All posts tagged David Cunliffe

Kava concerns in Psychoactive Substances Bill

NZ Herald chose to highlight concerns over kava being covered by the Psychoactive Substances Bill when it was introduced to Parliament yesterday.  This was an odd thing to focus on, it was one relatively minor point made in the speeches.

Bill seen as threat to kava

Culturally important substances such as kava could be captured by a law change which aims to stamp out harmful synthetic drugs, MPs have told Parliament.

Labour MP for Mana Kris Faafoi said it was unclear whether the law would ban or limit the sale of kava crops, used in a traditional drink consumed at Pacific Island ceremonies and gatherings. Kava contained psychoactive substances and could have a sedative effect.

Mr Faafoi said: “There is a lot of cultural significance to kava and kava ceremonies … for the Tongan community, for the Samoan community, and for the Fijian community. It is a serious issue.”

From Faafoi’s speech in Parliament:

KRIS FAAFOI: There is nothing in this bill to say that kava may not be included, so I believe that that is one of the issues. And Sam Lotu-Iiga will be interested in this, because he is never shy of an ‘ava ceremony. So if you read the bill—

Hon Maurice Williamson: It covers synthetic. It covers synthetic only.

KRIS FAAFOI: If you read the bill and clause 9, “Meaning of psychoactive substance”, it does not say anywhere in that part of the bill that it is just synthetic substances. So that is something that I think needs to be addressed at the select committee.

David Cunliffe was the only other MP to raise the issue:

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I also wish to just briefly record as a member of Parliament with a large Pacific Island community in my electorate the sensitivity around the issue of kava taking. It is a traditional substance, it is part of traditional routines, and we will want assurance from—

Hon Peter Dunne: Wrong bill. The natural products bill covers it.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Well, we will wait for the Minister to go on record when he is in the chair, and we look forward to that. We will want to have assurances from the Government that traditional cultural practices will not be inappropriately affected by this legislation

From the Bill:

Clause 9 defines a psychoactive substance as a substance, mixture,
preparation, article, device, or thing that is capable of inducing a
psychoactive effect in an individual who uses the psychoactive sub-
stance. Clause 9(c) specifically excludes controlled drugs (as speci-
fied or described in Schedule 1, 2, or 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act
1975), precursor substances (as specified or described in Schedule 4
of that Act), medicines, herbal remedies, dietary supplements, and
food from the definition. Alcohol and tobacco products are also gen-
erally excluded from the definition of psychoactive substance unless
the alcohol or tobacco product contains a psychoactive substance.
In addition, clause 9(b)(ii) and (c)(ix) provide that the definition in-
cludes or excludes a substance, mixture, preparation, article, device,
or thing that is capable of inducing a psychoactive effect in an indi-
vidual that is declared, by the Governor-General by Order in Council
made under clause 81, to be or not be a psychoactive substance for
the purposes of the Bill.

There is more detail in Psychoactive Substances Bill – download PDF (1.2MB)

(c) does not include—

(iv) a herbal remedy (as defined in section 2(1) of the
Medicines Act 1981):
(v) a dietary supplement (as defined in regulation 2A 10
of the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985):
(vi) any food (as defined in section 2 of the Food Act
1981):
(ix) a substance, mixture, preparation, article, device,
or thing that is, or that is of a kind or belonging to 25
a class that is, declared by the Governor-General
by Order in Council made under section 81 not
to be a psychoactive substance for the purposes
of this Act.

Kava isn’t specifically mentioned but it seems obvious the intent of the bill is to not cover natural substances like kava and ‘ava.  Perhaps it is something that needs to be clarified in the legislation, unless it is already adequately covered by one or more of the above exceptions. It should be given appropriate attention in the committee stage.

 

 

by Pete George on April 10, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 10, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/10/kava-concerns-in-psychoactive-substances-bill/

Herald bursts Cunliffe’s bullshit bubble

Today’s NZ Herald editorial bursts David Cunliffe’s bullshit bubble.

Point scoring outbursts will not solve tax conundrum

Labour’s revenue spokesman, David Cunliffe, was hardly ploughing new ground when he accused Apple, the world’s biggest tech company, of failing to meet its tax obligations in New Zealand.

The issue has become a magnet for opportunist politicians eager to score easy points. Multinationals like Facebook, Starbucks and Google have all faced similar criticism, not least in Britain and Australia, for structuring their global businesses to minimise tax payments.

This has prompted the OECD to call for a worldwide crackdown on such behaviour. But it knows, as surely does Mr Cunliffe, that the situation is about far more than simplistic accusations.

