Blog exclusive – Bill English on drought

This is an exclusive for YourNZ – about the media links in a minor story.

TVNZ Q + A:

On Q+A this Sunday, NZ’s in the midst of a drought so how will it affect you and me and our pockets? We speak to the Finance Minister Bill English, and a climate scientist who says we have to no option but to adapt.

(story not yet online)

Stuff (Fairfax):

Finance Minister Bill English says the costs of the drought are headed toward $2 billion.

English said the Government was getting updated advice over the next few weeks from Treasury but the latest estimates indicated ”somewhere between one and two billion will be knocked off our national income”.

English told TVNZ’s Q+A the drought had potential to knock 30 per cent off New Zealand’s growth rate in a year.

NZ Herald:

Meanwhile, Finance Minister Bill English is now saying the estimated cost of the drought has gone up from $1 billion to $2 billion, Fairfax Media reports.

Newstalk ZB chief political reporter in Twitter:

@felixmarwick

just seen a Herald story referencing Bill English comments from a Fairfax story about comments the Minister made on @NZQandA #convoluted

YourNZ: The final convolution?

I watched Bill English on Q + A so didn’t need to read the Fairfax report on that, or the Herald report on that,so knew the story.

But when Felix  Marwick commented on the convolutions I responded “Sounds interesting, I must blog on your tweet on it.”

Felix replied “why? it’s hardly earth shattering. Just a bit quirky”

So here’s a bit more quirk to the convolutions. Exclusive to Your NZ.

TVNZ HAve the English interview online now:

Corin Dann interviews Bill English (13:05)

Political editor Corin Dann interviews the finance minister Bill English about the drought, the Budget

Mixed financial reports

NBR: Operating deficit grows as GST, PAYE misses forecasts

Core tax revenue was 1.6% short of expectations at $17.92 billion, with GST and source deductions from weak private consumption and tepid wage growth the biggest drag on the accounts.

The tax take from GST accruals was 4.9% short of forecast at $8.13 billion in the four-month period, while source deductions missed expectations by 2.6% at $7.16 billion.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-operating-deficit-wider-expected-gst-paye-tax-take-misses-forecasts-bd-133486

Bill English: OBEGAL deficit close to forecast in October

The Government’s $2.87 billion operating deficit before gains and losses in the four months to 31 October was slightly larger than forecast, after core Crown revenue and expenses both came in below expectations.

“The latest figures confirm that the Government is continuing to control its new spending and getting better results from existing programmes, as we move towards our target of returning to surplus in 2014/15,” Finance Minister Bill English says.

“Core Crown tax revenue was a bit below Budget 2012 forecasts, as it was in the three months to September. This reflected slightly weaker than forecast consumption and wage growth feeding into GST and PAYE revenue.

“But it’s good to see Inland Revenue’s tighter collection and enforcement policies resulting in higher effective tax rates for non-incorporated businesses.

“On the other side of the ledger, core Crown spending was $343 million below forecasts, reflecting slightly lower than expected spending in health, welfare, education and lower finance costs as a result of lower-than-forecast interest rates.”

The $2.87 billion OBEGAL deficit for the four months was $169 million larger than Budget 2012 forecasts. Net core Crown debt at $55.47 billion, or 27.1 per cent of GDP, was as forecast in the Budget.

http://www.billenglish.co.nz/archives/861-OBEGAL-deficit-close-to-forecast-in-October.html

NBR and English are talking about the same data.

NBR: Building activity shows biggest quarterly gain in 10 years

The volume of building activity recorded its biggest gain in 10 years in the third quarter, led by construction work in Canterbury and the upper North Island.

Activity rose 9.6% in the third quarter and was valued at $2.9 billion in unadjusted terms, Statistics New Zealand says. Residential building work made up 56% of the total.

“While the earthquake rebuild in Canterbury contributed to this, residential building work in the upper North Island also experienced growth,” industry and labour statistics manager Blair Cardno says.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-building-work-put-place-posts-biggest-quarterly-gain-10-years-bd-133492

A sign of improvement?

“Mountain of persuasion” on boat people jail plan

National’s Nathan Guy is struggling to get support for his bill to lock up non-existent boat people. From Stuff:

Human Rights Watch refugee programme director Bill Frelick called the Immigration Amendment Bill a scare tactic rather than a rational plan, saying Guy’s belief the legislation sent a signal that queue-jumpers wouldn’t be tolerated was “fundamentally flawed”.

