More Green madness

David Farrar has performed a community service by reading the Green party food policy which includes:

Studies show that the majority of the ecological footprint of food comes from food processing, storage, packaging and growing conditions. In addition plant-based diets are recognised as having a reduced impact on the environment as less land is used to produce the same number of food calories. For example, a cow eats five plant calories to produce one milk calorie, and ten plant calories to produce one calorie of beef.

Societies whose food energy comes mostly from starchy plants rather than livestock have smaller environmental impacts because they only require about a quarter the land area to produce the same number of food calories.

Societies whose food energy comes mostly from starchy plants also tend to be third world. As their economies develop the demand for protein increases.

Calories are only part of the picture.

A balanced diet requires a range of  food providing protein, calcium, vitamins, minerals and other nutrients  many of which are more easily obtained from animals than plants.

And much of the land that is used to raise animals isn’t suitable for fruit and vegetables.

Promote, by labelling and education, dietary choices that have a reduced impact on the environment, recognising that these will differ in different places. For most people in New Zealand this will involve eating more locally grown organically produced seasonal food with less processing or packaging and eating less meat and animal fat.

Many of us would benefit from eating less meat and animal fat but the case for organic food is weaker.

The case for eating local is based on emotion rather than science which is why food miles are rarely mentioned now. Lincoln University proved that New Zealand lamb had a smaller environmental footprint after it crossed the world than British lamb at home.

We export most of the food we produce but we also import a lot. Our diets would be much more restricted if imported and out of season produce was reduced or eliminated.

We could also damage our economy because if we stopped importing other peole’s food they might stop buying ours.

If we followed the Green prescription for farming with less irrigation and a much higher price for carbon, food supplies would drop and the price would increase.

These policies would come at a very high cost for people, and the poor who could least afford more expensive food would suffer most.

It’s not about the workers

The supposed motivation for the manufactured manufacturing crisis is jobs.

But it’s not about the workers.

Rob Hosking explains it’s really about power plays between left wing parties.

There is a massive Indian leg-wrestle going on not only between Labour and the Greens but within Labour, and the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union is one of the most important power brokers on the left.

With the change in Labour Party rules last year, the EPMU will have a very large say in who the next leader is. There is also a battle on for support, at the next election,  of voters who work in this sector.

It is also about protecting the size of the EPMU by trying to keep manufacturing jobs. Shedding lower skilled jobs and employing higher-skilled workers is not so welcome by this group as such workers are less likely to be unionised. . .

If it was about the workers, those behind the manufactured crisis would be delighted that people were improving their skills, and earning ability.

But parties whose modus operandi is to tax and redistribute need people staying in low-paid jobs who will benefit more from redistribution than those in higher paid ones who will benefit less and pay more.

Rural round-up

40% productivity rise realistic - Sally Rae:

On-farm productivity gains in the New Zealand sheep industry over the past 25 years have been an ”extraordinary story”, AbacusBio consultant Dr Peter Fennessy says.

Productivity, which drove profitability, had been increasing at about 2.5% a year, which he attributed to a combination of genetics and management.

There had been genetic improvement through consolidation of the ram-breeding sector and larger ram-breeding flocks, and uptake of new technology (rams and pasture) and better pasture management. . .

Working within cap on nitrogen – Sally Rae:

“As a nation, we cannot continue to have conversations about protecting water quality without having a parallel set of conversations that redefine the New Zealand farming business model.”

So says Taupo farmer and entrepreneur Mike Barton, who, when faced with what was effectively a cap on stock numbers, sought to increase the value of the product he produced.

A nitrogen cap was imposed on farmers around Lake Taupo to protect its water quality, with 35,000ha of land now covenanted for 999 years to remove 20% of manageable nitrogen. . .

Fonterra invests further $30m into Whareroa:

Fonterra has announced a further $30 million investment to expand its Dry Distribution Centre at its Whareroa site in Taranaki.

This follows a $23 million upgrade of the Whareroa coolstores last year, bringing the total capital investment in the logistics infrastructure on site to more than $50 million since 2011.

Fonterra Director of Logistics, Mark Leslie, says the project is part of Fonterra’s overall drive to simplify their supply chain and reduce the associated costs.

“These investments are part of a strategy to deliver more products, more directly to ports for export. . . “

Fieldays; washer cleans up- Jackie Harrigan:

Taranaki dairy farmer Simon Washer made a clean sweep of the Fieldays Rural Bachelor of the Year Competition for 2013.

After a busy week of an Amazing Race through the North Island followed by a series of eight challenges at Mystery Creek, 25-year-old Simon won the People’s Choice Award – having built his Facebook following to more than 700 likes – before being presented with the Golden Gumboot Award for overall Rural Bachelor of the Year.

Simon is sharemilking in coastal Taranaki and a motor-cross and trail riding fan who is also involved in Young Farmers and chairman of his local club. . .