Cunliffe had a wee burst of typical Labour politicking, and he wasn’t poughing new ground, he was following similar lines to what his Revenue spokesperson predecessor David Clark had said. And notably both had proven unaware that tax is calculated on profits, not revenue, a fairly basic mistake for spokespeople on Revenue.

Perhaps Cunliffe thoutht that following the example of a new rising start MP was his best way of getting back into favour in Labour.

The source of the current problem is that international tax rules have not kept pace with this change. So it is hardly surprising that sophisticated multinationals have chosen to take advantage of the law as it is, not as it ideally might be. They have, for example, become expert in shifting profits between their firms based in different countries.

 None of this is illegal. But that has not deterred populist politicians.

But trying to be populist has an adverse effect on credibility for spokespeople.

Before Mr Cunliffe’s outburst, the response in New Zealand had been rather more considered. A joint Treasury and Inland Revenue officials’ report, released last December, put the issue in perspective. It pointed out that traditional exporters of goods and services did not pay income tax on their products in the country where the products were consumed. T

“Since the bulk of what these companies do in terms of programming, designing websites, running servers and selling advertising space is done overseas, New Zealand, like other countries, may have very limited taxing rights,” the report said.

It is also notable that New Zealand’s corporate tax take is near the top end of the OECD range, bettered only by Australia, Norway and Luxembourg.

The first priority, therefore, should be to ensure the tax base is being actively protected. Nonetheless, New Zealand is also, quite rightly, taking part in OECD talks that aim to deliver a comprehensive action plan to beat tax avoidance.

The problem, as Revenue Minister Peter Dunne says, is that many multinationals are not paying substantial tax anywhere.

To some degree, therefore, this is a global problem that will require a global response. The source of profits may have to be redefined. But while this is being thrashed out – over of years, rather than months, because of the complexity of the issue – it will doubtless continue to present fertile ground for populist politics.

Cunliffe did go quite after his “outburst” – unlike some within the current Labour caucus he seems smart enough to learn from mistakes. Maybe his next attempts will show more thought and knowledge of the realities of the issues he is talking about.

There is nothing to gain attacking the Government when you shoot your credibility in the foot.

UPDATE:’ Eddie’ at The Standard also comments on this in Granny Herald: Cunliffe wrong to be right.

(And appears to have read this post, or at least the Revenue versus Profit message has gotten through).

David Cunliffe’s little helper?

by Pete George on April 2, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 2, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/02/nz-herald-on-cunliffe-outbursts/

Auckland based Labour activist – “Labour is best to lose”

A comment on Labour problems by AucklandBasedLabourActivist on the Labour’s Three factions thread at The Standard:

Thank you TS for this. The last time I read this site was in 2009. A few caucus members and committed MP followers (ie Young Labour ‘hacks’) on my Facebook feed constantly degrade the contributions of this blog, and tell us (active party folk) that it’s not worth reading. Well, after seeing a comment from an MP on Facebook tonight…I decided to have a look.

After reading this it sums up so much about why, as a long time (and previously senior) party official, I feel so disillusioned with Labour’s internal politics.

This sums up why Labour is best to lose the next election, than win it. And it’s incredibly hard to say that, but the reality stands that under David Shearer’s leadership are individuals who are effectively holding the party to ransom due to their own vendettas against individuals and their own personal ambitions. It’s insidious and it must stop now.

I am seeing countless people leave in my Auckland community shifting to the Greens or disengaging completely because of the toxic attitude and behavior of MPs like Darien Fenton, Clare Curran, but very much led by Grant Robertson (people don’t realise it at face value), Annette King, Trevor Mallard, Phil Goff and co.

Their behavior at the 2012 conference sums up their own ambitions. For their own hatred of David Cunliffe and fighting for their own personal political careers, they are prepared to tear apart the Labour Party, disrespect party members, manipulate long time activists and union affiliate members for their own political game.

For the likes of Darien Fenton. The fact she’s come onto this forum shows her poor political judgement, but most particularly it shows she’s worried. She is very quickly losing credibility amongst her own core Labour support (from what I’m told, largely because of her antics at the Labour Party conference where she tried to manipulate union affiliates members and significantly disrespected affiliate leadership).

Darien knows that this blog post exposes the realities of Labour’s internal situation.

There are activists on social media saying this is satirical, saying this post is wacky and completely loony. Well, again, as a disillusioned former senior party official, it’s hard to write this so publicly, but this blog tells it for what it is. For activists to simply ignore this and say it’s far from reality, shows they are so stuck in their own (mostly Wellington) political bubble and interested in their own agendas than the Party as a whole.

