Tag Archives: Labour Party

Labour self destructs further with involvement in voting scam

Posted on by Brad Heap

Update October 9: Name supression has been revoked, it is safe to post this, I will update with more details later today.

For the last few weeks there has been investigations by Police in New Zealand into voting fraud in South Auckland. In the blogosphere a number of right wing blogs have been point the finger at members of the Labour Party being involved. I refused to believe them as I did not think for one second anyone involved in a political party would be that stupid. I was wrong.

Radio NZ reports:

Two men have been arrested and charged with forgery just days before local body voting closes, accused of creating enrolment irregularities in Auckland.

Labour Party president Andrew Little says at least one of them has links to the party.

At the rate the Labour Party is going they will not be back in power for a long time. This is a real shame, while I may be a Greens supporter it is unlikely they will ever be able to form government without Labour, and with Labour just going from one self-inflected crises to the next National are likely to retain power for the better part of the next decade.

Update: Kiwiblog is reporting the names of the two people arrested, they may or may not have name suppression so I am not going to repost the names here but one of them is a JP. Fraud is one thing, fraud by a JP is another. Since when did NZ become so corrupt?

Credit Card Scandal – A chance for Labour to rebuild

Posted on by Brad Heap

Shane Jones needs to resign now; he has already hung on for too long. But so does Phil Goff. If Labour want any chance to win the next election they need to completely rebuild the party from the ground up. This involves a dramatic restructure of their list and they need to shuffle the old pack out of parliament as fast as possible. If they don’t National are guaranteed to win the next election and the Greens will eat a large amount of the vote. Right now Labour are on the verge of being destroyed and they need to act to stop the damage, if they don’t they are gone from power for a very long time.

Loading up the Labour party website it is clearly obvious they are lacking any distinction. All they are is attack the attack National party, and this is a terrible approach to take as a National is so popular in the polls and there is no clear reason why anyone would want to vote for Labour. In fact their website seems to advertise National more than they advertise themselves, the word National is much larger than the words Labour and the only image I see is of John Key!

As part of this rebuilding they need to clear out the old guard. Some of the MPs have dug themselves such big holes they need to go now, others have just been around for far too long and have this terrible odour about them.

A much better line up of Labour would be:
David Cunliffe – Leader
David Parker – Deputy Leader
Maryan Street
Darren Hughes
Clayton Cosgrove
Ruth Dyson
Charles Chauvel
Annette King
Nanaia Mahuta
Lianne Dalziel
Winnie Laban
Moana Mackey
Steve Chadwick
Sue Moroney
Jacinda Ardern
Ross Robertson
Mita Ririnui
Lynne Pillay
Clare Curran
Kelvin Davis
Chris Hipkins
Raymond Huo
Ashraf Choudhary
Darien Fenton
Su’a William Sio
Carol Beaumont
Damien O’Connor
Brendon Burns
Iain Lees-Galloway
Stuart Nash
Dr Rajen Prasad
Grant Robertson
Carmel Sepuloni
Phil Twyford
David Shearer

Gone:
Phil Goff
Parekura Horomia
Chris Carter
Shane Jones
Trevor Mallard
Pete Hodgson
Rick Barker
George Hawkins

A State of Urgency

Posted on by Brad Heap

Labour MP, Grant Robinson blogs on the continued use of urgency in Parliament (with a nice pun as the blog title) to ram through laws without following due process:

http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/10/21/a-state-of-urgency/

Parliament is now in urgency. That would be the fifth Parliamentary week in a row that we have gone into urgency.Perhaps its time to rename urgency as normalcy if this is the approach National is going to take. In all seriousness, while there is a place for urgency, and (before the right begin to howl) all governments have used it, this is getting beyond a joke.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the complex the hearings on the Emissions Trading Bill are taking place from 9am to 9pm each day, with some submitters given only a few hours notice of needing to submit and then being given a very short time to state their cases. It appears from media reports that National even tried to get the committee to agree to having all 184 people who wanted to submit in public put through in one day.

