Flip-Flop Key

It seems John Key is certainly living up to his title of “Master of Flip-Flops”, as this photo of his Kumeu electorate office clearly shows. Nice to see the Leader of the Opposition being honest with the public for once, and in such shameless fashion too! 

Jon Johansson On Key

Victoria University political scientist, Jon Johansson, makes a number of good observations in and article on leadership in this week’s Listener. Johansson specialises in studying leadership, and of John Key he says:

“He has blurted for as long as he has been leader. He has said disparate things to different audiences – not smart. He is learning that you get found out.”

Certainly, this has been made no more apparent than in the past month where Key has been caught out on a number of issues, and his incompetency’s and inexperience exposed. Johansson points out, and quite rightly, that Key has only come under pressure in recent times, and I suspect this new found scrutiny has been reflected in the recent Herald-DigiPoll.  Media, and definitely public, scrutiny up until now has been almost non-existent, and has allowed Key to simply coast along without having to present anything substantial to the electorate. On this, Johansson warns:

“Voters, the media and MPs themselves are too credulous with new leaders, too accepting of what they say”

This fact has certainly been essential to National’s current fortunes in the polls, but may prove fatal in the long run. Key appears to have been lead into a false sense of security that the so-called “mood for change” will be enough to sweep Helen Clark and Labour out of the Beehive. However, if March is anything to go by, the recent mood change within the media, and the public at large, is for Key to demonstrate, without rhetoric, smart clichés, or unsubstantial one-liners, how exactly a National government would improve the lives of New Zealanders. 

 

Powered by Qumana

Labour Gaining Ground

The latest Herald-DigiPoll shows resurgence in support for Labour, at the expense of National. Support for National has dropped 4.6 points to 49.9-percent, while Labour has picked up 2.8 points to 39.3-percent. Of course most, if not all, of National’s drop in support can be attributed to John Key’s poor performance this month, and The Herald states March as being:

“…a month memorable for slip-ups and lackluster performances by leader John Key.”

On the other hand, Labour’s approach under the pragmatic leadership of Helen Clark has simply been to get on with governing, and the progressive release of policy seems to have paid off. As The Herald says, March has involved:

“…carefully designed publicity hits for the Government, including a snap move to try to keep strategic assets such as Auckland Airport in New Zealand control.”

Certainly, Helen Clark has always maintained that the gap between Labour and National will close once either party begins releasing policy, and one expects that gap to continue closing over the next few months.

In the preferred PM stakes things are much tighter, with Key on 45.9-percent and Clark on 45.6-percent. It is quite interesting that, while National seem to have a clear edge over Labour at the moment, the public aren’t at all sure about the leadership of John Key. I suspect this is what is going to hurt National come the election.

In the minor parties, The Greens dropped half a point to 3.9-percent; NZ First is down 1 point to 1.1-percent; The Maori Party picks up 2.2 points, taking them to 3.7-percent; Act gains 0.7 points to 1.1-percent; and United Future doesn’t register.

Labour will certainly take some solace from this latest poll, and will give them momentum to keep the heat on Key, and force him to have more months like March.   

  

Powered by Qumana

Flying The Flag Of Progress

The Manukau City Council exercised some commonsense last night in voting down a motion put forward by Councillor Jamie-Lee Ross calling for a ban on the flying of the Maori flag on Council buildings. For that it should be congratulated. But the fact that the motion was even put forward, let alone the amount of time devoted to debating it, leaves me completely dumbfounded, and it is certainly saddening that in the 21^st century people can feel so threatened by something as simple as the flying of a flag.

I can see no good reason why the council should not fly the Maori flag, and arguments that it would be separatist, racist, or a step toward Maori sovereignty only serve to highlight how ignorant, uninformed and seemingly uneducated those who hold such views are. On the other hand, there are many good reasons why the Council should fly the flag. Maori are tangata whenua, and it is recognised in many statutes that they have a special relationship with both central and local government. Furthermore, district councils and local Maori are considered Treaty partners for the purposes of a number of Acts, so it makes sense that the flags of both partners should fly, if only for a few days a year. But overwhelmingly it is a sign of good faith on the part of the council toward its Treaty partner, and, it would seem, would do much to improve race relations. If that is the case, then where is the harm?