The bottom line however is that Labour need to change considerably in order for us to win the next election. The careerists need a slap in the face and Grant Robertson needs to stop holding the party back while he lines up the numbers in his favour.

by Pete George on March 26, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 26, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/26/auckland-based-labour-activist-labour-is-best-to-lose/

Faction fight – on Little (and Cunliffe and Shearer)

Amongst the reignited faction fight at The Standard are some interesting bits of insight – @lee commented on Andrew Little, plus comments on David Cunliffe and David Cunliffe:

I wonder whether Little will turn out to be the prime beneficiary of all this, rather than Robertson: Little appears to have come out of it all as the grey man, with nobody sure what he thinks and being relatively unscathed.

I read the division as a simple reflection of the fact that the majority of caucus think Cunliffe is a wanker with an uncontrollable ego, who would be hell to work with as leader – i.e. they don’t think he has leadership skills; think Kevin Rudd without the Mandarin.

The thing that the parliamentary Cunliffe supporters almost all have in common is this: a perception they are shirkers and/or incompetents. A couple of them, Cunliffe included, just have poor personal relationships inside caucus and know that Cunliife being leader is the only shot they have of ever being in Cabinet.

I am continually amazed that people think Cunliffe is Left and that nobody touting him as the solution has ever seemed to pause publicly to ask how he went from one of the most economically rightwing members of the last government to the doyenne of the activist left of the Party?

This is a protege of Helen Third Way Clark we’re talking about, an admirer of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton: with all that comes with it, including (and especially) triangulation. This is a man who lives outside his electorate in Herne Bay(!) instead stooping to living in, say, Titirangi or Piha.

The positives around Shearer are that he is a very likable and good man, and a gifted leader (albeit not a natural politician) who does not shy away from and deals with internal conflict in robust manner, and who thrives under pressure. Shearer’s ego is well under control – it’s not like he thinks he’s an awesome public speaker, for instance.

It’s not about left or right, it’s about personalities: the party would be healthier if it were about the former. I think if the Cunliffe crowd were removed, then the cleavages would be far more ideological and better for the Party and NZ.

The Fan Club replied:

I have heard versions of that ranging from Little was playing two positions through to he just didn’t push the affiliates very hard. I don’t buy the claim he was pushing the unions towards 40%, but I do think he probably didn’t waste much capital on that.

He was still publicly pro-Shearer, no matter what was going on behind the scenes.

And Colonial Viper added:

Now that you’ve detailed Cunliffe’s adherence to 3rd way politics, his supposed history on the “Right Wing” (lol) and his being an admirer of the likes of Clinton and Blair…

Please explain to us – what is Shearer’s stance on political economics? Which political leaders does he admire and why?

In his Labour’s three factions post Eddie placed Little in the Cunliffe faction, but also commented:

Andrew Little is a bit of wild card here, while his politics are firmly left you can’t count him on him voting for any one particular faction.

Anne:

Andrew little has mana and respect across the board.

But from The Fan Club:

Little’s pretty well known to be doing the work for Shearer.

He wasn’t richly rewarded in the recent reshuffle, being placed at 19 in Shearer’s pecking order (compared to fellow rookie David Clark at 12).

Jim Davis:

If you think Little is ‘doing Shearer’s work’ then you’re woefully misinformed. By all accounts he’s playing with a very straight bat and trying to avoid getting embroiled in factionalism. I’m not convinced it’s a winning strategy, but it’s the one he seems to have chosen.

The Fan Club:

Yeah, Little plays it straight to a large extent, because apart from anything else he’s got his own future to consider. But he was definitely working against Cunliffe at conference.

Daveo:

Little’s politics are strongly left. He’s very much his own man though and doesn’t easily fit into any of the factions. What is known is that he’s supported Cunliffe from time to time, including in the initial leadership race against Shearer. Have to agree with the post though, all you could say is he’s a wild card with Left tendencies.

Most of those comments are from what appear to be Labour Party insiders who are non-regular commenters at The Standard.

The consensus seems to be that Andrew Little is not strongly associated with any faction, and that he is playing a long game. He knows he is too new to parliament to be a contender for leader this term. It appears that he may be working hard to set himself up for putting himself forward when the time is right.

The inexperienced Shearer risk has created more problems than it has solved for Labour. If Labour fail to be able to form the next Government it is widely thought that Grant Robertson will step up, and it will still be too soon for Little in early 2015.