“First, there is no queue. And second, the legislation does punish people who might indeed have genuine claims for refugee status.”

The bill got past the first reading to committee stage but Guy doesn’t have sufficient support to get it past the second reading. He would need the support of either United Future’s Peter Dunne, or a New Zealand First or Maori Party MP.

United Future leader Peter Dunne has called the plans inhumane and said he would need a “mountain of persuasion” to change his mind.

The Maori Party still discussing the issue.

NZ First leader Winston Peters refusing to give any assurances.

Priorities?

Bill English has been using the “not a priority” excuse for dismissing  bills like Paid Parental Leave and dismissing discussion dealing with Super. They are both issues that deserve attention (Super demands attention).

So why are National promoting a bill that would draconally protect New Zedaland froma threat that doesn’t currently exist?

This bill should be well down the priority pecking order.

The Standard on Paid Parental Leave

Although The Standard mostly frequently runs “down with National” posts interspersed with copious “John Key’s a liar’ diatribes there are ocasionally some good posts and comments. Here is one excellent post from occasional author ‘Karol’:

Shifting ground: PPL

The government is vulnerable around the Paid Parental Leave Bill. They don’t want it to pass, but they risk losing support from women for not supporting it. A financial veto of an entire Bill has never been done before, and it’s experimental for the government. There are certain clear rules around excercising the right of veto, but there also seems to be some uncertainty around specific procedures.

There’s more good reading there.

English can’t just dismiss this with what appears to be grossly inaccurate cost estimates. If National aren’t very careful and reasonable on this bill then Bill English’s arrogant dismissal could weight significantly against National’s middle New Zealand support.

And what will National’s intervention achieve? Probably only a slight postponement in a PPL extension being introduced by the next Labour led government – and what stop Labour from extending it further than 26 weeks when they have guaranteed numbers to succeed?

Dunne challenges National again

Peter Dunne has received more attention and publicity this term due to having an often crucual vote in Parliament, but he has also been active in promoting United Future positions on policies. This is sometimes putting Dunne at odds with his National coalition partner.

Sue Maroney’s Paid Parental Leave bill is getting attention as Bill English repeats his intention to veto the bill – it may get enough support in Parliament due to Dunne’s vote.

English’s estimate of the cost of the proposal to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks (from 14) has been questioned by Maroney, suggesting it is grossly overstated. Dunne has joined the criticism:

The Government’s own support partner, UnitedFuture, is also calling on the Government to reconsider using the veto.

Leader Peter Dunne said he could not explain the discrepancy of Mr English’s estimate. “But it’s a pretty massive one.”

(Stuff: Minister sticks to claims on parental leave costs)

And:

But the Government isn’t interested in diverting money there. It’s a Labour Party bill and Finance Minister Bill English has committed to blocking it using a rarely-used financial veto.

But United Future MP Peter Dunne is not happy about it.

“To announce the veto prior to the bill actually proceeding through Parliament is I think premature and wrong.”

(3 News: Government continuing with parental leave veto)

There seems to be a degree of dismissive arrogance from English on this, pre-empting good political process.

Ms Moroney said the ministry’s figure was likely to come down further because its costings had not taken into account that the bill would come into effect in the month of April, not the start of the financial year, and there would be reduced use of early childcare centres, which would cut government subsidy costs.

It was up to the select committee to establish the real cost, she said.

The bill should at least get the chance to be properly examined and costed by select committee.

See also: Government must recalculate Paid Parental Leave veto  (Sue Moroney)

Another news report:

Rethink urged on paid parental leave

A key Government ally is urging the Finance Minister to rethink his position on paid parental leave.

It follows new financial advice that extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks would cost around $150 million a year, not around half a billion the Government had previously claimed.

United Future MP Peter Dunne, who supports the bill, says it’s interesting the cost has now come down by almost two thirds.

“I think that will, and should cause some reconsideration of whether the veto is applied. My view has always been that to announce the veto prior to the bill actually proceeding through to parliament is, I think, premature and wrong.”

Addressing Clare Curran’s refusal to engage

Some people wonder how out of touch with the people Labour MPs are. Here’s an example – a very hypocritical example.

Clare Curran has been posting on Red Alert criticising Bill English’s availability to the public:

A message to Bill

Bill English, it appears many people in your electorate don’t want you to sell our assets. And how about being a bit more available to them!

How many electorates aren’t being well served by National MPs?