Ross was quoted in the New Zealand Herald as saying:

“…if Maori expected their flags flown, each of Manukau’s 185 ethnic communities would want to do the same thing”

That kind of dim logic from a supposedly “intelligent” councillor simply amazes me, but then again it is somewhat of a hallmark of National Party supporters. It conveniently overlooks the important role that Maori play as tangata whenua in New Zealand and underestimates the intelligence of New Zealand’s ethnic communities to recognise that role. No other ethnic group in New Zealand can claim tangata whenua status, and I imagine that most would accept that fact.

The irony is that those who say it is time for Maori to let go of their grievances and for New Zealanders to move forward “together” are the very people who are stifling New Zealand’s progress by their determination to hold on to our Eurocentric past and keep the status quo. If something so simple as flying a flag can garner greater race-relations and a more harmonious society, then all Kiwis should be embracing it with open arms. 

 

Powered by Qumana

First Leader’s Debate

TVNZ launches the new channel 7 on Freeview this coming Monday, and from 12pm-2pm Guyon Espiner will host the first leader’s debate for this year’s election. The ‘Kingmaker Debate” will only feature the leaders of the minor parties, so no Helen Clark or John Key, but it will definitely be interesting to see how the smaller parties are positioning themselves for post-election negotiations. I suspect they will have some strong words for both Labour and National. For those not lucky enough to have Freeview, TVNZ will have a live internet feed here, or you can wait for the highlights on TV One at midnight.

National: Writing Policy On The Hoof Since Ages Ago

Key vs Bush: Not That Dissimilar

John Key made a rather curious statement during an interview on Breakfast this morning. During questions from Paul Henry regarding National’s knee-jerk decision to bring forward the start date of their tax cut package, Key said New Zealanders were:

“Hugely struggling to pay their mortgages at the pump”

Butchering of the English language aside, how exactly does one “pay their mortgage at the pump”?

The similarities between John Key and George Bush become more and more apparent every time either of them opens their mouth.

 

Powered by Qumana

On The Blogs

Things have been fairly quiet here at NZ Pundit over the long weekend, but some of the other blogs have been quite busy.

Poneke has a great piece on the quality of New Zealand television news, and comes to the conclusion that it is appalling. This has certainly been something I have noticed about TV in general over the past few years, and I guess it was always inevitable that the “dumbing down” of the media would find its way into television news.

The Standard also has an excellent article on the continuing saga of the New Zealand Fast Forward research fund, and the reaction of rural New Zealand to National’s plans to scrap it.

And for something completely different, Kiwiblog has an interesting piece on apparent disparities between arts funding for Auckland and Wellington.

 

Powered by Qumana

Electoral Finance

 NZ Pundit: Thanks to SO for the use of her comic!

The Legacy, Thus Far, Of Helen Clark’s Labour

Since assuming the National Party leadership in 2006, John Key has had somewhat of a dream run with the media and, consequently, the New Zealand public. At the same time, however, scrutiny of Helen Clark and her government has been very intense, and it would appear that the “pack mentality” of the Press Gallery is decidedly in favour of a National Party victory. Indeed, not all media outlets have been so subtle in their desires for such a result. Throughout all of this though, Helen Clark’s approach has been to continue rolling out policy and to simply get on with governing. Such pragmatism has been a hallmark of her leadership.

Now into her 8^th year as Prime Minister, Helen Clark’s achievements are as numerous as they are impressive. Her involvement in New Zealand politics spans more than 30 years, since joining the Labour Party in 1971. During that time she has been both Chair and a member of numerous Cabinet and Select Committees; Minister of various portfolios; Opposition Leader; and of course New Zealand’s ninth longest serving and first elected female Prime Minister. But Clark’s achievements are not confined to New Zealand’s boarders. Indeed, they span the international political stage. In 1986 she was awarded the annual Peace Prize of the Danish Peace Foundation for her work promoting disarmament, and this year received a special award from the United Nations for her work on Climate Change. New Zealand’s 37^th Prime Minister will certainly go down in history as one of our best.