Little will be trying to line himself up for the next opportunity after that. In ther meantime it looks like he is trying to avoid getting offside with any of Labour’s factions.

by Pete George on March 26, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 26, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/26/faction-fight-on-little-and-cunliffe-and-shearer/

The Standard – Labour faction fight

Yesterday ‘Eddie’ stirred up the Labour leadership and factional issues again by posting Labour’s three factions at The Standard.

It’s easy to be suspicious of Eddie’s motives, but regardless of what they might be posts like this at The Standard attract non-regular commenters and ignite comment that can be quite revealing.

The Labour caucus response is especially interesting. At the time of the Cunliffe conference “coup” attempt “The Fan Club” appeared at The Standard, to wave a caucus stick, then disappeared when that fizzled out.

The Fan Club has shown up on this thread too, to take the fight back to the Standardistas. While The Fan Club often presents as an arrogant arsehole they are also revealing, sometimes inadvertently (ego driven). But this is a good summary of what Eddie’s post may be about:

This is basically the faction fight: a rather unholy alliance of Auckland based Clark-era apparatchiks who never quite made it and far-left unionists who’ve filtered back in as the Alliance has died off against the rest of the party. Fortunately, the rest of the party is winning.

It was Cunliffe that started the fight at conference and when he inevitably lost he can only blame himself.

That describes a prominent Standard core well, a core that was very active in promoting Cunliffe’s chances before last November’s conference. One from that core, lprent (Lynn Prentice), posted a pertinent response to The Fan Club:

Looks to me like a pyrrhic “victory”. The type where the battle is won which merely ensures that the war is lost.

That could well be correct. Labour’s current leadership factions may have won the recent internal battles but they are losing long time activist support, and they are failing to inspire the wider electorate – in fact they are failing to even look adequately competent.

And while congratulating themselves on their internal victories they remain blind to the damage being done to Labour on the outside.

An exchange between Standard regulars Pascal’s Bookie and mickysavage, and head office heavy The Fan Club, says much:

PB: The fact that connected LP people seem to think that this post is the problem to be publicly attacked, rather than seeing it as a symptom of a problem to be identified and fixed, is yet another symptom of the problem.

TFC: I like this post. It sets out pretty clearly the people who’re doing a good job and the people who’re off in the middle of nowhere fucking around. Of course, Eddie & MS & so-on are fucking around in the fantasyland where one day they’ll win the faction fight they keep begging to have, but the fact that they are posting this kind of crap on the internet is a pretty good indicator they never will. If you have the numbers you use them, if you don’t you talk about them.

MS: Fan Club … nice to see you are back. I haven’t seen you for a while, the last time was to launch another anti Cunliffe diatribe.

TFC: Yeah, I feel that given you guys can’t seem to accept that you lost someone has to occasionally drop by and remind you of the crushing defeats you get whenever you manage to push things to a crisis.

PB: Thanks for proving my point so precisely FC.

TFC: What, you mean the point that people who want a faction fight get one? Yeah, that point’s a good one.

PB: Nope. The point that “connected LP people seem to think that this post is the problem to be publicly attacked, rather than seeing it as a symptom of a problem to be identified and fixed”.

There wouldn’t be posts like this if there wasn’t a problem.
The fact this post exists, and has so many comments, shows how shit the leadership team is.

And here you are, doing what?

Nothing good for the LP as far as I can see.

Once again there is no sign that Labour’s leadership understands the depth of dissatisfaction and dysfunction within the party.

If they want to learn a lesson about where their blindness and arsehole-like arrogance might get them they could look across the Tasman at Labor’s panic and mayhem leading towards an election. But they have shown no sign of understanding bigger picture realities.

All that’s been missing from the Labour’s three factions thread is Te Reo Putake trying to convince the Standardistas that a Labour (+Green+NZFirst) victory is a virtually assured next year, all the troops should do is shut up and dutifully support their leader and their party.

A suspiciously similar new name, TeRuhePotae, tried similar:

Can you guys stop ruining my Labour Party with petty name calling, list making, and posturing. How about you all focus on attacking the Tories and bringing a much needed change of Government to this country.

A response to that from lprent:

At present the most effective way to do that appears to be to vote Green until Labour sorts its crap out in caucus. At least the Green policies appear to be coherent, not as badly poll/focus group driven, and their caucus seems to largely work together. Well at least they do when you compare their performance against the dysfunctional and incompetent state of Labour MP’s both individually and even more so in caucus.