Green’s Taranaki claims poppycock – Harvey Leach:

What we saw on TV3’s Campbell Live about landfarming in Taranaki and then got from a Green Party media release was straight out of the conspiracy theorists’ playbook.

The Green Party called on Fonterra to stop taking milk from land in Taranaki that it said had been spread with oil and fracking waste, which included toxic chemicals.

This divides things into “everyone even remotely involved-qualified versus me”. In our case, those remotely involved-qualified were landowners, Fonterra, Taranaki Regional Council, petroleum companies and the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association. The “me” in this story was the Green Party of Dr Russel Norman. . .

 

Greens grassroots debate stifled

The Green party has always prided itself on its grassroots participation but a change of rules is going to make that much harder:

The Green Party has been accused of silencing its grassroots members by making it more difficult for local branches to have a say at the party’s annual meeting.

Members voted at the Greens’ annual conference in Christchurch last weekend to limit which remits or issues would be able to reach the floor at annual meetings.

Under previous rules, any proposal could be debated at a meeting if it had 12 signatures from financial members.

Local branches must now get approval from two other branches, one of them from another region, if it wants to debate issues relating to the party or its executive.

One party source said the effect of the rule change would be to wipe out any debate on grassroots-sponsored remits at the Greens’ conferences. . . .

I wouldn’t have thought remits were the best way to debate matters relating to the party or executive anyway. That would be a last resort pointing to dysfunction and poor communication in the ranks..

Remits at the best of times tend to be pretty blunt instruments and aren’t necessarily the best way to advance good policy, but they do enable members to participate at conferences.

The trouble with grassroots participation is that it doesn’t always follow the party line.

It can also create a distraction which the media enjoy but party chiefs, keen to keep to a script, don’t.

The new rule is a sign the Green Party is sick of opposition and a signal to its membership that some of its ideals about grassroots participation might have to be abandoned if it’s part of a governing coalition.

Facts counter political opportunism

TV3′s story on cows grazing on landfill was an example of emotion trumping facts and it provided an excuse for the Green Party to seek more publicity.

Fortunately Federated Farmers has the facts to counter their political opportunism:

Federated Farmers Taranaki is concerned the Green Party’s scaremongering over rehabilitated landfarms is putting at risk New Zealand’s number one merchandise export.

“Politicians and political parties have a higher duty when it comes to what they say or do,” says Harvey Leach, Federated Farmers Taranaki provincial president.

“The Green Party media release I saw is like going into a packed theatre and yelling fire. I think we are hitting new lows in politics when the sum total of a political party’s research effort is a television news segment.

“Unlike that party, Federated Farmers has asked questions and knows there is a double testing regime in place for rock cuttings and clays.

“Taranaki Regional Council is incredibly rigorous in what it does. The Council tests ground conditions to ensure things are as they should be. Fonterra further tests for contaminants when it collects milk to ensure integrity of the entire milk supply chain.

“The science is clear; there is no issue here. Of course you don’t want the truth to get in the way of a bad story.

“Politicians misrepresenting the truth is low-ball stuff. They are calling into question the integrity of a major regional council which is the most experienced we have in dealing with oil and gas.

“It also puts at risk our $12 billion dairy export industry by questioning the integrity of our major dairy exporters. We are being ankle-tapped by politicians who get paid by our hard work and that of other hard working kiwis. We deserve much better.

“Farmers will be predictably disappointed in the Green Party because they seem willing to throw decent hard working people under a bus to get a cheap headline. It is nasty politics spun at its worst,” Mr Leach concluded.

New Zealand has a well deserved reputation for food safety and animal health and welfare.

It could very easily be sabotaged by people and parties will to put political opportunism ahead of the facts in this manner.

The colour of slime

Green rhymes with clean but it is also the colour of slime and Green co-leader Russel Norman showed the dirty side of his politics in a speech at the weekend comparing John Key to the late Sir Robert Muldoon.

In doing so he reminded us he’s Australian which wouldn’t matter at jot if this comparison didn’t show he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Karl du Fresne who admits he’s no cheerleader for the current PM and did know the former one well said:

None of the prime ministers we’ve had since Muldoon could be compared with him, for which we should be grateful. He was a vindictive bully who cleverly exploited the politics of fear and division, and never more so than during the 1981 Springbok tour.

In fact I would suggest that in terms of personality, Key is the least like Muldoon. Anyone old enough to remember the political unpleasantness of the late 1970s and early 80s – which probably excludes a lot of Green voters – would have reacted with astonishment to Norman’s bizarre attempt to compare the two men. . .

Norman’s tirade wasn’t just bizarre.

Over at Keeping Stock, Inventory 2 points out it was contrary to his party’s statement of values among which is engage respectfully without personal attacks.

Norman isn’t the first to attack the PM personally – Labour has had several attempts to throw mud at him and each has ended with them looking dirty.

Mud sticks to the hand that throws it and until recently the Green Party had clean hands.

That was one of its strengths and one of the reason the party appealed to some people who might well be National voters, including women for whom environmental concerns are important.