And how much direct constituency work they do and what options are open to constituents if they try to approach their local MP and are rebuffed, ignored or can’t make contact because it’s always closed.

After I commented Clare made some direct and indirect accusations – which are false.

I posted a comment and link to a response this morning, that comment appeared but soon disapeared.

I emailed Clare to explain and seek clarifiation and justification for her accusations. She replied, effectively saying she didn’t believe me.

And she said she would “not be engaging with you further.”

I posted a comment on Red Alert to explain my side of the story. This comment wasn’t accepted, it seems to have been automatically blocked. This is what I said.

I’ve exchanged emails with Clare trying to clarify accusations she made. She makes her own assumptions and simply refuses to believe me.

She closed with:
“Red Alert and Labour MPs on facebook and Twitter engage in real debates and conversations. But people who have malicious intent should not be tolerated by anyone on the internet.

Feel free to publish my comments as no doubt you will.

I shall not be engaging with you further.”

The irony in that is obvious, in a post accusing another MP of not being available.

I don’t believe her accusations (to me) are malicious, just poorly reasoned, and wrong. I don’t act maliciously, I often speak up against online maliciousness.

In a comment above Clare said “I’m worried that many electorates are not being well served. This post is not a stunt.”

The irony (and hypocrisy) is obvious, where she runs a campaign accusing another MP of not being available to the public but at the same time refuses to engage, and censors blog comments.

Labour MPs are being widely criticised for a lack of engagement with the public. For example, see the comments on a left wing blog, The Standard: What the polls are saying.

And Labour MPs, while actively criticisng other MPs and people, remain blind to their own disconnect with the real world, and the reasons for that.

That’s sad.

Clare Curran’s accusations

Clare Curran has been busy on social media this week criticising National, especially Bill English, about a lack of availability to constituents. She posted on Red Alert:

A message to Bill

Bill English, it appears many people in your electorate don’t want you to sell our assets. And how about being a bit more available to them!

She tagged this ‘representation’. Clare has often talked about more open government. This is something I’m also interested in, it is the main reason why I got involved in politics.

Clare followed up with another post on Red Alert:

How many electorates aren’t being well served by National MPs?

Posted by  on September 4th, 2012

My post yesterday on Bill English and his mostly closed electorate offices in Balclutha and Gore has attracted some interest on Red Alert and on facebook.

A number of people commented that they were experiencing the same issues in other National-held electorates.

I’m wondering how many National Party electorate offices are actually staffed on a regular basis?

And how much direct constituency work they do and what options are open to constituents if they try to approach their local MP and are rebuffed, ignored or can’t make contact because it’s always closed.

Would be interesting to find out.

As it happens, I’ve been ‘rebuffed, ignored or can’t make contact’ with Clare and also my electorate MP David Clark. Both usually ignore emails. And both have blocked me from their social media. So I commented:

Pete George says:
September 4, 2012 at 7:38 pm
MPs can be too busy to be available all the time.

Both my local Dunedin electorate MPs don’t usually respond to my emails.

And my own electorate MP (Dunedin North)seems to want to avoid contact on Twitter:
“You have been blocked from following this account at the request of the user.”

I was having a dig for sure, but Clare was having a dig at the unavailability of Bill English and National MPs so I think it’s fair to point out her own deliberate unavailability.

(I have once had an email reply from Bill English but he usually ignores my emails too).

Clare responded:

Clare Curran says:
September 4, 2012 at 7:50 pm

Oh Pete George let’s be honest here. I didn’t know you had been blocked on twitter, but I have unfriended you on facebook.

You are a troll. You are one of Cameron Slater’s (Whaleoil’s) tipsters. You pretend to be something you aren’t and you remain a commenter on Red Alert on notice.

I am a very liberal person. I believe in free speech, but I also believe in honesty and accountability. I don’t believe in pushing false information.

My response:

“You are one of Cameron Slater’s (Whaleoil’s) tipsters.”

What do you base that claim on?

“You pretend to be something you aren’t”

What do you base that claim on? I’ve been very open about who I am and what I do.

Calling me a troll is a cheap and/or ignorant shot. At times I promote and publicise what Labour (and you) do. At times I question you. Shouldn’t MPs and parties be open to scrutiny?

“I am a very liberal person. I believe in free speech, but I also believe in honesty and accountability.”

That’s not how you are acting here.

“I don’t believe in pushing false information.”

Can you clarify the intent of that comment?