Basically, I’m havng a really hard time seeing the current Labour caucus being able to run an effective government without some other party providing some ideas to give them a backbone. Sure Labour would be better than the Nats. But that really isn’t that hard. And I really don’t think that choosing between incompetent blowhard conservatives and less incompetent but incoherent and vague that is the current Labour caucus is the kind of aspiration I have for my vote.

And incidentally, it is my Labour party as well and has been since 1981 when I first voted for them, and since 1984 when I first door knocked for them, or 1992 when I first started to actively campaign for them. So it will be a bit of a change next year will be the first time I revert back to the Values party I last voted for in 1978.

Problem is that I see fuckall party at present in the Labour party and far too many MPs who’d I have a real problem saying what they stand for. I don’t even haven’t agree with their ideas – I never really did with Helen Clark’s caucus. I’d just like them to show that they have some frigging ideas that aren’t half-arsed and that they have thought through. In other words,that aren’t like their quarter acre dream houses for $300k in Auckland nonsense.

Labour’s head office may think their internal party criticism is just “a rather unholy alliance of Auckland based Clark-era apparatchiks who never quite made it and far-left unionists who’ve filtered back in as the Alliance” – but their problems run much wider than that.

I know a number of people outside political insider circles who would normally have been sympathetic to Labour, and sometimes have voted for Labour.

A very common response to Shearer on TV or another half arsed petty attack from a Labour MP is a rolling of eyes and turning off – turning off Labour and turning off politics.

I started looking at how to take an active part in politics in 2009, after the Clark Government had lost. I approached some Labour MPs, offering some input from the outside of the party. I naively thought I could contribute to them rebuilding their party.

But they didn’t want new views and opinions. They wanted quiet servants who would support and praise an out of touch party that resisted looking forward. I decided I didn’t want to be a part of that, and Labour went on to keep repeating past mistakes under Goff, which failed. They then chose a leader who has proven to be no more a fresh old face on the same old party.

By the look of The Standard yesterday Labour’s leadership still has go no idea how to win a war, they are too obsessed with battles that are bonkers.

The Standard may have re-sparked factional fighting within Labour in the blogosphere bubble, but this is just one symptom of much wider and more deepseated problems in New Zealand’s political landscape that Labour’s leadership seem determined to keep ignoring.

by Pete George on March 26, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 26, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/26/the-standard-labour-faction-fight/

“Labour’s three factions” and talk of coups

Last week Chris Trotter alluded to three Labour factions in a satirical post at The Daily Blog – Lies, Damned Lies and Imagined Conversations.

“So, now the Labour caucus is divided into three, roughly equal groups, Goff’s and King’s rear-guard of has-beens and Beagle Boys – with Mr Mumbles as their figurehead. David’s loyal ten, and Robertson’s cast of the young and the restless. You must have at least one of the other factions, plus your own, to mount a successful coup.”

‘Eddie’ at The Standard has expanded on this theme in a post at The Standard – Labour’s Three Factions. Eddie knows about coups, he was a participant in the blog side of the supposed Cunliffe conference coup last November.

Broadly speaking though, Labour’s three factions are as follows:

The Right
David Shearer (leader)
Phil Goff
Annette King
David Parker
Clayton Cosgrove
Shane Jones
Damien O’Connor
Kris Fa’afoi
Ross Robertson

(total 9)

Within this faction is most of Labour’s experience, and it shows. While only a small minority in caucus, these guys know how to organise, scare, and run a solid internal political game. But while they’re good at the internal game, they’re completely shit at national politics as the last four years has shown.

Goff, King, and Cosgrove are the core, and they’re currently running the show. Fa’afoi seems an odd fit here, much newer and younger than the others; it could be because he was taken under King’s wing.

The Right hold five front bench positions.

The Left
David Cunliffe (leader)
Nanaia Mahuta
Louisa Wall
Sue Moroney
Su’a William Sio
Lianne Dalziel
Parekura Horomia
Rajen Prasad
Rino Tirikatene
Carol Beaumont
Raymond Huo
Moana Mackey
Iain Lees-Galloway
Andrew Little

This is the largest and most diverse faction. You’ll find most of caucus’ Maori and women here. They haven’t done well with organising internally, and it shows because they’re currently out in the cold. But a lot of members believe this is real Labour – there is not a single former parliamentary staffer in these ranks.

Andrew Little is a bit of wild card here, while his politics are firmly left you can’t count him on him voting for any one particular faction. The Left hold no front bench positions.