The PM also rates well with women and one of the reasons for that is that he is unfailingly warm, genuinely interested in people and moderate.

Norman showed none of those characteristics at the weekend.

It was a speech which appealed to his dark green adherents but would have been another  turn-off for the floating voters in the middle he needs to convince if he’s to be part of a LabourGreen government.

Green hypocrisy

State Owned Minister Tony Ryall has correctly applied the H word to the Green Party:

The Government says it’s hypocritical of the Green Party to criticise the number of ‘mum and dad’ Mighty River Power investors, when they were responsible for “frightening them off”.

State-Owned Enterprises Minister Tony Ryall is defending using ‘mum and dad investors’ in the Government’s sales pitch of the shares, despite Greens co-leader Russel Norman calling it a “con”. . .

. . . Mr Ryall responded to those claims this afternoon, saying there was a huge turnout of first time investors, or ‘mum and dads’, despite a plan by the Greens and Labour to “sabotage” it.

He says there were 77,000 first-time investors and more than 101,000 people invested less than $15,000 in the company.

“The Green Party are being hypocritical, saying not enough everyday New Zealanders bought shares, while at the same time they are doing their level best to frighten them off.” . . .

“Over 76,000 people invested less than $5,000 on Mighty River shares and they got everything they asked for,” says Mr Ryall.

“That is a huge achievement despite the economic sabotage of the Green Party and Labour during the float.”

Mr Ryall says investors who were not ‘mum and dads’ had their shares reduced due to demand.

I know several people who were planning to dip their toes into the share market by buying Mighty river Power shares who got cold feet after the LabourGreen power play.

It is indeed hypocritical for Norman to complain that not enough everyday New Zealanders bought shares when their quest for publicity and economic ignorance caused some of those who would have bought to change their minds.

Green Party to contest by-election

The Green party has opened nominations for a candidate to contest the Ikaroa Rāwhiti by-election.

The party has only ever won one electorate. that was a general seat and the party didn’t manage to hold that.

The chances of its winning the by-election are slight.

The interest will be in whether it manages to mobilise voters and which party it takes votes from – Labour, the Maori Party or Mana.

 

What are they for?

If only the Green Party put as much energy into developing policy that would help New Zealand as they do into publicity opportunities for themselves.

It is another example of their opposition to initiatives which could create jobs.

It’s easy to work out what they’re against. They’ve yet to provide convincing alternatives which show they’re for something that will make a positive difference to the country and it’s people.

Greens can’t join dots

When I heard Russel Norman criticising the government’s achievement in staying on track back to surplus I thought I’d mis-heard him.

But no – here it is in black and white from the Green Party Facebook page:

 

They can’t join the dots between economic surplus and the ability to provide services and assistance to people in need.

They still haven’t grasped the dangers of too much debt.

They still think it’s okay to spend more than you earn.

Will we pay for this petition too?

The Green Party is launching a petition opposing the Sky City convention centre deal.

Will we be paying for it as we did for the one seeking a referendum on asset sales?

No idea, no funders

The Electoral Commission won’t be taking any action against the Labour Party for its failure to disclose a donation of more than $430,000.

Documents released by the Electoral Commission show the party received the sum from the estate of Brian Dalley in four instalments between April and July 2012.

The electoral law requires donations of more than $30,000 to be filed within 10 working days, but Labour only declared the donation on Thursday, 9 May.

Labour Party secretary Tim Barnett said it did not realise a bequest was actually classified as a donation and therefore had to be immediately declared to the commission. . .

The Commission accepted it was an honest mistake and so won’t be taking any action.

Ignorance of the law isn’t usually an acceptable defence. It’s not surprising that the Commission doesn’t think it’s worth pursuing the case when they don’t usually take action against electoral law transgressions.

What is more difficult to understand is how a party which wants to run the country doesn’t have a grasp of the laws needed to run itself.

The Commission has all parties’ donations returns here.

The only ones the Green Party disclosed are the tithes from its MPs.

The party will no doubt take pride in not having anyone outside its caucus willing to back it with more than $15,000.

But its a party with pretty flimsy foundations when its got less than a few thousand members and no-one prepared to put much money into supporting it.

This explains why they used more than $90,000 of public funds trying – and failing – to get enough signatures to force a referendum on asset sales – they don’t have any of their own funds.

Doesn’t that make the two parties a pretty pair – one doesn’t understand the rules and the other has to tithe its caucus to fund itself.

They’re a potential coalition with no idea and no funders.

Green’s not for growth

The Green party is soliciting funds for its election campaign with an email that says:

 . . . National’s policies of more mining, weakening environmental protections, poor economic management and growing inequality are not the recipe for a fair society and a better future.

 In contrast to National, we have the ideas to deliver a richer New Zealand. . .

Green is supposed to be the colour of growth but these Greens are really reds promoting the policies that have failed in the past.