The excessive use of urgency and the rushed select committee processes should be of concern to all New Zealanders.  Apart from being anti-democratic, they open the door for bad and poorly considered law. There will necessarily be simple drafting errors but more than that Select Committees are either not getting a say or not getting enough time to properly scruitinise the Bills.

Earlier this year National put through the bill creating national standards for literacy and numeracy without a select committee process. In other words without giving parents, teachers, experts in the field the chance to have a say. Inevitably Anne Tolley has now had to delay the whole process to try to deal with issues that have come up since the Bill was passed. These could have been dealt with in a Committee.

This is completely unacceptable for a Government. Urgency has its place. When laws need to be passed urgently. Not as a political tool to stifle debate or the views from the government. I forgot to note in my earlier blog that the Benzodiazepine Ban was also passed under urgency in addition to inserted at the last possible moment. Tea Party time anyone?

National confirm they have no backbone

Posted on by Brad Heap

As fast as I ask will National have the guts to move to a flat tax system they rule it out.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/2958390/No-flat-tax-PM

The Government will not introduce a flat tax system despite Treasury advice in support of one, Prime Minister John Key says.

The working group and Treasury were working on similar ides and the Government would consider a wide range of issues, he said.

Cabinet will discuss all those issues but “there’s not going to be a flat tax system”.

So what is the point in getting Treasury to consider all options and issues but ruling out one of the best ideas before cabinet has discussed it? A flat tax system is not some big scary monster, it is a simple system that just makes sense.

“We also need to make sure we put together a system that isn’t regressive and that is fair,” he said.

Finance Minister Bill English said the tax working group and Treasury were looking at “all sorts of models” but the Government was “certainly not considering a flat tax”.

Those looking at the tax system were told to “rule nothing out” and “by the looks of it they’re doing a pretty thorough job”, Mr English said.

So Treasury is not to rule anything out, but National can before even discussing it. And they want a fair system, but the most fair system of them all a flat tax system is rule out. Is National doing some double speak here?

Labour deputy leader Annette King said her party was opposed to a flat tax because it raised questions about what other taxes would have to be raised to cover expenses.

“But I have to ask every time Treasury puts out a suggestion they are working on, it is knocked back either by Mr English or by Mr Key.

“Why are they wasting taxpayers’ money with Treasury officers working away on policies they don’t intend to implement and they rule out every time they are announced?”

Labour have hit the issue on the head here. They may not support it, but at least they have the sense to wait and see what the all the issued considered are. This is a very bad move by National, they are trying to stop debate on a potentially controversial topic, but by doing so they are opening a can of worms and will piss off their more right-wing supporters (and probably Act as well).

Duncan Garner on Chris Carter

Posted on by Brad Heap

Duncan Garner from 3News blogs today on Chris Carter’s travel costs:

http://www.3news.co.nz/Politics/DuncanGarnersBlog/tabid/1135/articleID/124372/cat/934/Default.aspx

Opinion: Chris Carter’s Globetrotting – $131,000!

Title says it all doesn’t it. $131,000. It is not a little bit of Money is a huge amount for one MP to spend.

It seems Chris Carter as a Minister had a total disregard for the public purse.

Yup.

We now know it was more than $131,000 in just six months. And that’s just the international travel!

So let’s look at where Carter went, who he took and what it cost.

In January 2008 he went to the UK between the 7-9 January and Spain from the 15-17 January. He took his partner Peter Kaiser. Airfares cost $7246.00. Other costs, like accommodation and meals came to $9,969.92. Did he have a European holiday in between appointments? What did he do on behalf of the NZ taxpayer? Who paid?In April he went to Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and China for 11 days. Again he took his partner Peter Kaiser. He also took his press secretary Michael Gibbs. Airfares cost $28,696.00 Other costs totalled $28,712.22. All up – that’s more than $57,000. I never knew South-East Asia could be so expensive.

To be fair Carter was representing the Prime Minister at the 2008 Asia-Pacific Interfaith Cooperation for Peace and Harmony Conference in Cambodia. He then went to China to join Helen Clark and Phil Goff for the signing of the Free Trade Agreement in Beijing. I was there too. I covered it. Why Carter, Kaiser and Gibbs were there continues to beat me. There were a lot bags to carry though. He and his party then went to Thailand and Vietnam for bi-lateral and portfolio visits.