(total 14)

The Careerist Left
Grant Robertson (leader)
Chris Hipkins
Jacinda Ardern
Phil Twyford
Clare Curran
Maryan Street
David Clark
Trevor Mallard
Darien Fenton
Megan Woods
Ruth Dyson

(total 11)

Of the 11 MPs in the Careerist Left, 7 are former parliamentary staffers. This group has some good people but there’s a strong thread of personal advancement running through it, which is why they’ve brokered a deal with the Right.

Robertson is wary of the ‘Left’ faction, because he doesn’t think he’ll do as well out of a deal with Cunliffe.

Many of his backers have made the same decision, and they’ve been duly rewarded in the reshuffle. Mallard and Dyson are in this faction by accident – they simply don’t like Cunliffe.

Street is an odd fit with this faction, and no one I’ve talked to can explain what she’s doing there.

None of the factions by themselves have the numbers to control caucus, which is why the Right has built an alliance with Careerist Left. That’s who’s in charge now.

Eddie’s post has more detail – there is likely to be a lot of discussion on this at The Standard so keep a watch there, it has already started.

While open to debate this is very interesting – especially as it has been claimed vehemently at The Standard in the past that Eddie is just one individual author expressing his opinion. Like…

As for the Left faction, you may be wondering why they failed to trigger a leadership vote in February when their faction had one more vote than they needed.

It was simple bluffing. Moana Mackey and Iain Lees-Galloway voted Shearer because they thought he had the votes, and quite sensibly didn’t want to be punished by the Right – though it doesn’t look like it did either of them any good in the reshuffle.

How would an individual blogger at The Standard know exactly who voted for whom in a supposedly secret ballot? Note that it has been reported that Labour Whip Chris Hipkins was added to the secret ballot vote counting brigade ath the last minute.

Why has first Chris Trotter and then ‘Eddie’ trotted out this Labour faction speculation? It could be that Trotter’s post prompted Eddie to expand on the theme.

It may or may not be a coincident this is happening just after another major Shearer embarrassment for Labour.

Both Trotter and Eddie support Cunliffe replacing Shearer as party leader.

Is this an attempt at stirring up another coup attempt? Or just good healthy discussion of Labour’s dirty linen in public?

Keywords: popcorn, The Standard

by Pete George on March 25, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 25, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/25/labours-three-factions-and-talk-of-coups/

Shane Jones – a fundamental split “until it’s all over”

In an interview on Marae Investigates Shane Jones was asked about the leadership problems in the Maori Party. He said (subtitle translated from Maori):

In politics if you are fundamentally split it won’t be long until it’s all over.

Jones also mentioned that David Shearer hadn’t apologised to him for initiating the Bill Liu inquiry – which Jones said found no wrongdoing on his part, which denies clear criticisms of him.

This suggests there could be still a bit of a split between Shearer and Jones.

But it’s interesting when talking of the three way split in the Maori Party to also consider Jones’ own Labour Party, which seems to have significant split issues, with three Shearer, Robertson and Cunliffe factions.

Shearer+Robertson currently have an alliance but it is often suggested that Robertson is simply waiting for the right moment to make a leadership bid.

Camp Shearer is obviously split from camp Cunliffe.

Will it ever be possible for Robertson to form an alliance with Cunliffe? There have been suggestions that Robertson is waiting until after the Marriage bill has completed it’s passage through Parliament. Or that a leadership bid will be made later this year if the polls haven’t significantly improved. There are many rumours.

Or are Labour’s splits too fundamental. Will it be long “until it’s all over”?

by Pete George on March 24, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 24, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/24/shane-jones-a-fundamental-split/

Cunliffe on GST on foreign purchases

How low would David Cunliffe propose dropping the current $400 no-GST threshold for foreign purchases? The implication is very low, book price low, although it’s not clear whether it would go as low as David Farrar is suggesting – ebook and iTune low, which would be a dollar or two low.

I have obtained a recording of what David Cunliffe said about the GST threshold on foreign purchases – his explanation of his comments and David Farrar’s interpretation have been different.

Tom Pullar-Strecker reported in Retailers in GST counter-attack (Dominion Post) about comments made at a seminar at Victoria University last Wednesday:

Labour revenue spokesman David Cunliffe said a low threshold for charging GST on overseas purchases would stop the Government “subsidising foreign commerce” and was a “no-brainer”.

David Farrar picked up on this at Kiwiblog in a post Retailers need to stop trying to tax us online

Oh wonderful. Make sure everyone knows this. Labour Party policy is to tax your online purchases more. Buy a book from Amazon, and Labour will hold it up at the border until you pay the Government an extra 15% of the price.

