General Debate 13 September 2023
Stuff reports:
Defendants facing serious charges were among those given a $75 Prezzy Card for attending meetings in Hawke’s Bay courts to share their court experiences and ideas, and to “re-imagine the District and Family Court” in the region.
What a great idea. Pay criminals to share their experience on how they think the courts should work.
The ministry didn’t know how many attendees were defendants or victims.
Surely this would be useful stuff to know.
The Pre-election fiscal update confirms massive deficits and debt.
The forecast of a potential surplus in four years is wishful rather than realistic. Even if forecasts of the economy in four year times were accurate, the assumptions are a level of fiscal discipline that the current Government has shown it is incapable of achieving.
The more useful numbers are what will happen this year, and probably next year.
Treasury are saying that in the year just ended we will have a massive $10 billion deficit and in the current year an even larger $11.4 billion deficit. Debt in just two years will go from $71 billion to $100 billion.
In my adult life I have seldom watched TV. My kids grew up, by and large, without it – sometimes with comic effect when one of them saw a shark show once and hid behind the couch. We had some 12″ fossil TV (bought in 1986) that we never turned on. Except that I woke up on September 12, 2001 and for no good reason I fired it up. I could not believe that some idiots had programmed on some terrifying movie about planes flying into skyscrapers. It probably took me 5 minutes to click.
In the subsequent years I have been to the WTC Memorial three times and the Pentagon Memorial on one occasion (after a very moving walk around Arlington Cemetery). All of these places are overwhelming and the best I could do on each occasion was to note one name and later look them up to grasp something of the humanity.
When we think of events like these we tend to load in the names, faces and impressions of the major players. Many NZers have a pathological distaste for the USA and at a US government level there are some reasons for that. However, having travelled there many times for family reasons I can say that I have never had a bad experience and have met so many brilliant, positive, welcoming and generous people. We have so much to learn from their higher education system just for starters. At the “ordinary person” level – as well as the spectacular scenery, wild-life, etc, it is a beautiful country.
The two pieces of media that follow remind me most of the importance of Joe Lunchbox. C.S. Lewis was right – there are no ordinary people. So, when we walk down the street or bump into people on struggle street remember there never was, is or will be a human “River of Filth”.
This one is contender for the greatest speech of all time:
And this is simply stunning:
Alwyn Poole ([email protected])
www.innovativeeducation.co.nz
www.cambridgefestivalofsport.co.nz
www.alwynpoole.substack.com
HDPA writes:
It’s become hard to believe that Labour’s fibs about National and Act were mistakes. It looks more like a planned campaign of misinformation executed so badly that Labour got busted.
Clearly, Labour has got desperate. They’ve run out of every other strategy. Policy hasn’t worked. The big one was supposed to be GST off fruit and vegetables. They’re so embarrassed by it they barely talk about it anymore. Hipkins hasn’t worked. He’s now neck and neck with Christopher Luxon in polls. Going dirty is all Labour has. And it’s probably not to win the election, but just to keep the polling high enough to save the furniture. On current numbers, they stand to lose about half their MPs.
Going dirty is not a good strategy though. Telling fibs, calling Act racists, making excuses for their union buddies buying attack ads on Luxon can backfire.
Sure, some voters will hear the fibs and not hear the corrections and will be freaked out enough to flip away from the centre-right and back to Labour.
But there are plenty of other voters who will see the desperation and nastiness for what it is and find it sad and ugly. It’s especially bad for Labour because it’s so off-brand. They’ve just pushed the “Be Kind” schtick for five years. It’s whiplash-inducing to go from Jacinda hugging everyone to Chris’ troops spreading misinformation on Facebook with a brazenness that would make the anti-vaxxers blush.
If Labour’s going to lose, it’s probably better to lose with dignity than to lose dirty.
They will not take Heather’s advice.