He went to Australia in April for two days. No big deal right? But how come flights for him and a staff member cost $4526.00? Try and get a flight across the Tasman for that amount? Is he taking the piss? Did he hire the plane out? Who books this stuff?

Then in June Carter, Kaiser and his press secretary went to Chile and Peru for the week for the APEC Education Ministers’ meeting. The three spent more than $38,000 on airfares to get there and just short of $10,000 on expenses. $48,000 all up. But $38,000 on airfares is phenomenal. I do remember covering APEC myself in Peru at the same time – we flew economy class through the US to cut costs. We looked at flying direct, but going through the States was cheaper and we were in the middle of a recession and this was the only cost effective to do it. We actually had to take three flights – a leg through Miami on the way back to cut costs. The return flight cost TV3 just under $3,000.

So Carter’s bill tops $131,000. It is embarrassingly large, no one is questioning that.

Labour is doing only a half-arsed job defending him as well. There’s a lot of disquiet in the Labour caucus about Carter. He hasn’t been labelled the Minister for Overseas Travel for nothing. But I guess this just shows that Carter, and perhaps those who made his bookings, had a total disregard for the public purse. Perhaps it’s systematic within Parliament. If it’s someone else’s money, then who cares – that seems to be the prevailing attitude around here.

Parliament and Ministers and their staff need to get serious.Ordinary taxpayers work bloody hard for their wages. An overseas trip for most Kiwis is a privilege. Carter and all his colleagues across the board need to be reminded of that.

$131,000 in just six months is two and half times the average wage.

So when staff and Ministers are booking their next flights, remember who is paying.

Duncan sounds really pissed off towards the end of the article. And so he should be. He is the political news editor for 3News he sees these politicians much more than any other regular member of the public sees them. And good on him for being outraged. It is our Money that is be wasted on these trips. There are far cheaper ways to travel, sure MPs need to go overseas for events, but wasting thousands of dollars in the process is simply reckless. If an employee of a company did this they wouldn’t be an employee for very long.

Left or Right. There is no centre.

Posted on by Brad Heap

This is a summary graph of the political polls over the past three years. Look at the recent end. National is dropping. But so is Labour. Who is rising? The Greens and Act. What does that mean?

a) The minor parties matter!

b) A vote for Act or National will result in a right wing government. A vote for the Greens or Labour will be a left wing Government.

The choice is yours! This election is not all over. It is not a done and dusted result. It is wide open and your vote matters.

Rock the Vote. November 8 2008.

At least the media commentators understand MMP even if the politicans don’t.

Posted on by Brad Heap

From: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10539439

With regards to the Maori Seats, Overhangs, 5% thresholds, electorate seats and United Future trying to take a line on removing them:

“United Future has been one of the more anomalous features of the political landscape since the introduction of MMP. In 1996 and 1999, Dunne carried his electorate, Ohariu-Belmont, but his party’s shares of the vote (0.9 and 0.5 per cent respectively) would not have seen it in Parliament otherwise; in 2002, United Future got eight MPs, partly by feasting on the remains after National’s massacre and partly because an electronic worm in a leaders’ debate responded positively to Dunne’s repeated intoning of the phrase common sense.”

…

“By the last election United Future’s boilover of support had noticeably cooled: the party got three MPs, one of whom has since defected. And in the latest Herald-DigiPoll survey, it is at the very bottom of the party-vote pile, on a paltry 0.2 per cent.

Right now, Dunne is the very last person in our politics who should be complaining about a party’s over-representation in the House on the strength of its showing in electorate contests. That same poll has Maori Party support at 2.4 per cent well short of what it needs to get list seats in Parliament, but some 12 times as much as United Future can muster. Dunne has always had a wildly inflated sense of his place in the scheme of things, as his tantrum on election night in 2005 famously demonstrated, but numbers like those should give even him pause for thought.”