Will Labour also block itunes? We can’t have people downloading music and not paying GST on it. So to implement their policy they’ll have to block itunes in NZ, and only allow people to purchase from a NZ located online retailer.

Labour grandstanded on the carpark tax (yet never had a clear policy on it), but have now trumped that with their e-tax. I look forward to detailed Labour policy on what they would reduce the threshold to so we know how many of our online purchases they plan to stop at the border.

I tweeted David Cunliffe asking “what sort of lower GST threshold do you suggest for overseas purchases?” – he responded:

@DavidCunliffeMP

TP-S writes up a question as a statement and DPF goes ape… Calm down folks there is more work to be done on that question.

In another post at Kiwiblog, Labour’s iTax, David Farrar further implied that Labour would apply GST to small foreign purchases like ebooks and itunes. That would have to cover purchases of just a dollar or two, implying an extremely low or no threshold.

I was interested to find out how much Farrar could be exaggerating, or Cunliffe could be fudging his intent.

I have obtained a recording of Cunliffe’s comments, it’s a poor quality recording but key phrases can be heard clearly enough:

Just following up on John’s question, given that we’re talking about a a smaller picture here, which is the GST collection…

…is this not a no brainer, why don’t we have a single point low threshold, and as John said, stop subsidising foreign commerce…

…surely it’s a no brainer, why hasn’t it been done before?

Cunliffe is correct, he does ask a question – but in twice also saying “a no brainer” there is a clear implication that Cunliffe favours a lower threshold.

How low? He has avoided answering that. But the research being presented at the seminar was sponsored by Booksellers NZ. This implies a much lower threshold than the current $400.

‘The Rise in Foreign Retailing and New Zealand’s GST Exemption: Time for a Change?

Speaker: Summer Scholarship Research Assistant William Steel, with an introduction by Lincoln Gould, CEO of Booksellers NZ (sponsors of this research project).

Abstract:

This presentation will report on results from a recent project evaluating the economic and revenue costs of this distortion. It will argue that, by diverting domestic spending offshore, the government not only misses out on GST revenue, but also loses out on some company and PAYE tax revenue and is distorting consumer choices. But there are significant collection cost issues when trying to levy GST on low value purchases from foreign retailers. We discuss of a number of options to collect such GST revenue if New Zealand’s foreign GST-free threshold was reduced, and outline how a cost-benefit analysis could be made.

In the past two decades the New Zealand retail market has undergone a rapid transformation. What was traditionally bought in stores is now increasingly being bought online. As a result many goods purchased from foreign websites, valued at up to $400 each, legitimately avoid paying 15% GST. Such an exemption creates a distortion that favours overseas retailers over their New Zealand based competitors

Obviously there is no Labour policy on this at this stage, Farrar is over-egging that aspect.

But Cunliffe seems to clearly favour a much lower “single point low threshold“. As opposition spokesperson on Revenue it is his job to investigate and consider changes like this.

It’s difficult to know whether Cunliffe was poli-pandering to an audience or if he would seriously consider a change to a very low (or no) GST threshold.

Cunliffe recently criticised the proposed car-park tax, in part because of the compliance cost, some claims where that it would exceed the tax take. There are major issues of compliance costs for small online purchases being delivered by opost, or delivered over the Internet.

It will be interesting to see the specifics of Labour policy on this – should they decide on a clear policy.

—

Reference article and links to research:

Booksellers NZ – International e-commerce: the downsides for NZ retail and tax revenue

A Proposed Pathway towards future reform of New Zealands de minimis threshold (opens to PDF)

E-Commerce and its effect upon the Retail Industry and Government Revenue

by Pete George on March 24, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 24, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/24/cunliffe-on-gst-on-foreign-purchases/

Labour on GST on overseas purchases

Retailers are lobbying the Government to address competiton between local sales and buying from overseas by changing the GST rules on overseas purchases, as reported on Stuff in Retailers in GST counter-attack

Retailers are stepping up efforts to close a “loophole” that allows GST-free purchases of overseas goods costing less than $400.

The Booksellers Association yesterday released research commissioned from a Victoria University “think-tank” which suggested slashing or abolishing the threshold altogether, and that overseas retailers could be given the choice of collecting the tax on behalf of Customs.

Association chief executive Lincoln Gould said the failure to impose GST on personal imports represented “a serious and growing hurdle” for local booksellers and other retailers.