Thomas Coughlan writes:
Hipkins, while appearing like a competent and normal human in more traditional political settings like Parliament and broadcast interviews, appears stilted and awkward when pretending to be normal in public. The campaign, alas for Hipkins, is showing up his flaws and Luxon’s strengths.
What an interesting description.
Things will get worse tomorrow, with the release of the Pre-election Economic Fiscal Update forecasts from Treasury, which are likely to show a gloomy outlook both for the Government’s finances and the economy at large, ideal mood music for the centre-right.
The focus shouldn’t be on the mythical projected surplus in four years time (which would require Grant Robertson to actually restrain spending) but on the current year and next year. I suspect they will be quite nasty.
Party Vote
Governments
Preferred PM
National has announced five health targets for a National-led Government. They are:
The last National Government showed that setting targets and publicly reporting on them does work.
In 2008 only 70% of ED patients were “seen” within six hours. By 2014 it was 94%. Today it has dropped to 78%.
In 2008 only 76% of two year olds were fully immunised. National got it to 93% and it has dropped back to 83% today. Even worse the rate for Maori two year-olds has dropped to 67% from 93%.
With cancer waiting times, National inherited 65% starting treatment within four weeks, and got it to 100%.
It’s time for a Government that is willing to be accountable for health outcomes.
The Māori Party justice policy includes the following:
Every poll this year has shown that Labour is unable to form a Government without the support of both the Greens and the Māori Party.
Liam Hehir writes:
This all comes as Labour’s campaign consistently finds itself spreading misinformation.
Hehir lists multiple examples:
So this is not an isolated example, but continued and repeated disinformation.
Hehir also points out Hipkins himself has a bad track record himself with misinformation about:
Labour’s lies have got so bad, even the Disinformation Project were forced to put out a (very mild) release about political misinformation.
The Herald reports:
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins’ office has been ordered to apologise by the Chief Ombudsman for breaching the Official Information Act.
In a formal finding that has not been made public until now, Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier has upheld a complaint by the Herald about a weeks-long delay in the release of government documents relating to the extreme flooding in Auckland earlier this year.
The rebuke follows Hipkins’ comments in May that he “absolutely expects” ministers to comply with the disclosure rules after Willie Jackson failed on several occasions to meet the obligations imposed by the OIA.
Do as I say, not as I do!
Tova O’Brien writes:
Chris Hipkins is increasingly sounding like Jacinda Ardern used to in her longer form interviews, saying a whole lot without saying much at all.
Gone are the days of candid answers, personable musings, a willingness to consider – in the heat of the moment – policies that would make a material difference to Kiwis.
There’s a very good reason for this – and it’s written across his usually comic book-cheery face – Hipkins is worried.
In fact, a shocking revelation from Hipkins in our interview on Tova – Labour has been dropping below 30% in its own internal polling. And more than once.
’ve been told from within the Labour caucus that senior political staffers, even ministers are considering their next moves – they think it is over for Labour.
Still five weeks to go though.
The Herald reports:
In one of the clearest displays of optimism, Auckland Light Rail has contracted to buy the prominent Kiwi Bacon Building for $33 million, even though National has promised to scrap plans if elected next month.
Doing such a deal weeks before the election is irresponsible and looks like trying to force a new Government to keep them going, due to sunk costs.
So Labour claimed it was providing half price transport to disabled users, when it fact it wasn’t, and even worse did attack ads claiming National would take the half price transport away.
If only the Disinformation Project even focused on the Government, rather than those who challenge it. But of course as they are Government funded ….
One News reports:
A special arbitration panel found Canada breached trade rules by using administrative complexity to prevent importers from accessing the market.
The dispute centred on how Canada used dairy tariff rate quotas under the Comprehensive Trans Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) – a free trade deal signed in 2018 among 11 nations in the Asia Pacific region.
This is great news. This is the benefit of trade agreements – they have a mechanism to ensure countries stick to their commitments.