This is MMP:

“The influence that the Maori Party may exert in the formation of the next Government will strengthen the argument of those who feel that, under MMP, small-party tails are wagging large-party dogs. But that does not, of itself, argue for the abolition of the Maori seats. NZ First, Act, United Future and the Progressives have all, at different times and to different extents, exerted influence disproportionate to their mandate. That is MMP.”

…

“There is an argument to be had as to whether a party-vote threshold, perhaps lower than the existing 5 per cent, should have to be crossed before local success can deliver a seat in Parliament. But the need for that discussion arises because of all the minor parties and the different demographics of their constituencies. It is not an issue raised by the case of the Maori Party alone.”

I personally think that the 5% rule should be removed and if you win enough votes to get a seat you get it. Or if this is going to bring too many “randoms” into parliament and create 12 headed monsters then make it 3 MPs like they do in some other MMP countries. (I also think no party should be able to get over 35% of the vote but lets not go there).

And from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10539435

“It seems strange that the media still promote poll results as if it’s merely a contest between National and Labour. It’s actually between a Clark-led centre left coalition and a Key-led centre right coalition. At present it’s too close to call.”

…

“Smith’s unguarded comments expose a nasty side of the Nats that won’t be lost on the Pacific Island and other migrant communities.

If the publicity of these comments even knocks 1 or 2 per cent off National’s vote it may be the difference between winning and losing, and certainly puts it at the mercy of the Maori Party.

It will make it harder for the Maori Party to convince its supporters that National has changed its spots and be considered a possible coalition partner. Maori voters overwhelmingly prefer Labour over National.

National’s post-election price to the Maori Party was always going to be high. Polls show the size of Parliament will increase to at least 125 seats and therefore make it almost impossible for National and its right-wing allies to get a majority without the Maori Party.

National would probably have to repeal the foreshore and seabed legislation and guarantee the future of the Maori seats for the Maori Party to risk its electorate base. It’s a big ask, of course, but after nine years in the wilderness I think the Nats would trade their grandmother if they had to.”

…

“Clark and Key understand that they are almost certain to have to deal with the Maori Party if they want to be prime minister. If we believe the polls, Clark’s best chance of keeping her job is if the number of MPs in Parliament is increased above 120 because of an overhang.

If that happened National and its allies would just fall short of a majority of MPs. This would only happen if the Maori Party won more electorate seats than its party vote percentage allowed. Ironically Labour’s slim chance to remain in government may happen if the Maori Party defeats it in the seven Maori electorates and National won’t repeal the seabed and foreshore legislation. How delicious.”

And ironically at the end of the day it could be Labour losing the Maori Seats that keeps them in power. Politics, nothing is ever clear cut.

Why the Greens went with Labour

Posted on by Brad Heap

From Kiwiblog comments:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/the_least_surprising_decision_of_recent_times.html#comment-498529

Over the last few months National have rolled out policies to gut the Resource Management Act, abolish the energy-efficient homes initiative and oppose energy efficiency standards, build more new roads at the expense of public transport infrastructure, allow foreign insurance companies to compete with ACC, undermine collective employment bargaining, strip workers of most of their employment rights for the first 90 days in employment with a small employer, require domestic purposes beneficiaries to look for part-time employment, and provide tax cuts that deliver very litle for those at the bottom of the income scale. All these run contrary to Green policy.

And which of them are about creating wealth? Allowing foreign insurers to compete with ACC, undermining employment bargaining, stripping workers of their emplyment rights, and National’s tax cuts are all about redistributing wealth – from those who have less to those who already have more”. Gutting the RMA might create more short-term wealth, but at what long-term expense?

The Greens gave an undertaking to indicate a major party preference to the electorate – we think that is only fair so people know what they are voting for.

Frankly, with the policies National rolled out, Labour could have unveiled no new policy and still would have been the Greens’ preferred choice I think. Of the 12 criteria the Greens assessed Labour and National against, National beat Labour on only one – fresh water quality – and that was only because this has deteriorated so badly under Labour’s watch, rather than because National has any policy that will improve it.

If only those blind people following populist speakers would for once listen to sound policy and debate.