I’m very active in social media but I’m not a troll – that’s a term that’s often misused.

I’m not ‘one of Cameron Slater’s (Whaleoil’s) tipsters’.  I’ve had some contact with him as I’ve had with other bloggers, that’s common. And I comment on his blog as I comment on others, including Red Alert.

‘You pretend to be something you aren’t’ is an outlandish accusation, I’m one of the most open people on political blogs. What on earth does Clare think I’m pretending to be? She ignores me, blocks me, she refuses to engage and then thinks she knows about me. She is wrong.

I also believe in free speech. On the same blog thread:

whodunnit says:

Offensive. Banned. Clare

I don’t know how offensive the comment was so can’t judge on how justified this was.

I also believe in honesty and accountability. Clare seems to actively avoid accountability while criticising other MPs for being unavailable.

“I don’t believe in pushing false information” – neither do I, I don’t know what she is implying by saying this. I’ve asked her to explain but she hasn’t responded yet.

I first contacted Clare about three years ago and have tried to actively engage with her and other MPs in Dunedin. I’ve criticised her at times, but I’ve also praised her and published positive information about her.

One of my main aims in politics is to improve communication between Dunedin MPs and the people of the city. This has to be two way. And it means MPs have to be prepared to communicate with people outside their comfort bubble.

People want to be heard more. In Clare’s own words, “how about being a bit more available to them!”

If Clare is serious about open government and if she’s serious about MPs being available to the people then I invite her to work together with me to achieve a better connection between MPs and people in Dunedin.

I’ll email Clare as well to make sure she gets this invitation.

National talk tough with Waitangi Tribunal

National are pressuring the Waitangi Tribunal to come up with findings this month to enable the float of Mighty River Power to run to schedule in September – or at least to enable the Government to proceed while appearing to have given due consideration to the Waitangi Tribunal.

We’re not waiting, Govt tells tribunal

The Government says it will decide early next month if it will go ahead with the sale of Mighty River shares this year, whether it has a detailed Waitangi Tribunal report on Maori water rights or not.

Finance Minister Bill English and State Owned Enterprises Minister Tony Ryall yesterday told the tribunal to speed up the delivery of its findings on a Maori Council claim into water rights by a month.

The ministers said leaving the tribunal decision until next month as scheduled would affect the Government’s entire asset-sales programme.

Mr English said he had asked the tribunal to deliver its findings by August 24 because the Government would need to make decisions by the first week of September if it were to proceed with the partial float of Mighty River Power this year.

He said the Government would make its decision then whether it had the tribunal’s findings or not, “on the basis of all the information available to us at that time, including the Waitangi Tribunal’s memorandum of July 30″.

Difference of opinion on timing:

In that memorandum this week, the tribunal requested the Government delay the Mighty River float until it delivered its findings.

It said such a delay should have little or no impact on the timing of the planned float.

But Mr English said this was incorrect. Delaying beyond the first week of September could mean the Government lost the chance to make the initial public offer this year and could result in a delay to the entire asset-sales plan over the next two years.

The September report from the tribunal was to be interim, it may have to be a bit more interim.

Bill English put out this press release yesterday:

Government seeks information from Tribunal

02 August 2012

The Government has written to the Waitangi Tribunal seeking further information on the Tribunal’s findings, recommendations and supporting reasoning with respect to its inquiry into national fresh water and geothermal resources.

Ministers have also clarified timing constraints under which the Government is operating for the proposed sale of a minority shareholding in Mighty River Power in 2012, Finance Minister Bill English and State Owned Enterprises Minister Tony Ryall say.

“The Government wants to consider the Tribunal’s recommendations and the reasons behind them as part of its decision on the Mighty River Power share offer this year,” they say.

“As we have said, we want to act in good faith and carefully consider the Tribunal’s recommendations.

“However, we appreciate the Tribunal’s interim direction on 30 July did not make substantive findings on any of the issues it identified. So we have today asked the Tribunal to provide its recommendations and reasoning by 24 August.

“To proceed with a Mighty River share offer in 2012, ministers would need to make decisions by the first week of September.

“We would do this on the basis of all the information available to us at that time, including the Waitangi Tribunal’s memorandum of 30 July.

“However, ministers would welcome the opportunity to consider the Tribunal’s detailed findings, its recommendations and its reasoning, which we do not have at this stage.”

