More spending not better spending

Finance Minister Bill English started his Budget speech with the good news:

. . . The Government’s plan has not involved radical change. We’ve done what we said we would do, and we’ve taken people with us.

And that plan – using sound and proven economic policies – is working, as international bodies like the IMF have recognised.

New Zealanders can look to the future with well-earned confidence and optimism.

The New Zealand economy grew 3 per cent last year, which is almost the same as Australia, and higher than almost every other developed country.

Wages are growing, cost of living increases have been modest and interest rates are at 50-year lows.

There are 50,000 more jobs in the economy than two years ago, although unemployment does remain too high and attracting new investment that creates jobs is a particular focus for the Government.

The fiscal outlook has improved markedly as a result of the Government’s sound management and we are on track to post a surplus in 2014/15.

These are real achievements that are benefitting New Zealanders and their families.

Budget 2013 is about building momentum in this programme.

Then came the warning:

But there is a risk that all the gains we are now making could be lost in the future, by going back to policies that have failed in the past.

We know what these are – high and wasteful government spending, more costs and more taxes on households and businesses, and more state control of the economy that chills private sector investment and destroys jobs and growth.

New Zealanders were conditioned in the 2000s to believe that Budgets should be about the novelty of new, expensive spending programmes that held out promises of economic and social transformation, arranged by the Government.

Those promises were illusory. There was no sustainable revenue stream to pay for the increased spending, and there was nothing genuinely transformational to show for it.

In contrast, this Government believes that Budgets are about careful stewardship of public money, and investing wisely in programmes to improve people’s lives and help grow the economy.

In the end, it is the effective use of public money, not the amount of it, that makes a positive difference to the lives of New Zealanders and their families. . .

When it comes to spending, more isn’t necessarily better.

On the contrary, it can be wasteful, inefficient and ineffective.

Under Labour, government spending increased by 50% in the middle of the last decade and they were still forecasting a decade of deficits.

National has been a much more careful steward of public money, cutting costs while maintaining services and is still on track back to surplus.

With spending, size doesn’t matter, effectiveness does.

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.

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.

No plans

Political comprehension test.

Which of the following statements can you trust:

a. Labour has no plans to intervene in any other markets.

b. Labour has no plans for economic growth.

c. Labour has no plans to continue reducing the burden of government.

d. Labour has no plans to impose more taxes.

e. Labour has no plans to lurch further left.

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.

Too little regard for OPM

The NZ Herald points out:

The Government’s income tax take dropped from $30 billion to $25 billion as New Zealand dipped into recession, but new figures show local authorities increased their rates each and every year. So why are city and district councillors allowed to spend first, then go banging on ratepayers’ doors demanding the money to pay for their pet projects?

It’s far too easy for them:

What you pay in rates is largely determined by what your property is worth, but ratepayers should not assume that just because their latest home valuation goes up or down, their rates bill will follow. Councils still have to make the decision on what rates revenue they need – and then work out how to pay for it.

Imagine if you were able to manage your household budget that way. In your New Year’s resolutions, you might decide to build an extra bedroom, and take a holiday to Fiji. You’d work out how much money you would need – then you would go to your boss and demand that extra money as a pay rise.

In the real world, your boss would fall about the floor laughing.

But if you are a city or district councillor, you can insist ratepayers stump up the extra cash. Ratepayers’ only option is to grit their teeth, pay the bill – then sack their councillors at the next election.

Does it have anything to do with councillors’ ability?

There aren’t many jobs where someone with no financial knowledge or experience can walk in off the street and find themselves managing a multi-million-dollar budget. But being a councillor is one of them.

Councillors are not required to have any qualifications or credentials beyond the ability to win an election. That, says Massey University local government specialist Dr Andy Asquith, may be why rates sometimes run awry. “The majority of councillors in New Zealand and around the world have trouble putting their shoes on the right feet in the morning. They get elected simply because they are known. It’s not unusual for someone to one day be reading the weather on television and the next to be on the local council with no knowledge of what council is about.”

Last year, a Massey survey found less than a third of councillors reported having access to governance education and even fewer had done that education. “I think that’s a major shortcoming in councils in this country.”

Sounds like a failing of the Labour Party too – far too heavy on union and public service experience, far too light on private sector experience and the knowledge and skills gained from putting their own money at risk.

The Labour Party and councils are top heavy with people who have far too little regard for OPM – other people’s money.