Clark, this year, became the longest serving Labour leader, and is also the longest serving female MP currently in Parliament, earning her the unofficial title of “Mother of the house”.  She is one of the most experienced New Zealand politicians, and her leadership is second to none. Her grasp of MMP politics and her ability to form progressive and lasting coalitions will certainly be one of the many things she will be remembered for.

In a 2006 feature in the Dominion Post celebrating Helen Clarks 7^th year as Prime Minister, Clark said of herself:

“I would like to think that, many years down the track, people would say that I gave it everything I had, that I was very dedicated to the job, that I was pretty accessible and approachable, and got out and about, which I do.”

There is no doubt that Helen Clark will be remembered for exactly that, and much more. New Zealand would certainly be wise to hold on to such an experienced leader. Later this year the public will have the opportunity to give their assessment of Helen Clark’s leadership, and this long weekend provides an excellent time for us all to think about some of the many great things Helen Clark’s Labour has delivered for all New Zealanders. They include, but are certainly not limited to:

• Seeing off 3 opposition leaders (with Key gone by the end of the year)
• The entrenchment of New Zealand’s nuclear free policy
• Working for Families
• Kiwisaver
• Interest-free student loans
• 14 weeks paid parental leave
• Restoration of income-related rents for state houses
• Keeping New Zealand out of the war in Iraq
• Fostering the closest relations with the united States since ANZUS
• Establishment of Kiwi Bank
• Iminent free trade deal with China – the first western country to do so
• Ratification of Kyoto
• 4 weeks annual leave
• More affordable primary healthcare, including cheaper doctors visits and prescriptions
• Biggest upgrade of New Zealand’s public health services ever undertaken
• Making it compulsory for electricity retailers to offer a tariff with a daily charge of 30 cents per day, so that those who use modest amounts of power don’t have to pay a fortune just to keep electricity connected.
• Civil Unions
• Maori Television
• Nationwide FM Pacific Radio Network.
• The Employment Relations Act and the restoration of some degree of equality in employment bargaining
• Economic growth amongst the highest in the world
• The World Bank’s Doing Business in 2005 report showed that New Zealand is the easiest country in the world in which to do business
• $1.42 billion business tax relief package for small business
• The modern apprenticeships programme, which has turned out more than 8,000 modern apprentices
• Establishment of NZ Trade and Enterprise
• Restoration of the married rate of superannuation to not less than 65 per cent of the average net ordinary time weekly wage
• Establishment of the “Cullen” superannuation fund
• Establishment of the $700m NZ Fast Forward research fund
• Increasing Research, Science and Technology funding by 65% percent
• Investing heavily in New Zealand art, culture and heritage
• Funding strong growth in the basic sciences through the Marsden Fund and the New Economy Research Fund
• Establishing the $100m New Zealand Venture Investment Fund
• Increasing the minimum wage every year, due to reach $12/hr in April
• Committed $22.3 billion to address key land transport priorities
• Purchasing back the nation’s rail track and investing over $200 million in maintenance and new capital projects
• Free meningitis vaccinations for all New Zealand children
• Starting work on major Auckland transport projects
• Developing New Zealand’s first ever Rail Strategy, and Walking and Cycling strategy
• Reinstating ACC workplace cover to a full social insurance scheme
• Increasing surgical funding for key operations, such as hip and cateract
• Rebuilding the school dental service
• The implementation of major programmes, such as HEHA, targeting obesity and related diseases
• NCEA
• Increasing investment in conservation and environment policy
• Completing free trade negotiations with Singapore, Thailand, Chile and Brunei and is in the process of negotiating others
• Increasing New Zealand’s international presence, with new embassies in Brasilia, Warsaw, and Cairo
• Committing almost $5b in extra funding for New Zealand’s Defence Force, and radically upgrading equipment, including new Navy frigates and helicopters
• Settling eight major Treaty claims, with at least another 26 in progress
• Delivering rates rebates for older New Zealanders
• Saving Air New Zealand from collapse
• Committing to keeping New Zealand assets in New Zealand hands
• Increasing funding for sport and recreation by almost 20 times its 1999 level
• FORCING NATIONAL TO MOVE TO THE LEFT