David Farrar at Kiwiblog argued against this in Retailers need to stop trying to tax us online. He also picked up on a comment about Labour:

Labour revenue spokesman David Cunliffe said a low threshold for charging GST on overseas purchases would stop the Government “subsidising foreign commerce” and was a “no-brainer”.

Farrar commented:

Oh wonderful. Make sure everyone knows this. Labour Party policy is to tax your online purchases more. Buy a book from Amazon, and Labour will hold it up at the border until you pay the Government an extra 15% of the price.

Will Labour also block itunes? We can’t have people downloading music and not paying GST on it. So to implement their policy they’ll have to block itunes in NZ, and only allow people to purchase from a NZ located online retailer.

Labour grandstanded on the carpark tax (yet never had a clear policy on it), but have now trumped that with their e-tax. I look forward to detailed Labour policy on what they would reduce the threshold to so we know how many of our online purchases they plan to stop at the border.

This appears to be based on an inaccurate report. Cunliffe on Twitter:

‏@DavidCunliffeMP

TP-S writes up a question as a statement and DPF goes ape… Calm down folks there is more work to be done on that question.

(TP-S is Tom Pullar-Strecker, the journalist who wrote the article.)

That was in response to a direct question “what sort of lower GST threshold do you suggest for overseas purchases?”

It certainly doesn’t sound like a Labour party position any more than “presented the research to ministers, including Finance Minister Bill English and Revenue Minister Peter Dunne, and had been promised they would seek advice from officials” is a Government position on changing the threshold.

Cunliffe only took on the Revenue spokesperson role for Labour since the recent reshuffle.

He is well aware of how compliance costs can kill tax tweaks, he was vocal in the recent carpark Fringe Benefit Tax debate. New spokespeople seem to have a free rein to oppose Government consultations but could be forgiven for taking a bit longer to propose alternatives.

by Pete George on March 21, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 21, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/21/labour-on-gst-on-overseas-purchases/

When a tree falls in Labour’s New Lynn forest…

…does anyone hear anything?

In November after the Labour Party conference and David Cunliffe’s demotion his electorate committee laid a complaint with the Labour Council:

Statement by the New Lynn Labour Electorate Committee
November 21, 2012
The New Lynn Electorate Committee of the Labour Party, at a special meeting called today, voted unanimously to express its full confidence in its Member of Parliament David Cunliffe.   While acknowledging that this decision was within the prerogative of the party leader, the LEC noted David’s demotion with regret.
The LEC also resolved to raise with the New Zealand Council of the Labour Party concerns about recent public statements made by Labour’s Senior Whip, and the leaking of confidential caucus information by unnamed MPs following Tuesday’s emergency caucus meeting.
As these processes are now internal party matters we do not intend making further comment.
ENDS

This refers to an attack by Chris Hipkins on Cunliffe.  One News quoted Hipkins:

“David Cunliffe has been working for some time now to destabilise the current leadership. He worked to destabilise the last leadership. And I think it’s time to call him out on that”.

If you want a refresher see this Standard post by Shearer staffer Mike Smith – Keystone coups Mark 2 - where he wrote off any chance of an outcome:

There may be a complaint made to the Party, although they haven’t decided yet, and they haven’t yet thought about what grounds there may be. Doesn’t sound that solid to me – I’m not sure they have a toe to stand on let alone a foot.

Since then there has been silence, apart from occasional queries I’ve seen on The Standard. There was another query today from Anne:

What was the outcome to the New Lynn LEC’s formal complaint to the Labour Council over the treatment meted out to David Cunliffe last year? Has there even been an outcome or has the Labour hierarchy chosen to ignore it?

Greg Presland (who had been electorate spokesperson in November) replied:

I saw it but I am not at liberty to respond : (

Silence in the New Lynn Labour forest.

It seems that the matters will remain private between the New Lynn electorate committee and the Labour Council. That’s not surprising, but it won’t do anything to mend much of the damage that’s been done within the party.

If fallen trees are left alone they will rot. And there are other party roots that feel rotten over this.

Mike Smith had also said:

As is often the case with these matters, there is a silver lining in the clouds – in fact it may be a gold lining. When Parliament meets next Tuesday, there won’t be any taunts from National about Labour’s leadership. What National most feared has come about; a Labour caucus unified, and David Shearer as leader. Roll on 2014.

It’s only 2013 but I don’t think National are quite quaking in their boots yet. Pretending all is well when it obviously isn’t won’t fool the voters forever. Not even for 18 months.

by Pete George on March 18, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 18, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/18/when-a-tree-falls-in-labours-new-lynn-forest/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 78 other followers