The National-led government has brought financial discipline to the public service and Local Government Housing Minister Nick Smith is now doing his best to ensure councils do the same when it comes to housing policy.

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.

“Failed policies” struck from Labour lexicon

The Labour Party has directed its MPs and members to stop referring to the failed policies of the 80s and 90s.

The lack of negative publicity the party attracted from its decision to ditch its 2011 election policy to remove GST from fresh fruit and vegetables has emboldened Labour strategists who are charting a new direction.

“I might have a propensity for overlooking bank accounts, but I can not lead a party which refuses to take pride in its past achievements,” Labour leader David Shearer said.

“I wasn’t in parliament at that time nor during the 1999-2008 when “failed policies’ became part of the Labour lexicon.

“It was stupid then and it’s even more stupid now when it’s obvious that the hard decisions taken were the right ones even though the first ones came from the left.

“Those decisions pulled the country up by its bootstraps so it could stand tall on its own two feet, and the four feet of the cows and sheep to which we owe so much of our export income.

“If it hadn’t been for that we’d be wallowing in the depths of depression with the PIGS.”

Mr Shearer admitted to journalists he faced some resistance from a hard-core within caucus but he was standing firm.

“We’ve had a free and frank discussion and we’re united, on this, or as united as a Labour caucus ever could be,” he said.

The left-outers are a wee bit peeved but the careerists are prepared to put potential jobs before flawed principles and the right, well they’re right behind me.

“Failed policies will no longer be part of the Labour lexicon. Instead, we’re getting ready to deliver shiny new lines.”

Mr Shearer said the caucus wasn’t quite ready to go public with those lines yet.

“We’re still chewing a few dead rats and as it’s rude to talk with your mouth full we’ll have to wait until we’ve swallowed them before we’re able to make any further statements,” he said.

 

 

 

 

Not intellect but real world experience

Trans Tasman observes:

The indication this week Labour would jettison one of its flagship items from the 2011 election campaign (the removal of GST on food and vegetables) underlines just how madcap the policy was in the constrained financial conditions in which the Govt has to operate. Until Labour’s younger brigade show they can compete intellectually, the Opposition will continue to trail in the polls.

You could well question the intelligence of anyone who thought that removing GST on fresh fruit and vegetables was good policy.

However, I don’t think Labour’s problem is lack of intelligence, it’s lack of real world experience.

So few of Labour’s caucus have business backgrounds, so many are former unionists or parliamentary staff.

That might have given them more than enough theories but it is no replacement for practical experience in private enterprise.

Gillard calls for leadership vote

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has called for a leadership vote this evening.

JULIA Gillard has called a caucus meeting for 4.30pm to allow a ballot for leadership positions, after Simon Crean’s dramatic appeal to her to end the party’s deadlock.

A defiant Prime Minister began question time with the announcement of a vote, then challenged the federal opposition: “Meanwhile, take your best shot.”

Regardless of the result the real winner will be the Liberal Party because voters don’t like parties which are unstable and lack unity.

That’s one of the problems both the Australian Labor Party and New Zealand Labour Party have in common.

WIll it be a bottom line?

In a speech typically high on emotion and rhetoric Winston Peters says:

We will use every ounce of influence after the next election and all the financial measures available to us to buy back Mighty River Power shares at a price no higher than originally paid for them.

The only way he can do this is to make it a bottom line in negotiations over supply and confidence with the party which will lead the next government.

It would mean that New Zealand First makes full state ownership of an energy company a higher priority than schools, hospitals, roads, irrigation and other assets.

It would mean that the party isn’t troubled by the prospect of sabotaging the value of public and private shareholdings and destabilising the share market.

It would mean that if New Zealand First held the balance of power, there would have to be another election.

The re-natonalisation of MRP would be a bottom line National wouldn’t accept.

And although David Shearer hasn’t quite ruled out buying back the shares in Mighty River he knows the cost and it’s one no party which wants to be regarded as a careful steward of the economy could contemplate.

If Peters is making it a bottom line he’s ruling his party out of government.

If he’s not then it’s just another example of his hot air.

 

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.

There’s already been a referendum

The petition seeking a referendum on the government’s policy to sell minority shares in a few energy companies was presented to parliament yesterday.

Parliamentary Services staff will now have to waste their time and our money ensuring the validity of the signatories.

They shouldn’t have to do it because Keeping Stock shows us there’s already been a referendum.

Labour’s then leader, Phil Goff said so.

Mr Goff said Prime Minister John Key had made this year’s election a referendum on whether New Zealanders wanted to see their most important assets being sold.

Perhaps the current leader, David Shearer, could explain why he’s wasting public money on another referendum when the 2011 was decisive.

And apropos of waste – does anyone know who paid for all those boxes in which the petition pages were delivered and the delivery?

What a waste

There is never a good time to waste public money but if ever there was a worse time, it’s now.

Our economy is growing, but  slowly, and many or our trading partners are still struggling with the impact of the Global Financial Crisis.

We’ve got the added cost of the Christchurch rebuild,  the need to cut back because of the extravagances and mismanagement of the previous Labour-led government and almost all of the country is facing drought.

There is no fat in the system.

National has been focussed on getting more for less from public services which requires very careful management and fiscal rigour.

The opposition has shown it hasn’t got the seriousness of the problem by opposing every move the government has made to reduce costs and improve efficiency.

Now the petition calling for a referendum on the policy to sell minority stake in a few state owned energy companies is to be presented to parliament.

It’s supposed to be a Citizen’s Initiated Referendum but this is a politician’s initiated one.

It was never anything more than a political stunt and carrying on with it now that the sales process for the sale of up to 49% of shares in Mighty River Power has begun reinforces that.

If there are enough valid signatures to force a referendum it will be too late. MRP will be under mixed ownership and at least one of the other companies could be too before it’s held.

Regardless of the timing of the referendum and the partial sales this is an expensive exercise in futility.

National campaigned on its Mixed Ownership Model and won.  The Labour and Green Parties and their potential coalition partners New Zealand First and Mana campaigned against it and lost.

The partial sales are a fundamental part of National’s financial plan and the referendum will do nothing but provide an opportunity for grandstanding by the opposition.

It’s time for them to realise they’ve lost and accept the importance of not wasting public money.

UPDATE:

Keeping Stock shows it’s not just money being wasted.

Would they buy them back?

Labour and the Green Party are still wasting their time gathering signatures for their petition opposing the partial sale of a few state assets.

They need to explain if they are going to present the petition and, if it has sufficient signatures, force the expense of their politicians’ initiated referendum on us when it will be too late to achieve anything.

Mighty River Power, is expected to be floated by mid-May, long before a referendum could take place, so why are they bothering to collect more signatures?

Truth points out in its editorial Labour  and the Greens need to come clean on asset sales:

. . . We know what the government thinks. We can all read the prospectus when it comes out for Mighty River Power, but what investors don’t know is what Labour intends as its policy towards these sales.

We know they oppose them, but what is their policy moving forward.

Investors and voters need to know if Labour intends opposing the sales in actions and not just words.

Will Labour commit to forced buy-back of the shares, essentially a re-nationalisation of the asset. Before readers poo-pooh that suggestion remember Air New Zealand.

Helen Clark even flirted with securities laws by advising on national television for Mum and Dad investors to keep their shares in Air New Zealand…that everything would be alright. As we know everything wan;t alright and some weeks later the government forcibly acquired as many shares as it could and left about 25% of shareholder mired without any sort of say in the company.

Would Labour do this again with the listed power companies…and if so how much would they pay for the shares…The listing price? The market price (unlikely)?

Labour and their hangers-on who oppose asset sales need to clarify before even a single share is sold what their intentions are.

I suspect that their policy will be as bankrupt as their position so far has been. Words not Deeds. . .

Winston Peters, a likely coalition partner in a Labour/Green government wants to buy the shares back:

. . . New Zealand First will use its influence on the next coalition Government to buy back our state-owned power companies which are being flogged off by National and we are committed to buying back the shares at no greater price than paid by the first purchaser.

Labour and the Green Party haven’t let us know their plans yet.

If they go ahead with the petition without making a commitment to buy the shares back they are adding yet more proof to the contention they’re after publicity for themselves not a change in policy.

If, however, they plan to buy back the shares they will sabotage any efforts they make to pretend they have any interest in the careful management of public finances and any concern for investors.

The enemy within

Anyone wondering about recent poll results which show Labour still failing to make any traction will find part of the answer in Charles Chauvel’s valedictory speech (at 17:45):

. . . it is unproductive to keep trying to locate and exclude the supposed enemy within. Instead, in order to avoid history repeating, it is time for an honest, open, and overdue assessment of why the 2011 campaign produced Labour’s worst ever electoral result. Those responsible for it should make dignified exits, and all the undoubted talent and diversity of the caucus should be included in the shadow Cabinet. To put it another way, in Gough Whitlam’s immortal words, the party must have both its wings to fly. . .

Why would voters trust a party when a member admits it’s searching for an enemy within and riven by factions which means it can’t trust itself?

Coalition conundrum

The ODT editorial on Labour’s reshuffle highlights the coalition conundrum:

. . . With support for the Greens remaining at election night highs, it is conceivable that party could have five ministers in any future government, perhaps even including a deputy prime minister. . .

Despite the need to govern together, Labour and the Greens are not always natural friends, with each party continuing to snipe away at each other. To provide the electorate with a compelling argument on why it should vote for a Labour-Green government though, some collaboration is necessary. . .

To be  lead a stable government under MMP the major party has to attract the swinging voters in the middle.

Voters need to be convinced parties could work together but the people in the middle are least likely to be attracted to Labour if they fear the Green Party  will drag it too far to the left.

Does Labour really want to win the Maori seats?

If Labour really wants to win the Maori seats, shouldn’t the party’s Treaty Negotiations spokesperson be on its front bench?

Labour took the Maori seats for granted until it lost them but doesn’t seem to have learned a lesson.

The party also tries to criticise National for its record but Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson met  more settlement milestones in three years than Labour did in nine and he has continued the pace in his second term.

Unequivocal or not

Spot the difference in responses to New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser’s vitriolic attack on people from “Wogistan”.

Judith Collins was unequivocal:

Minister for Ethnic Affairs, Justice, and Minister Responsible for the Human Rights Commission, Judith Collins says comments by New Zealand First MP Richard Prosser are extremely disappointing and may cause international embarrassment for New Zealand.

“New Zealand values diversity and prides itself on being an inclusive society.

“Muslims in New Zealand are also a diverse community – it is simply appalling to profile people based on their religion, skin colour, country of origin, or a perceived stereo-typed ‘look’ as Mr Prosser has done.

“Mr Prosser’s anti-Muslim rant has let New Zealand down and as a Member of Parliament he should know better.

“New Zealand First Leader, Winston Peters, needs to do much more than to hide his MP – he needs to explain why Mr Prosser’s behaviour is acceptable to New Zealand First.

“The Office of Ethnic Affairs works closely with the Muslim community in New Zealand – a community that denounces terrorism and has vowed to work with authorities to counter any terrorism threat.

“We have a strong tradition of human rights in New Zealand. Our Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race and religious belief, and our Bill of Rights Act affirms the right to freedom of religion, including the right to hold views without interference.

“As far back as 1978, New Zealand ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which underlines the right to freedom of religion.

“I suggest Mr Peters and his caucus familiarise themselves with this legislation to avoid causing further embarrassment to New Zealand,” says Ms Collins.

Prosser’s leader, Winston Peters, made a very brief statement:

I have spoken with Mr Prosser regarding the Investigate magazine article.

He wrongfully impugned millions of law-abiding, peaceful Muslims.

Mr Prosser agrees that the article did not have balance, and does not represent the views of New Zealand First.

Peters would be the first to call for a government MP to resign for a statement far less damaging than Prosser’s.

However, he has been a strident critic of immigration and is no doubt careful about not alienating the supporters attracted by his xenophobic stance.

Labour’s Foreign Affairs spokesman Phil Goff was much firmer:

“Mr Prosser’s statement is unacceptable from an MP and he and New Zealand First should consider whether he has any future in politics,” Phil Goff said.

Labour leader David Shearer was somewhat more equivocal than Ms Collins:

David Shearer says Richard Prosser’s comments were “offensive and completely inappropriate” but wouldn’t say if he would stand him down.

A war of words on Twitter between Green co-leader Russel Norman and Labour MP Trevor Mallard point to problems with one of Labour’s potential coalition partners.

Maybe Shearer’s initial reluctance to take a stand on this was because any tension between his party and the Green Party increases Labour’s reliance on Peters and his party.

Or maybe it’s just another example of Shearer being quick to criticise but much slower to commit himself or his party to action.

Leadership requires the ability to be unequivocal when it matters, Shearer has yet to show he has it.