The Herald reports:
New Zealand exporters could face nearly $100 million in tariffs if the Government forges ahead with its Digital Services Tax (DST).
Often dubbed a “Google Tax”, a DST targets large offshore tech companies whose complex tax arrangements often mean they pay little tax in jurisdictions like New Zealand.
The Government is part of an OECD process to create a global framework for taxing the these tech giants fairly, but has reserved the right to implement a DST if those international efforts fall through. A DST has been on the agenda since at least 2019.
Last Thursday, the last sitting day of Parliament, it pulled the trigger, introducing legislation that would levy a 3 per cent tax on the revenue of firms that make over €750 million ($1.373 billion) a year from global digital services and over $3.5m a year from digital services provided to New Zealand users.
A unilateral tax on revenue instead of profit is unfair and should not be done. We should work through the OECD process rather than do an unprincipled unilateral tax
The Herald reports:
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins is quietly confident Treasury will show the Government meeting its fiscal rules, which require a surplus to be forecast in the next four years.
Treasury independently forecasts whether there will be a surplus or not, but the Government has input into whether it wants to increase or reduce spending to achieve one. It releases those forecasts next Tuesday when it opens the books releasing the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Update.
Hipkins said he was confident that the Government’s decision to trim $4 billion in spending over the next four years would be enough to hit a surplus, despite a recent downturn in the economy which saw corporate tax revenue in the year to May come in $2b below budget forecasts.
A forecast path to surplus in four years time is about as useful as a bridge to nowhere.
If one had confidence the Government could keep to its spending track, then it might have credibility. But let’s look at what Labour said in 2019 with its wellbeing budget what it would be spending in 2023?
They said core crown expenses in 2022/23 would be $106 billion or 28.8% of GDP. In reality it looks to be $128.2 billion or $22 billion more than they said they would do. As a % of GDP is is 32.5%.
So trying to tell us that we may get back to surplus in four years with Labour is reliant on us thinking a Labour/Green/Māori Party Government would be far more restrained in its spending that the current Government!
A Post/Freshwater poll puts Labour on 26% with only 34 MPs.
They won 46 electorates at the last election. So on this poll, even if they lose 12 electorates, they would get zero List MPs.
Even if they lose 16 electorates, they would only get in on the list Robertson, Tinetti, Verrall and Jackson. They lose Prime, Rurawhe, Little, Parker etc.
If Labour dropped below 26%, there would be a risk of overhang where they win more electorates than their share of the party vote.
From the Review of Standing Orders:
We gave serious consideration to the current structure of the select committee system, and the way that the membership of select committees is determined. Much of this consideration was focused on the control that parties in Government can exert over select committees under the current system.
The ACT Party and the Green Party both suggested making the membership of select committees proportional to the non-executive membership of the House. The effects of that approach would vary depending on the make-up of Governments, but overall, it would generally result in parties not in Government having a majority on most or all subject select committees. Arguments were put forward both for and against this approach. It was argued that non-Government majorities on select committees would improve legislative and financial scrutiny. We also considered the reverse—that select committees with non-Government majorities might undermine the system’s performance of its legislative function, which is widely considered a strength of the current system.
We also considered a proposal from Chris Penk MP for the membership of all select committees to be evenly split between parties in Government and not in Government, as well as a proposal from the Clerk to fundamentally restructure select committees into a system of paired legislation and scrutiny committees under which governing parties would have a majority for the consideration of legislation, and parties not in Government would have a majority for scrutiny of the executive.
I quite like this proposal from the Clerk. So you would, for example, have an Education Legislation Committee which the Government would have a majority on, but also an Education Scrutiny Committee which the Opposition would have a majority on. So the Government could still get its laws through, but the Opposition would have the power to actually hold inquiries, summon witnesses, scrutinise decision making more.
This list below was compiled by a reader (not someone I know). This is why Labour has gone negative, rather than campaign on their record. It is a litany of failure. Feel free to share: