but on the other hand it might get drawn the first time there is a ballot. So anyone’s guess when Parliament might consider this issue.
John Roughan writes at NZ Herald:
Then Hone Harawira and Greens co-leader Metiria Turei were called to the platform. Turei, declaring her background to be anarchism, said her concept of life was that we all lived in a cage with wild monsters trying to tear down the walls that protected us.
These monsters were corporate capitalism, she said, and she saw her job as trying to push out the walls of the cage and increase our living space. Weird.
Yes wild monsters are trying to eat our young and destroy us. They’re called businesses and are evil.
One fairly well known MP here, in her days as a LARPer or live action role playing gamers. In the many levels of nerdiness associated with gaming, the LARPers are the top of the pyramid 🙂
Hat Tip: Whale
UPDATE: A commenter points out LARPing would be more popular if it was all like in this photo below.
Image located here.
I thought Metiria Turei handled her interview on The Nation very well – defending the Greens from Sue Bradford’s claims they have swing to the right (if only).
Turei used a line, which I have advocated in the past they should use, that they can work constructively with both National and Labour and regardless of who forms the Government, they’ll aim to make it a greener Government. It’s a good message which could well appeal to some swininging voters who may be saying they want John Key as Prime Minister but would like the Government to do more on environmental issues.
Again no one should think that if they have a choice, the Greens won’t install a Labour-led Government. They will, unless Labour totally alienate them.
But given the probability of at least a second term of a National-led Government, it is smart to portray yourselves as able to have influence, rather than just opposition.
Labour MP Clare Curran has been kicked out of Parliament for wearing a Highlanders Super Rugby jersey.
Curran appeared at Parliamentary questions this afternoon wearing the team’s old blue, gold and maroon kit in protest at the new lime green colour.
Speaker Lockwood Smith declared the jersey violated Parliament’s strict dress codes and ordered Curran to leave.
Labour colleague Trevor Mallard protested the decision.
I would have thought a rugby jersey was a pretty obvious “no” in terms of meeting the House dress code.
Personally I think the dress code should be relaxed so men do not have to have a tie and jacket, but even I would hestitate to suggest that rugby jersies should be acceptable in the House.
Her ejection from Parliament highlighted the lack of rules around what women should wear in the House, she said.
“I certainly never expected to be thrown out of the House for being a woman wearing a football shirt. I think it was an over reaction.”
She said she was surprised and would consider whether she would change and return to Parliament this afternoon.
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei left the House with Curran.
Turei later tweeted saying it was an example of sexism in Parliament continuing. “Has Ross Robertson ever been scolded for his sports team scarves let alone kicked out? No”
I hate it when people cry sexism mindlessly. And this is mindless.
I have absolutely no doubt that a male MP would be kicked out by Lockwood for wearing a rugby jersey in the House.
If anything, the rules are sexist against men. The dress code for men is far more proscriptive than for women MPs.
Neil Reid at Sunday News reports:
RAISING the minimum wage would boost the economy and Government’s piggy bank, plus keep Kiwis from moving across the Tasman.
That’s the message Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei has for Finance Minister Bill English ahead of Thursday’s 2011-12 Budget.
Turei wants the minimum wage lifted by $2 an hour from the current $13.
“Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would not only significantly improve their lives at a time when living costs are soaring, it would also generate up to $173 million per year for the Government at a time when the fiscal deficit is ballooning,” Turei told Sunday News.
The rise would immediately generate an extra $101m a year in increased PAYE taxes, she said. It would give 300,000 workers increased spending power, leading to a gain of about $72m annually from GST.
This argument is so economically illiterate, I don’t know where to start.
First of all if PAYE taxes go up $101m a year, then the company tax will drop by more than that. Let’s say those 300,000 workers are around 150,000 full time equivalents. If their pay goes up from $13/hr to $15/hr, they will gain $4,160 each before tax, or $624m in total.
At 17.5%, this will lead to an increased PAYE tax take of $109m – close to the $101m quoted.
But the employers will have had their profits drop by $624m, and they pay 30% tax on that. So that is $187m less tax paid in company tax.
So Turei’s argument is just nonsense. She has deliberately ignored the impact on company tax.
Beyond the direct fiscal costs, there are also flow on effects such as job losses. Youth unemployment would continue to skyrocket if you made it illegal to hire a 16 year old for less than $15 an hour.