 

Powered by Qumana

Roger’s Return

If last week’s announcement by Act that Roger Douglas was planning a return to Parliament sent shock waves around the country, then today’s revelations about what he plans to do once he’s there must surely be like history repeating itself. It seems that Douglas didn’t quite get his fill of the far right agenda he pursued while Finance Minister for the fourth Labour government, and today outlined some of the policies he would like to pursue should he ever make it back to cabinet. They included:

• Privatizing the health system
• Scrapping Working for Families
• Cut between $3-$5b of government spending
• Drop the top tax rate to 33c in the dollar
• Introduce education vouchers for children

One can only assume that those policies announced today are just the tip of a very large and ugly iceberg. We can also expect privatization of education and state owned assets, welfare cuts, and a general return to the “Rogernomic” and “Ruthenasia” policies of the past. Of course, the prospect of Act being in any position to implement these policies in their own right is very slim indeed, but the likelihood of them gaining enough of the party vote in this year’s general election to make them a real contender for a spot in a right-wing coalition has increased exponentially since National began its move to the left. John Key has certainly been slow in quashing any speculation that Act, Let alone Douglas, would have any prospect of a position in a government he leads.  

National’s dallying over the issue of Douglas will certainly not have alleviated suspicions of a hidden right wing agenda, nor quelled public fears of the type of Prime Minister Key would be. In fact, it is not hard at all to imagine a National government pursuing some, if not all, of the policies outlined by Act today, especially given the large number of current members of National’s caucus who were great admirers of “Rogernomics”, and were happy to continue his legacy under Ruth Richardson during the 1990s. And while John Key has taken a somewhat silent approach to this, Rodney Hide has been very vocal indeed, today saying:

“There are a lot of people in the National Party who agree with what we are saying.”

That is certainly an indication that John Key will have a job on his hands in trying to ensure that National remains a more centrist party than it has been in the past, especially once coalition negotiations start. While today Key is saying there is no possibility whatsoever that National would pursue a far-right agenda should it gain the Treasury benches, the cards dealt after the election and the strength of his desires to become New Zealand’s 38th Prime Minister could certainly change all of that.

 

Powered by Qumana

National’s Double Standards On Freedom Of Expression

Today’s editorial in The Herald highlights some of the absolute hypocrisy of National over freedom of speech and freedom of expression. After spending the past few months decrying the Electoral Finance Act as an attack on democracy for its so-called “muzzling” of free speech, National MP Chester Burrows has presented to Parliament the “Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill” which would, among other things, “muzzle” one’s freedom of expression by limiting the clothes they can wear in public. The Herald states:

“Preventing Mongrel Mob and Black Power gang members wearing what they like is the thin end of an extremely large wedge. This is not just about gang paraphernalia intimidating members of the public and being the catalyst for further gang confrontation. It is about what comes next. Perhaps anything that is deemed vaguely threatening. Burqas? Hoodies? Both intimidate some people.”

Indeed, where does one draw the line? And how exactly is this going to solve Wanganui’s gang problems? It is highly unlikely that simply stopping gang members from wearing their patches in public will help ease gang tensions or even make the public feel safer. I recall an item on Campbell Live last year looking at this exact issue, and of all the members of the Wanganui public spoken to for their opinion on banning gang patches in public, the vast majority said they would be against it, if only for the reason that a known gang member is easier to avoid than one whose patch is hidden. Apart from promoting a Bill that would be highly ineffective, the strength of National’s convictions has yet again been demonstrated by their penchant for double standards.   

Espiner On National

Guyon Espiner has a good piece in this month’s North&South, taking a look at what a National government may look like if they are successful in this year’s general election. Espiner quite rightly points out that National still has a large number of MPs who were part of the 1990s National administration that pushed through many far right policies:

“Say these names aloud: Nick Smith, Maurice Williamson, Lockwood Smith, Tony Ryall, Tau Henare, Georgina te Heuheu, Clem Simich, David Carter, Bill English and Murray McCully. If those names sound eerily familiar it’s because they were all ministers in the 1990s National-led government that New Zealanders were thoroughly sick of by the end of that decade.”

It is hard to imagine a National government in which these MPs would not play a significant part, and that should be worrying given their role in National’s policy agenda during the 1990s. Indeed, Espiner makes exactly that point when he says:

“The trouble for National is that many of those with ministerial experience are the same ones who were pushing for the far right agenda which found the party so off-side with middle New Zealand last time they occupied the Beehive”.

I am very sceptical that, given such personalities still being present in the National Party caucus, National can really pursue a more centrist agenda post-election. Espiner mentions two such personalities. Of Lockwood Smith, Espiner says:

“Lockwood Smith, if he had his way, would end nuclear free policy by morning tea time”

This would appear impossible given Key’s emphatic affirmation of New Zealand’s current nuclear free policy and his assurances that the status quo will continue under any National government he leads, but that may change once National is in power.  

Then on Tony Ryall, Espiner states:

“Jenny Shipley used to joke that she had to check daily with State Owned Enterprise Minister Tony Ryall to see which assets he’d sold”

National has been trying to stay clear of any policy announcements on privatisation, but their slow response to the Government’s moves to block the sale of Auckland Airport indicates that their 1990’s agenda is still alive and well. Although this is unlikely to be a portfolio managed by Ryall, his deceitfulness over National’s plans to remove the cap on doctor’s fees shows he is not to be trusted.

All in all, a supposedly fresh, new National government would still contain many of the worn, old faces of the 90s, and New Zealanders need to decide whether they want to keep moving forward with Labour, or return to the 1990s with National.

 

Powered by Qumana

John Key: Humble Beginnings?

Phil Heatly has inadvertently pointed out some of the disingenuousness in John Key’s claims that he grew up in a state house. National’s housing spokesperson expressed outrage last week after a Housing New Zealand Select Committee revealed some state housing tenants were earning more than $100k. Without further information on these households, such as number of dependents, one is in no position to judge whether or not they are in need of state housing. But it does say one thing; not all those who use state housing can be lumped in the same basket. Indeed, Key’s upbringing in a state house couldn’t be further from the impoverished “underclass” he professes to relate to.

John Key, and certainly National, have made much of his so-called “humble” beginnings, portraying Key as the embodiment of the legendary “kiwi battler” who rose from rags to riches with nothing but a little self-determination and hard work. This certainly fits well with National Party ideology that every New Zealander is born with equal opportunities; it’s what you do with them that makes the difference. Hardly a speech goes by where Key doesn’t make mention of his state house beginnings, and it is often rolled out to soften the hard edges of National Party policy. In fact, John Key himself has said of his upbringing in a state house:

“I look at it as a great marketing ploy for me”

And an effective marketing ploy it has been. National Party governments have contributed greatly to New Zealand’s “underclass”. Welfare cuts and implementation of market-related rents in the 1990s did a lot of damage to New Zealand’s most deprived, and National has generally been viewed as a party without a heart. But John Key has unscrupulously used his background to soften that image by creating, albeit duplicitously, a connection between his own life and that faced by the “underclass”. The overall aim here is to win support from those traditionally opposed to National, and therefore make it easier to sell policies that could affect them in a negative way. After all, if John Key could go from “state house to statesman” then why can’t they?

But are the similarities really there? The answer to that question is a definitive ‘no’. While National would have us all believe that Key had the same upbringing as those living in Otara or Canon’s Creek, the reality is that state housing in 1970’s Christchurch was a world away from 21^st century McGehan Close. In fact it would be more correct to say that John Key grew up in a house that just happened to be owned by the State. Key’s state housing experience should be confined to the 1970s, and not extrapolated into the 21^st century, because there is simply no comparison whatsoever between Key’s upbringing and the lives of New Zealand’s “underclass”. Key’s upbringing was emphatically middle-class.

Key grew up in a business owning family, which afforded him all of the advantages and opportunities that go with owning a business. Key was not born into a life of poverty and disparity. His parents were educated people experienced in the world of business, and this was so even when Key was living in a state house. To say that this is in anyway comparable to today’s underclass would be deceitful indeed, and Key’s persistence in trying to convince the impoverished that he is actually one of them is particularly heartless.

While Key, like J-Lo, may like to believe and have us believe that he is simply “Johnny from the block” who used to have a little and now has quite a lot, the irrefutable truth is that Key never grew up on “the block”.  In the past, Key has said that it annoys the Left that he grew up in a state house. Perhaps the more truthful representation of the Left’s opinion on this is they despise the cruel way he pretends to empathise with the deprived, all the while planning to implement policies that will make their lives significantly worse.

 

Powered by Qumana

Where Is National’s “Personal Responsibility”?

The Herald on Sunday makes a good point on National’s opposition to the Public Health Bill currently progressing through the House. In its editorial, the paper states:

“Tony Ryall proved up to the task of concocting the obvious soundbite when he said this was “Helen Clark getting into your pantry”. It plugged neatly into a widespread public perception of this administration as too ready to interfere in private lives, but it quite avoids the issue.”

It is certainly saddening when opposition to what is a pressing health concern is reduced to unintelligent catch phrases, instead of the in-depth discussion and critique that such an issue demands. National’s framing of its opposition to the Bill as a matter of “personal responsibility” cuts straight to its core belief that a little “responsibility” on the part of the individual will solve all of society’s ills. But, as The Herald indicates, this quite avoids the wider issues at stake, including the responsibility that business must carry if a genuine attempt to fix the obesity problem is to be mounted.

National’s “Bluelibs” policy advisory group have also picked up the “personal responsibility” line in their statement on the Bill, which said:  

“The basic message is that it’s not your fault that you’re sick or soon going to be; rather it’s the fault of the fast food chains and liquor companies.“

This kind of thinking just defies all logic and commonsense. It suggests that any onus for responsibility rests solely on the individual, while fast food chains are completely blameless. As a qualified nutritionist, I know only too well that the reality, however, is quite the opposite. There is certainly much more to obesity than simple “personal choice”. Genetics, socio-economic status, food costs, and the way foods are marketed and advertised all play a part in the obesity epidemic. Any approach to tackling obesity must target all of these factors if it is to be successful.

In all of this “personal responsibility” rhetoric, National seem to be saying that advertising and marketing has no effect on the choices one makes; this despite a whole field in academia dedicated to studying purchasing trends and developing ways to increase sales through advertising. The fact that Coca-Cola alone spends in excess of $4,000,000,000 annually in advertising its products adds huge weight to the argument that advertising works.

But advertising and marketing in itself is not the problem, rather the socially irresponsible way in which it is carried out. It is no coincidence that New Zealand’s most deprived and most vulnerable are often targeted by this advertising, and it is certainly no coincidence that the deprived feature more prominently in all negative health indicators. Why is it then that there are liquor and fast food outlets on what seems like every corner in South Auckland, yet scarcely any in New Zealand’s wealthier suburbs? And why does the Right persist in deriding these areas and their residents for their lack of “responsibility”, yet continue to totally oppose any attempt to hold business accountable for their socially irresponsible practices? If the Right’s idea of “responsibility” does not extend to all facets of society, including business, then New Zealand should be very concerned.

It is high time business was held accountable for their role in the obesity epidemic, and Labour should be applauded for taking such a stand. It is very hard to see how National’s approach of placing all onus of responsibility on the individual would make any difference in New Zealand’s obesity statistics when business is free to continue targeting its products in such an irresponsible way. How can we, in all fairness, expect people to make the more “responsible” choice when we allow that choice to be one of the hardest to make? More importantly, how can we, as “responsible” adults, expect our children to know what the more “responsible” choice is when we continue to send them mixed-messages through food advertising and marketing?

 

Powered by Qumana