Take their plan to bring down the exchange rate. Prime Minister John Key says currency intervention and printing money won’t work:

. . . “It didn’t work very well for Argentina, or Venezuela or Zimbabwe and it could never be done in New Zealand at the sort of magnitude we’ve seen in the United States,” said Key.

As for the New Zealand dollar versus its United States counterpart, Key used a seesaw analogy.

“It’s a bit like being a seesaw and if I weigh 85 kilos and you weigh 170 kilos, I’m going to go up when you sit on the seesaw and you’re going to go down. And that’s really the situation we’ve got at the moment.”

“We kind of weigh 85 kilos and the United States weights 850 tonnes. Right up to this point it (the US) has been very unwell. It has got everything from aids to bird flu. It has really been pretty unwell so the market’s just massively adjusting what they’re doing.”

When people say the Reserve Bank should be printing money, Key said you wouldn’t do that with base rates – the Official Cash Rate – at 2.5%.

“All you do is cut interest rates for a start off. The second thing was even if you printed money, it’s never going to work. I think they’ve printed US$5.5 trillion in the US. I mean it’s massive. So what would we print? NZ$50 billion or something? It wouldn’t make an iota of difference.”

“So my view would be I know we want to get the exchange rate down and I know it’s hurting a lot of companies. But it’s a cycle you’re going to have to ride through and all the Government can do is control the things that are in our control. So get out there and reform the Resource Management Act, make sure we don’t spend too much money, make sure we keep pressure off interest rates, manage the place well,” Key said. . . .

The reds want to increase the burden of government, their policies will lead to higher interest rates and they haven’t a clue about good economic management.

. . . Furthermore, he said intervention in the currency markets never works.

Here Key cited an example from his previous career at Merrill Lynch, where at one time he was head of global foreign exchange. One of Merrill Lynch’s biggest clients was the Bank of Japan, which used to intervene in the currency markets through Merrill Lynch.

“To tell you how bad it got, one night we were sitting there and the Bank of Japan rang up and the US$-yen was about 90 or something and they didn’t want it to go down lower. And the guy said to me ‘I want you to start buying dollars at 90′. And I said ‘how many do you want me to buy’, and he said ‘well, I’m going out for three hours so I’ll give you a yell when I get home.’ And I said ‘yeah, but how many do you want me to buy?’ And he said ‘I’m going out for three hours, don’t you understand the conversation?’

“I bought US$4.5 billion in three hours. He said ‘where is it (the US dollar-yen exchange rate)’ and I said ‘it’s 90, you bought US$4.5 billion. And he said ‘ah, well I’m off to bed now give me a ring in the morning’,” said Key.

“It never worked, it just never worked. I don’t know how much money they lost on intervention but it was massive.” . . .

Who do you believe – someone who has worked in international finance and has managed the country through the global financial crisis or people who want to print money and whose power policy would have a chilling effect on on private investment? Rob Hosking writes:

. . . There is something essentially frivolous about anyone who would cheerfully rip up the value of some of the country’s largest firms, and the value of the investment in those firms, simply for a political positioning exercise.

This is why the exchange caught by TV3 between Green energy spokesman Gareth Hughes and party spin zambuck Clint Smith was so telling.

For those who missed it, Mr Hughes was asked if the party was pleased at the reaction: Mr Hughes paused, turned to Mr Smith and asked “Hey, Clint – are we pleased?”

It was telling that he even had to ask.

But the almost palpable glee coming out of the Green and Labour camps at the destructive impact of their policy is highly revealing. 

It underlines – not for the first time – the problem with the makeup of both parties. They are dominated at the MP and the staff level by the sub-genus homo politicus.

That is, they are full of people who have done nothing in their lives apart from politics. All parties have a complement of this group, but with Labour and the Greens the group has reached critical mass.

This group has been involved in politics at university, moved from there to various political/union offices and then into parliament. 

There is little real world experience and everything is viewed through a very narrow prism of political advantage.

It’s the sort of attitude which means the value destruction seen this week can be just laughed off.

There will, unless we are careful, be more such frivolous policies to come.

I would use a far stronger word than frivolous and the business community certainly isn’t taking it lightly.

In an open letter to LabourGreen they say the policy would harm jobs, growth and investment, causing interest rates to rise, reducing KiwiSaver retirement savings and making people less well off.

. . .Business shares your concerns about constantly rising power prices and their impact on our global competitiveness. Businesses and consumers work hard every day to minimise their spending on electricity in order to stay in business and

to make their household budgets stretch further.

However, we do not think that electricity policies based on subsidies and greater state control are the right answers. Such policies have been tried in the past and have been shown to be incapable of meeting the challenges of a modern economy

with a complex, real-time electricity market.

 

Putting aside the sheer complexity of their implementation, policies that protect businesses from the full costs of the inputs they use ultimately dull the incentive to innovate and make them less, not more internationally competitive. Reducing retail

prices below the full marginal cost of production encourages households to use more than they should.

Of particular concern with the policies announced is their chilling effect on investment across the entire economy.

 

We are especially concerned at investment analyst reports noting the potential for $1.4 billion of shareholder value to be wiped off the books of the private power companies. A similar amount, if not more, will come off the value of the public power companies.

 

 

Capital destruction on such a scale will severely undermine business confidence.

It sends signals to investors, on whom the New Zealand economy relies, that their wealth and the benefits it provides are not welcome.

 

Investment plans and job creation opportunities are foregone.

 

Rather than remote and intangible, this dampening of investment intentions will have a direct and real economic impact on those of all walks of life who seek to accumulate wealth by working hard to save, invest and grow. It causes interest rates

to rise, depletes retirement savings held in KiwiSaver accounts and means that other economic opportunities such as first homes are foregone and new business ventures as savings are unexpectedly reduced.

 

Individuals are less well-off as a result.

 

With the good of all New Zealanders in mind we ask you to withdraw these damaging policies. We offer to work with you in increasing public understanding of the operation of the electricity market and in ensuring consumers, both small and large,

have better choice from one of the increasingly competitive electricity markets in the world.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 Phil O’Reilly Chief Executive BusinessNZ

 

Ken Shirley Chief Executive Officer Road Transport Forum

 

Catherine Beard Executive Director Manufacturing NZ

 

Ralph Matthes Executive Director Major Electricity Users Group

Chris Baker Chief Executive Straterra

John Scandrett Chief Executive Officer Otago Southland  Employers’ Association

Raewyn Bleakley Chief Executive  Business Central–Wellington

Kim Campbell Chief Executive EMA

Peter Townsend Chief Executive CECC

Michael Barnett Director  New Zealand Chambers of Commerce

These people represent people who employ people, the ones who need certainty and confidence to make investment that creates jobs, earn export income and pay taxes.

These are people who work in the real world.

They know there’s nothing funny about bad policy that would take the country backwards, cost jobs and make us all poorer.

They know that Green isn’t for growth and it doesn’t mean go.

Green economic policy is bright red and it will mean stop to economic growth and job creation.

Labour is anti-growth party

What’s the difference between the National and Labour parties?

There are plenty but the most stark is their attitudes to growth.

National is pro-growth and has spent the last four years implementing policies which will promote it.

Labour has spent the last four years opposing those policies and is, as Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce says,  fast becoming the Anti-Growth Party by pursuing polices that would hurt households and damage the New Zealand economy.

“What has become increasingly clear is that intentionally or unintentionally, Labour is promoting policy ideas that would stunt New Zealand’s growth. On top of that they are opposed to all initiatives that would create jobs and boost incomes. They are becoming the ‘Anti-Growth’ Party’,” Mr Joyce says, speaking today at the National Party’s Mainland Regional Conference in Hanmer Springs.

 

“They want to introduce a capital gains tax on every business and farm, print money to lower the dollar, force households to pay an extra $500 a year under the ETS and spend and borrow more money. In their rush to appeal to the political left and scratch every political itch, they are ignoring the economic impact of their ideas.

 

“Their latest ‘plan’ on electricity is playing politics with the value of New Zealand’s economic assets and they don’t care who it affects. They clearly haven’t thought through the consequences of discouraging investment and savings to both KiwiSavers and jobs, all for a policy that pretty much everyone agrees won’t work.

 

“It is becoming obvious that under the influence of Grant Robertson and David Parker – and the threat of the Greens – Labour has shifted further to the left. More middle-of-the-road MPs like Shane Jones are now isolated and forced to recite the new anti-growth party mantra of saying ‘no’ to every idea to boost growth.”

 

Anti-growth Labour policies include:

 

• Dramatically increasing the effects of the ETS on trade-exposed businesses and New Zealand households

•  Introducing a capital gains tax on all productive businesses

•  Abandoning sensible monetary policy in an attempt to force down the value of the New Zealand dollar

• Nationalising the power industry and discouraging investment in the New Zealand economy

• Borrowing more money rather than having the Government make savings and get back into surplus

 

Policies Labour has rejected that will boost investment and growth include:

 

• Resource management law changes to speed up investment decisions

• Plans to build an International Convention Centre in Auckland (despite supporting a similar arrangement in 2002)

• Oil and gas exploration on the North Island’s East Coast

•  Investment by Chinese companies, including the investment by Haier in Fisher & Paykel Appliances

• Encouraging more international investment generally

• Reforms to allow greater aquaculture development in the Marlborough Sounds

• Speeding up Bathurst Resources consents at Denniston

•  Increasing irrigation and agricultural intensification

 

“The National-led Government is encouraging more investment in New Zealand as we know that nothing creates jobs and grows incomes for New Zealand families better than business growth,” Mr Joyce says.

 

“Labour has talked a lot in the last four years about savings, jobs and growth.  If they are serious about those things they need to start showing it. They need to support sensible initiatives that will encourage investment, create jobs and help New Zealand families get ahead.

 

“Constantly adopting policies that discourage investment, and also saying ‘you can’t do this and you can’t do that’ shows Labour is fast becoming the Anti-Growth Party, joining the already anti-growth Greens on the far left of New Zealand politics.”

The Green Party has never made any secret of its disdain for economic development. Labour used to pretend it was interested in growth.

But in abandoning the centre ground and lurching leftwards it has given up the pretence it is economically rational and wants a growing economy.

Some commentators say this more united LabourGreen approach will help them look more like a government in waiting.

That might be so but it will also scare the moderate swinging voters in the centre. Given the choice between extreme-left, anti-growth Labour Green and moderate centre-right National they are much more likely to tick blue rather than red and green.

Powering back to socialist 70s

BusinessNZ calls the Labour/Green plan to nationalise electricity wholesalers economic vandalism.

Chief Executive Phil O’Reilly says the proposal would destroy a functioning market and replace it with heavy-handed bureaucracy.

“Inserting an army of bureaucrats between power generators and retailers would destroy price signals, so prices would not reflect the cost of generation.

“In that situation, the taxpayer would continue to pay ever higher subsidies of the electricity system. This is not sustainable.

“The Electricity Authority said only yesterday that the electricity market is as competitive as it has ever been. It can always be improved, and this is where the focus should be.

“It’s only competition that can drive prices down. Governments can’t do this, not without subsidising the sector from taxes.

“A state-controlled sector as envisaged by Labour would drive out private investment. Why would the private sector invest in generators when the state can determine the prices they can charge, while subsidising state-owned competitors?

“The private sector power companies would have to seriously consider their future in the market. Those who have invested heavily would basically find their profits confiscated.

“Interfering in the market in this way would send a signal to the rest of the world that it is not safe to invest anywhere in New Zealand. The knock-on impact from that, on jobs and growth, would dwarf any short-term benefit from artificially reduced electricity prices,” Mr O’Reilly said.

Energy and Resources Minister Simon Bridges says the Labour-Greens power plan is incoherent and will kill competition in the electricity market.

“Under the previous Government, electricity prices increased by 72 per cent. It has taken the National-led Government’s reforms to arrest these ridiculously steep increases on New Zealand households,” says Mr Bridges.

“The 2010 electricity market restructure is working. The market now has more players and much more competition than it ever had under Labour.

“New Zealanders are increasingly taking advantage of greater competition and are switching companies for a better deal – in some cases, saving up to several hundred dollars a year.

Since the Electricity Authority’s What’s My Number? campaign began in May 2011, there have been almost 700,000 consumer switches.

“Why scrap the whole electricity market when consumers can already save more than the economically illiterate promises the Opposition is making?

“These types of policies have been considered in the past and rejected for very good reasons. Consumers should be very afraid of them. They may look simple but all they will ultimately bring is higher costs to households,” Mr Bridges says.

Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce calls it a a half-baked Soviet Union-style nationalisation “plan”:

“This is truly wacky and desperate stuff obviously made up in the last minute in the Koru Lounge between comrades Norman and Shearer,” Mr Joyce says.

“Their crazy idea to have both a single national purchaser of electricity and to exempt Government-owned companies from both company tax and dividends would effectively demolish private investment in the electricity industry overnight. It would also raise real questions as to why any individual or company would want to invest in businesses in New Zealand.

“Even the idea of it is economic vandalism of the highest order, with the timing designed to try and disrupt the mixed-ownership company floats. What we are seeing here is a desperate Opposition that is prepared to sacrifice economic development in New Zealand on the altar of political opportunism.

“The sad truth is that Labour has no idea how to operate a competitive market that keeps downward pressure on prices. Labour made a number of reforms to the electricity market in the early 2000s and the result was power prices rising 72 per cent over nine years.

“This Government’s reforms have halved price increases while maintaining investment in generation and transmission. Labour’s suggestion today is no more than a belated apology for their mismanagement, with a back-to-the-70s solution that would only make things worse.

“You seriously have to question the quality of economic advice the Labour Party is getting. They really need to get a lot more serious if they are ever to be considered fit to manage the New Zealand economy.”

It’s not just the government questioning the policy.

Colin Espiner asks has Labour actually gone insane? As in stark, raving, Monster Loony Party mad?

I’m assuming the answer is yes, judging by today’s incredulity-creating announcement that, if elected next year, Labour will essentially nationalise the electricity industry. . .

The Opposition says it’s going to create a single buyer, NZ Power, that will buy all the country’s electricity generation “at a fair price” and then onsell it to consumers. 

It’ll pretty much give away a 300KW bloc to every household and then charge for additional units. 

At a stroke, Labour is proposing to dismantle the electricity market, ruin Contact Energy and Mighty River Power and decimate the Government’s share float plans for both MRP and Meridian. 

Oh, and sell thousands of mum and dad investors down the Mighty River, since MRP’s share price would almost certainly plummet if the company was forced to retail only through a government department at whatever price it deemed to be fair. 

Already Contact shares dipped 3 per cent on the news, and that’s just a taste of what would come if this policy was ever implemented.

I’m no fan of high power prices – and I don’t own any Contact or MRP shares – but what Labour is proposing is essentially nationalisation a la Brazil or Argentina. This is Third World, funny-money stuff. Goodness knows what the financial markets will make of it. And what message does it send to overseas investors? . . .

It’s extremely rare that I agree completely with Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce, but his comment today that the plan was “a return to the 1970s-style monopoly provision of electricity…Only North Korea and Venezuela did not think such ideas are nuts” is pretty much spot on.

I agree with Joyce that Labour is virtually sabotaging the economy. 

It is, in my view, also an indication that Labour does not believe it has any hope of winning the next election. In my experience, only political parties that know they have no realistic hope of winning an election propose things they know they will never have to try to implement. . .

There is no virtually about the economic sabotage this policy would inflict.

I was in parliament for Question Time yesterday.

The Government benches were enjoying themselves and Ministers made the most of the opportunity Labour and the Green Party gifted them:

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Electricity Authority yesterday released its review of the electricity market in 2012. The report showed 18 percent of customers, around 32,000 people a month, voted with their feet by switching electricity providers in 2012, presumably for lower prices. For the benefit of the Opposition, that is called “competition”. Since November 2008 annual electricity price increases have halved from the 8 percent year-on-year increases suffered by hard-working New Zealanders during the previous 9 years. This follows a number of pro-competitive reforms by this Government, which apparently the Opposition is not aware of. We have reconfigured State owned enterprise assets to increase competition, created the Electricity Authority and made it responsible for promoting competition, allowed line businesses to compete in the retail space, and funded promotion of consumer switching through the What’s My Number campaign.

Todd McClay: Has the Minister seen any other proposals to try to lower electricity prices?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, weirdly, yes, I have. Just before lunch today I received one report, which I believe came from the “North Korean School of Economics”. Apparently, the suggestion there was that nationalising the entire electricity industry would somehow lead to lower power prices. . .

That got a point of order call from Winston Peters to which the Minister responded:

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If I could perhaps clarify my answer, I should clarify that I received a report from the local branch of the “North Korean School of Economics”.

I’d like to believe Espiner’s theory that this is the policy of parties which know they’ll lose the next election and therefore never have to implement it.

The only other explanation is that the people promoting them are so economically illiterate they don’t understand what they’re talking about.

Either way, it shows they haven’t learned from history because these policies would power us back to the socialist seventies and it would be all downhill from there.

Books better than forecast

The government books are in a better state than expected:

Higher than forecast tax revenue continues to underpin an improvement in the Government’s finances, compared to the Half-Year Update in December, Finance Minister Bill English says.

The operating deficit before gains and losses for the eight months to 28 February was $3 billion, or $556 million smaller than the $3.6 billion deficit forecast in December.

“The other pleasing aspect of the financial statements is that government spending remains under control,” Mr English says. “That is important as we remain on track to surplus in 2014/15.

“It will remain important beyond then, because we will need to build up sufficient surpluses to provide choices around repaying debt and investing more in priority public services.”

Overall, core Crown tax revenue was $719 million higher than forecast at $37.6 billion for the eight months. Source deductions were $266 million above forecast due to a higher effective tax rate paid by those in the workforce, and tax from other individuals came in $326 million above forecast.

Compared with the eight months to February 2012, tax revenue has increased by $2.2 billion, mainly reflecting wage growth, higher effective tax rates and a rise in GST receipts due to growth in nominal consumption and residential investment.

Core Crown expenses were $370 million below forecast, reflecting broad-based spending control and delays in Treaty of Waitangi settlements.

Higher than expected net gains from Government investment funds delivered a $4.3 billion operating surplus for the eight months, which was significantly better than the $481 million forecast operating deficit.

There is still along way to go but the changes the government has made has New Zealand heading in the right direction again.

Had we had a Labour/Green government after the 2008 and 2011 elections the books would be in a far worse state..

New Zealand was in recession before the global financial crisis because of the Labour led government’s high tax, high spending and debt-fuelled consumption.

The policies it and its potential coalition partner, the Green Party, have championed since the 2008 election show no understanding of what contributed to our problems and the changes needed to solve them.

They’ve opposed every move National has made to reduce spending and promote sustainable, export-led growth.

They continue to promote polices which would take the country back to higher taxes, higher spending and lower growth showing they are still far better fitted for opposition than government.

Green fact check failure

Journalists are often accused of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

The Green Party has done that with this:David Farrar has taken a lot more care with the figures than the Green Party, with its taxpayer funding, did.

So in summary, the Greens:

1. Misrepresented the minimum wage change
2. Inaccurately stated the minimum wage last week was $13.75
3. Miscalculated the take home pay last week (they were wrong at $13.50 and $13.75)
4. Miscalculated the change in student loan repayments
5. Miscalculated the change in Kiwisaver deductions

This is pretty gross incompetence for a political party with you know staff and MPs. There is nothing difficult about going to the IRD website and using their calculator. Their advertisement is false and misleading and they should withdraw it until corrected.

Keeping Stock points out another fact check fail:

The starting-out wage will be an option for employers and employees from 1 May 2013.
So the starting-out wage isn’t even one of the changes that took effect on April 1st. The Greens have launched a giant April Fools Day prank at the expense of their own credibility.

This is a spectacular own goal by the Greens, so spectacular that we feel compelled to ask this question; is Sandy Green Rufus Paynter’s long-lost daughter?

Whoever she is, her long term outlook would be better if she’s in full time work than on a benefit and we’ll all be better off if student loans are paid off more quickly.

Greens adopt one policy for all

The Green Party has adopted a single policy statement to fit all situations.

Co-leader Russel Norman said the policy to have a single policy statement was consistent with the party’s policy on waste minimisation.

“We’ve decided there’s no point spouting forth, cluttering up the airwaves, clogging up bandwidth or cutting down trees to produce multiple policy statements when no-one takes any notice of them,” he said.

“It’s a waste of resources which is contrary to our philosophy and principles.”

Co-leader Metiria Turei said the new policy was entirely consistent with the party’s global warming policy.

“We’re worried about hot air and don’t want to be contributing to any more than we absolutely have to,” she said.

“We took baked beans off the breakfast menu but felt we had to do more  – or rather less – and our single policy statement is doing that.”

When asked what the new single policy statement was, the pair clasped hands and said in  unison, “They will have to stop the asset sales.”

“We’ve been saying that since before the last election. We like the sound of it and can’t think of a single situation where it’s not an appropriate statement,” Ms Turei said.

“It will also save us having to think up any policies for the next election which is also consistent with our energy conservation and waste minimisation policies,” Mr Norman added.

Who’s leading the Opposition?

Last year the Green Party had a higher profile than Labour.

This year, as Lew at Kiwipolitico points out,  Winston Peters is leading the charge:

David Shearer says he won’t rule out buying back shares in state-owned power companies sold by the government. He won’t rule it in, either. Why? Does he need to consult his leader?

There’s so much wrong with this that I scarcely know where to start. This buyback agenda has been set by Winston Peters; it’s now two years since the 2011 election campaign kicked off with a pledge to sell these assets, and it’s like the boffins in Labour haven’t yet had an original idea about it. The problem with old generals is supposed to be that they fight today’s war with the strategies of yesterday’s war, but this is worse — it’s fighting yesterday’s war with the strategies that lost the one before that. . .

Peters will never be in a position to act on his threat to renationalise any energy companies which are partially sold.

He’s not stupid enough to make it a bottom line in a coalition or confidence deal. He’s just whistling to his dogs.

But he’s also showing up David Shearer and Labour who are in a no-win position.

They’re not stupid enough to promise to renationalise the companies, that would really scare the business horses and push moderate, wavering voters to towards national. But that just makes Labour’s continuing campaign against the policy redundant.

If they’re not going to change the policy they are neutering their opposition.

The party and its leader need to find another policy to help them make some traction because until they show they can lead the Opposition they’re not going to be able to convince enough voters they could lead a government.

Look what they do with our money

We don’t have public funding of political forties parties in New Zealand.

We leave that to their members and supporters.

We do have public funding of MPs to enable them to serve their constituents and do their work in  parliament.

The rules are very clear that this money should not be used for party political activities.

Well, that’s how it’s supposed to work in theory.

But Kiwiblog shows that Labour and Green Party have used their parliamentary staff to help get signatures for the petition seeking a referendum on the partial sale of a few state assets.

A mole has leaked to me a couple of strategy documents from Labour and Greens on the referendum they have just purchased with our money. The documents are embedded below, and they show the extent of taxpayer resources used to purchase this referendum.

CIRs are meant to be about the public being able to send a message to MPs, not MPs using taxpayer funds to relitigate an election result. Some key revelations:

>>They aimed for 400,000 signatures as they knew a fair proportion would be found to be invalid.

>>At the 300,000 mark the Greens collected 150,000, Labour 105,000 and Unions 40,000. The Greens are the ones who used taxpayer funding to hire petition collectors.

>>Labour pledged 30 hours per week staff time from their taxpayer funded budget.

>>Greens were using their permament taxpayer funded staff to co-ordinate
The unions had a paid national co-ordinator.

>>They refer to unions gathering “car loads” of organisers and activists to travel to areas.

>>For their day of action, Greens said they will committ five full-time staff – presumably all taxpayer funded, if Labour does the same. That’s 10 taxpayer funded organisers.

>>A list of unions to pressure to do more, including PPTA, NZEI, Nurses Organisation – minority shares in power companies of course being key education and health issues!

It is very clear that there has been very few ordinary citizens involved in this petition – mainly a legion of taxpayer funded staff and union staff. . .

This isn’t a Citizen’s Initiated Referendum. It’s a politicians’s one and you and I have paid for it.