The Government has also clarified the timing constraints it faces in making decisions about proceeding with the Mighty River Power share offer in 2012.
“The Tribunal expressed a view that there would be minimal or no delay to the share offer if it reported on stage one of its inquiry by the end of September,” the ministers say.

“However, there are a limited number of windows each year in which a share offer can take place.

“Delaying a decision beyond the first week of September and losing the 2012 window for the offer would have significant consequences, not only for the Mighty River Power offer, but also in delaying the rest of the share offer programme over the next two years.

“We have said consistently that we would welcome timely recommendations from the Tribunal. With that in mind, we have asked the Tribunal whether it is able to provide its recommendations and supporting reasoning by 24 August, so ministers are able to consider them alongside all other relevant information.”

http://www.billenglish.co.nz/archives/834-Government-seeks-information-from-Tribunal.html

Government seeks information from Tribunal

(Media release from Bill English)

02 August 2012

The Government has written to the Waitangi Tribunal seeking further information on the Tribunal’s findings, recommendations and supporting reasoning with respect to its inquiry into national fresh water and geothermal resources.

Ministers have also clarified timing constraints under which the Government is operating for the proposed sale of a minority shareholding in Mighty River Power in 2012, Finance Minister Bill English and State Owned Enterprises Minister Tony Ryall say.

“The Government wants to consider the Tribunal’s recommendations and the reasons behind them as part of its decision on the Mighty River Power share offer this year,” they say.

“As we have said, we want to act in good faith and carefully consider the Tribunal’s recommendations.

“However, we appreciate the Tribunal’s interim direction on 30 July did not make substantive findings on any of the issues it identified. So we have today asked the Tribunal to provide its recommendations and reasoning by 24 August.

“To proceed with a Mighty River share offer in 2012, ministers would need to make decisions by the first week of September.

“We would do this on the basis of all the information available to us at that time, including the Waitangi Tribunal’s memorandum of 30 July.

“However, ministers would welcome the opportunity to consider the Tribunal’s detailed findings, its recommendations and its reasoning, which we do not have at this stage.”

The Government has also clarified the timing constraints it faces in making decisions about proceeding with the Mighty River Power share offer in 2012.
“The Tribunal expressed a view that there would be minimal or no delay to the share offer if it reported on stage one of its inquiry by the end of September,” the ministers say.

“However, there are a limited number of windows each year in which a share offer can take place.

“Delaying a decision beyond the first week of September and losing the 2012 window for the offer would have significant consequences, not only for the Mighty River Power offer, but also in delaying the rest of the share offer programme over the next two years.

“We have said consistently that we would welcome timely recommendations from the Tribunal. With that in mind, we have asked the Tribunal whether it is able to provide its recommendations and supporting reasoning by 24 August, so ministers are able to consider them alongside all other relevant information.”

http://www.billenglish.co.nz/archives/834-Government-seeks-information-from-Tribunal.html

Ruth Richardson – “NZ flunked the Super debate”

And not just Ruth Richardson.

Business leaders have been told in no uncertain terms that the Prime Minister will not break his word by raising the superannuation age.

Eighty-eight percent of more than 100 CEOs in an exclusive Herald survey said retirement funding should be raised to 67 from 65.

CEOs signalled in the Mood of the Boardroom Survey that the Key Government needed to tackle the eligibility age.

“The only real negative is the failure to address the superannuation debate when the public clearly gets it that something needs to change to maintain affordability,” said a CEO speaking under anonymity.

Jade Software chairman Ruth Richardson – a former National Party finance minister – said “New Zealand had flunked the Super debate”.

Navman chief executive Andrew Blakey said the post-election period “has been disappointing from Key”. He also said there had been numerous examples of poor political management pointing to “the complete head-in-the-sand approach to superannuation”.

Fifty per cent of CEOs also wanted the age-raising transition phase completed by 2017.

Twenty-three per cent said the phase-in should be completed by 2020 and 13 per cent opted for 2025.

But Bill English continues to hang tough:

Raising Super age not an option: English

Speaking at the Mood of the Boardroom breakfast in Auckland today, Finance Minister Bill English responded to calls from CEOs for National to reconsider its position on super.

English said John Key’s stance did not need to be explained again – “a politician made an undertaking that he’s not going to break”.

“If you don’t understand that then you don’t understand John Key. He said he wouldn’t raise it and so he’s not going to raise it.”

Jade Software chairman Ruth Richardson – a former National Party finance minister – said

“New Zealand had flunked the Super debate”.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers