All posts tagged Metiria Turei

Green reaction to MRP

After the Mighty River Power share price and buyer statistics were announced last night the Greens were active.

The official word from Russel Norman:

Mighty River con revealed

The Mighty River sale has been shown to be a con on New Zealanders with less than 3 percent of Kiwis buying in and most of the shares going to corporates, Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman said today.

“The charade is over: ‘mum and dad’ New Zealanders haven’t bought the shares; the big finance institutions and foreign corporates have,” said Dr Norman.

“John Key’s talk of ‘mum and dad’ investors was a con – less than 3 percent of Kiwis have bought shares in Mighty River Power.

“The fact that Kiwi retail investors are having their allotments scaled back so National can sell shares to foreign corporates shows what a farce this has been.

“The multi-million dollar ad campaign has failed to con Kiwis into buying Mighty River, they want lower power prices instead.

“The supposed 440,000 pre-registered investors turned out to be a figment of John Key’s imagination. The number of retail investors is only half the number who bought into Contact and less than half of what Treasury forecast.

“Over two and a half times as many Kiwis have signed the petition calling for a referendum on asset sales as bought Mighty River shares – that tells you what Kiwis think of John Key’s asset sales.

“John Key has wasted as much as $100m on the sale of Mighty River. That’s nearly $1,000 per retail investor. It’s been a disaster. He should cancel the rest of the asset sales and focus on creating jobs for Kiwis, not payouts for financiers,” said Dr Norman.

Comparing the number of share buyers with the number of petition signers is ridiculous. Signing a piece of paper costs nothing and often spur of the moment, purchasing shares is a significant financial decision.

Greens were active on Twitter:

@metiria
@patrickgowernz and so 300,000 ‘fake’ registrations Will you report the MRP disaster like that too? Hmm?

@patrickgowernz
@metiria nope

@metiria
@patrickgowernz really? What a surprise.

It’s not a surprise, there is no indication there were anywhere near that many ‘fake’ registrations – many people who registered simply decided not to buy (like me) -  although there were obviously some:

@metiria
I was registered fraudulently at least twice, another MP 5 times. I complained to treasury & they wouldn’t fix the system

And ditto on fake claims of the scale of fake registrations from Russel Norman:

@RusselNorman
So only 113000 retail investors in MRP. So by Key’s logic there were 330,000 fake MRP registrations. Key the conartist

@RusselNorman
So by your logic, Key had 75% fake registrations @patrickgowernz? Will you run that line?

@patrickgowernz
nope

@RusselNorman
no surprise there Paddy.

And…

@RusselNorman
Nats have spent $1000 of taxpayer money per retail investor in MRP. 100000 investors for $100m. Nats waste public money yet again.

More pertinent is querying whether the cost of promoting the share float would have been returned in increased sales interest and value of the sales. That can’t easily be measured – but it would be relevant to compare the cost of promoting this with the cost of promoting other share floats.

The party line:

@NZGreens

Key’s ‘mum & dad investors’ line revealed as a con. Less than 3% of Kiwis bought Mighty River shares http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/mighty-river-con-revealed … stop the sales

@PeteDGeorge@ClintVSmith If that’s why people rejected MRP, it’s only a recognition that NZ Power will bring down prices to fair level

Fair time to announce a policy affecting power prices & excessive profits was before the sale. Not like Key’s secret GST rise

Mighty River sale cost up to $100m: brokers ~$50m, bonus shares ~$40m + ads, fees, etc. What a waste. Stop the asset sales.

No. Key has wasted $100 on a sale that makes no sense & Kiwis oppose. He should be working on jobs, poverty, & sustainability

Plus every single poll has shown a large majority oppose sales.

And the troops – Gareth Hughes:

@GarethMP

First asset sale is a total con. Despite spending millions on ads: less than 3% of Kiwis buying in & most of the shares going to corporates!

@Matt_Green sure, but excessive profits in the past should never be guaranteed into the future.

@Matt_Green yeah, I think many did that too. The Govt did sweeten the deal with taxpayer money.

Have a listen to my short speech on #NZPower today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zjWCjqi7nOk … Greens coming up with solutions while Govt focused on spying laws

@Matt_Green yeah, fair point. I dont think we ever had. We designed #NZPower if assets kept in Kiwis hands or flogged off.

MRP Share price $2.50. Asset sale costs $120m. Free share bribe $400m. Keeping assets Kiwi & delivering cheaper, cleaner power. Priceless.

 

Andrew Campbell:

@Andr3wCampbell

@patrickgowernz disaster for govt. way fewer than valid signatures on asset sales petition. Where are all the mums and dads buying?

@johnkeypm should apologise for the rort. How many fake registrations for MRP shares?

@CactusKate2 it was less than Govt said it would get and less than Treasury predicted. Worse than Contact original offer #epicfail

And Hey Clint doesn’t seem happy about it…

@stevenljoyce onyl 113,000? that’s a disaster. So much for ‘mum and dad’ investors

Only 113,000 ‘mum and dad’ investors in Mighty River. What a disaster. that’s half what Contact got. only a quarter of pre-registrations

@felixmarwick @katieabradford It’s the largest now because 2/3rds of Contact shareholders have sold. 113,000 is half Contact’s float number

@k8chap except that less than 3% of Kiwis have bought shares

@patrickgowernz guess the other 330,000 pre-registrations were fakes and false #Keycons Less than 3% of Kiwis have bought shares. Disaster

@VernonSmall Did the other 330,000 even exist? There were dozens fake Russel Normans. Less than 3% of NZers buy MRP, so much for ‘mum & dad’

@patrickgowernz what % of ownership is ‘mum and dad’? Sounds like most is institutional

@VernonSmall so they’re scaling Kiwis while selling shares to overseas corporates?

So much for ‘mum and dad’ investors. Nats are scaling back their investment to sell shares to overseas corporates

@hardsell @patrickgowernz because that would be a taxpayer subsidy, NZ Power gets rid of electric companies’ superprofits creates fair price

massive fail, 97% of Kiwis don’t buy MRP shares. Mr FixIt, Mr ForgetsIt, and Double Dipton f*ck up again @stevenljoyce

@CactusKate2 less than half what Treasury expected, half what Contact got 14yrs ago. So much for ‘mums and dads’ Most shares to institutions

@CactusKate2 what % of Kiwisaver savings are in MRP? What % of MRP do Kiwisaver funds own?

@patrickgowernz @metiria @GuyonEspiner so people who sign petition then move = fake. but 2 dozen Russel Normans pre-registered = real?

@thekiwicanary ‘mum and dad investors’ is Key’s term to make the asset sales more palatable. Hence my inverted commas. Take it up with him.

@sthnjeff would you have preferred the Greens kept their plan to lower power prices secret until in govt? Like Key did with GST?

@CactusKate2 That’s why I thought I’d ask you. #330000short

@patrickgowernz @RusselNorman mate, $100m spent on MRP sale, 113,000 retail investors that’s failure. Asset sales referendum is gonna happen

Hey, where was Key at the Mighty River sale announcement? This is his one economic policy. Such a disaster he wouldn’t front up. $100m waste

@thekiwicanary john key’s twitter account is @johnkeypm if you want to abuse him for calling you a ‘mum and dad’ investor #patronising

@kht27 @patrickgowernz that’s key lies. nz power means only fossil fuel plants affected by ets. Under nats ets, hydro owners get a windfall

@Garner_Live @liamdann @patrickgowernz treasury thought 250,000 would buy. We never imagined it would be this low. Thought at least 200,000

@duckky007 @kht27 @patrickgowernz why? NZ Power eliminates economic rents to hydrodam owners, they’re making those regardless of yr discount

@thekiwicanary @stevenljoyce shld they have kept their lower power price plan secret past election asJoyce & Key did w their sneak GST rise?

xxx

3 Comments
by Pete George on May 9, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 9, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/05/09/green-reaction-to-mrp/

Superprofits versus Supersocialism

Both ‘Superprofits’ and ‘Supersocialism’ are exaggerated terms, but the power debate – as much about ruling the country as about about electricity – has become a highly charged superdebate.

There is more at stake than whether we will get a few dollars off our power bills. It may be critical in deciding who runs the next government, and is in part an ideological battle between capitalism and socialism.

The stakes were raised yesterday when business groups issued a critical letter – PDF of letter – and NZ Herald reports in Power plan an ‘ambush’:

Ten business groups led by Business NZ yesterday issued an open letter to Labour and the Greens criticising the policy – which the two political parties argue may reduce power prices for industrial and commercial users – and have asked them to withdraw it.

The business groups said they were “particularly” concerned the policies would have a “chilling effect on investment across the entire economy”.

David Farrar and co. comment at Kiwiblog: Major Electricity Consumers ask Labour and Greens to drop their nationalisation policy.

Labour’s ‘Eddie’ at The Standard hasn’t addressed the letter directly but continues his campaign of trying to discredit critics in Why First NZ Capital wants you to keep paying too much for power and Why Brian Gaynor wants you to keep paying too much for power, with modest levels of discussion.

UPDATE: ‘Eddie’ has address this now in on Why Phil O’Reilly wants you to keep paying too much for power.

Labour MPs are distracted by Parekura Horomia’s tangi so have been quiet, although David Parker commented:

He said the letter “repeats the National Government’s scaremongering about investment”.

“The NZX stock exchange is up since the announcement. There is no investor flight or fear. It is irrational and damaging to markets and the New Zealand economy to claim there is.”

Parker was reported as saying he knew more about markets than Phil O’Reilly of BusinessNZ, and put out a media release attacking O’Reilly:

Phil O’Reilly open letter wrong on many counts – Parker

“The letter from Mr O’Reilly does not cure the current problems in the uncompetitive electricity market. Prices have increased since the independent report from Professor Wolack found $4.3 billion of overcharging. The system must be fixed.

“Currently super-profits are made on the back of our public resource – free water. This must be addressed if power bills are to be lowered. Mr O’Reilly again offers no effective solution.

“There are several other mistakes in the letter. There are no subsidies involved. It is remedying overcharging and will increase retail competition, and enable new entrants into generation.

Mr O’Reilly has made no effort to contact Labour to discuss this policy. If he had some of his errors would have been avoided,” says David Parker.

That’s ironic considering Parker’s policy was released without any effort to discuss it with business groups.

And according to Whale Oil Labour corrected Parker’s original release:

How embarrassing

Correction: at Labour’s request this replaces the earlier press release on this matter.

As for the Greens, Russel Norman is still overseas on leave, and Clint seems to have muzzled Gareth Hughes, but Clint himself fought back yesterday:

Clint Smith ‏@ClintVSmith 

Biz NZ’s extraordinary attack on Green/Labour plan to lower power prices shows they know it’s popular & it’ll work, ending rentier profits

@georgedarroch it’s pretty telling, eh? They’re advocating for rentier companies’ ‘right’ to parasite off real NZ businesses and families

Familiar parrot lines.  Clint later tries to talk down a poll result (see Roy Morgan poll bounce)…

Clint Smith ‏@ClintVSmith 

latest Roy Morgan. did 1/17 NZers switch left to right in last fortnight or just normal statistical variation w Nat trend down?

…but the swing against Greens and Labour should worry him. But the business letter didn’t seem to worry Metiria Turei in Greens respond to Business New Zealand open letter:

The Green Party will not be withdrawing its popular plan to reduce power prices for Kiwi families and businesses, Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei said today.

“The NZ Power plan proposed by the Greens and Labour will lower power prices for Kiwi families and businesses. That will mean warmer homes, a healthier population, and more jobs. We are declining Business New Zealand’s request that we withdraw this popular plan,” said Mrs Turei.

“The Greens make no apologies for wanting to get power prices down to a fair level. Business New Zealand and National seem to think that electricity companies’ profits matter more than lower power bills for families and businesses.

Turei continued with familiar talking points, and concluded:

“The Greens are a democratic party and we won’t have our policy choices dictated to us by big business. We will make our policy choices based on what is best for New Zealand, its people, its economy, and its environment. NZ Power fits the bill,” said Mrs Turei.

The claim “based on what is best for New Zealand” is obviously just a Green view, they often seem to think their own convictions are uncontestable. But there are many opinions about what might be best for the country.

I also saw comments on Twitter suggesting that as National wouldn’t discuss with Greenpeace so why should Greens discuss with business groups.

I think when it comes to the election crunch voters will be thinking more about economic and business issues in New Zealand than they will worry about whaling in remote oceans.

The power debate will continue, largely between capitalists – National and business interests – versus what is seen as Labour backing more socialist Green policies.

A super heated battle between Superprofits and Supersocialism.

2 Comments
by Pete George on May 3, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 3, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/05/03/superprofits-versus-supersocialism/

Labour/Green economics – denial or ignorance?

David Farrar points out A bizarre argument made by Danyl at Dim Post – Chart of the day, dead Wood edition, which graphs the share market since the Labour-Green power policy announcements. Farrar comments:

I’m amazed Danyl is trying to argue that as the overall sharemarket is up, then the destruction of value in some companies doesn’t matter.

Yes the NZX is up.That is because global investors are buying shares in Xero like it is the next Google.  It isn’t much use however to the person who only has shares in Contact Energy.

To use an analogy, it is like someone going into your street and burning your house down, but then telling you not to complain about it because the value of the rest of the street has risen.

Contact, Trustpower and Infratil shares are still lower since their drop after the power announcement. They haven’t “burnt down”, but a valid point is made.

There seems to be a wave of denial or ignorance of how sharemarkets work sweeping over the blogs on the left.

Anthony Robins at The Standard also did the graph trick – Economic apocalypse – not – he first called that post “No value has been destroyed”.

And similar from Scott Yorke at Imperator Fish (including a graph): Business elites denounce threat to their profits.

By way of example, the NZ Power announcement spooked the capital markets and led to a massive destruction of shareholder value, which in turn resulted in a loss in the value of many Kiwisaver funds. This potential disaster was only averted when the sharemarket continued to go up and up, resulting in an increase in the value of those same Kiwisaver funds.

Sometimes it’s hard to know when Scott is doing satire, or who he is satirising. At least he admits the aim of sabotaging power company assets:

I’m failing to see the problem. These companies have been doing nicely out of a business model that has resulted in too many people paying too much for their power. Of course their value was going to go down.

It doesn’t seem to have eroded confidence in the capital markets, though, eh?

Market confidence a Labour and Green government are looking less likely after attempt at market intervention, eh?.

Business elites making a lot of money out of an existing electricity model that few people actually understand but which appears to have failed, have slammed the plan. Critics have included the CEO of Mighty River Power, whose salary exceeds a million dollars a year, and stockbrokers who stand to profit handsomely from an uninterrupted partial float of the energy SOEs.

Critics of NZ Power will no doubt be hoping that its flaws will be evident to those cleaners on minimum wage, or solo mums on benefits, struggling to find the money to pay their power bill, and who might have otherwise be tempted to vote for either Labour or the Greens.

The profit bogey man and “poor people” sympathy appeal. This is remarkably similar to Metiria Turei’s latest column in D Scene:

We know that families are really struggling with increasing power prices. At the same time power companies are making even greater profits.

Stripping out excessive profits from the electricity sector is a smart Green solution.

The sharebrokers that are going to get a cut out of selling off our power companies are upset. Returning the excessive profits to New Zealand families will hurt the fat commission they are eying up.

Both Labour and Green camps seem convinced they are socialist saviours. In denial of market and business realities. And probably political.

Scott questioned me when I said “And Labour, which was already struggling with financial credibility”.

If you keep saying that enough, do you think people will believe it?

Some in Labour must surely believe it – John Armstrong in his Saturday column:

“This is part of National’s strategy to make next year’s election a referendum on which party can best be trusted with the management of the economy – a matter of some issue where both parties’ private polling has Labour far behind National”.

I would be as confident betting on financial credibility being the deciding factor in next year’s election as I would betting on a very uneasy sharemarket and plummeting business confidence if a Green Labour finance team take over in the next government.

It’s hard to know whether Labour and Green politicians and supporters are in political denial, or if they are ignorant of how business confidence and sharemarkets work in the real world. Possibly both.

1 Comment
by Pete George on May 1, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 1, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/05/01/5920/

“No clue” and “lying by omission”

The Opposition focus on John Key’s “no clue” comments (referring to how he had Ian Fletcher’s phone number) says more about how trivial politics and politicking can be than it says about Key.

Closely associated with the same issue is another phrase that the Opposition have used – see 3 News and  Key ‘lying by omission’ – Labour

John Key says he “forgot” about a personal phone call he made to his childhood friend, Ian Fletcher – a phone call that led to Mr Fletcher’s appointment as Mr Key’s chief spy.

It’s seen Labour accuse Mr Key of “lying by omission”.

There are no surprises though that Labour’s striking out, laying a complaint that Mr Key breached Parliamentary privilege by not fully answering questions in the House.

And Stuff with Key forgets tip to friend over spy job:

Labour’s deputy leader Grant Robertson said Mr Key “lied by omission” and said his explanation was not credible.

And in addition from John Armstrong at NZ Herald:

Key was deemed guilty by opponents of lying by omission, prompting calls for all manner of official inquiries and breach of parliamentary privilege hearings.

Robertson sees the lapses as part of what he calls Key’s “diminish, divert and demean” modus operandi. Faced with being caught out by some action or statement, Key’s response is to diminish the significance of the issue or his role in it, divert attention away from it and, especially in Parliament, demean whoever is raising it.

Last night Grant Robertson tried his own “demean whoever is raising it”:

For those who missed #cluelesskey in Question Time, here is the video. The fun starts at 4.05…

David Shearer staffer Mike Smith with a rare post at The Standard: “I genuinely have no clue”

Finally, John Key comes clean. Watch this!

And Metiria Turei omitted Key’s whole response:

Metiria Turei ‏@metiria
“I genuinely have no clue.” John Key, Prime Minister. Thats a keeper. #nzqt

I queried that:

Pete George ‏@PeteDGeorge
@metiria Is that a full quote?

Metiria Turei ‏@metiria
yep. He didnt say anything else but watch this space…

As detailed in Key and “no clue” he did say something else:

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I genuinely have no clue. I do not know how I got the number.

So it could be said there is some hypocrisy and lying by omission going on here.

This whole attack line by the opposition is trivial. In isolation it could be seen as a bit of light hearted taking the piss, although in the context persistent trivial attacks it is trying to trivialise politics with petty personal attacks.

The biggest omission in all of this is Robertson et al are omitting serious political discussion and holding to account. They keep obsessing over trivial single issues and gotcha politics.

This suggests that Robertson, Shearer and Turei, with their “lying by omission”,  have “no clue” about how to present themselves as credible Government in waiting politicians and parties.

(This may be harsh on Turei who is more in the jocular camp here but in the context of being co-leader with Russel Norman who has been persistently attacking Key and the GCSB I think it is a fair association).

And just as bad – there are important issues with the GCSB that deserve serious attention, but by continually focussing on personal attacks Labour and Greens cloud and divert attention from the wider more pertinent issues.

by Pete George on April 17, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 17, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/17/no-clue-and-lying-by-omission/

“Home for life” a Green promise?

Greens are promoting “Home for life” housing policies.

“Giving Our Kids A Home For Life”
– A Public Meeting On Better Housing For West Auckland
With Holly Walker MP and Metiria Turei MP

HomeforLifeGreen

Not just giving a home for life, giving “our kids” a Home for Life. Will all kids be gifted a state house at birth?

Details on the Green website:

Come and find out how The Greens’ new Home For Life Package ensures kids, their families and their communities get the warm, safe, stable and healthy homes they need.

Join Metiria Turei and Holly Walker to learn about why it’s time for a change in housing policy, why the Greens have the best solution, and how it’s going to work.

Presumably Greens mean two life times, as a child (in their parent’s Home for Life) and as an adult in their own Home for Life).

That’s all BBQ-in-the-back-garden nice, but surely it’s false promise, in political terms…

Are Greens going to promise a state home for life for those who choose? The same home for a single retired widow/widower as their family home when they had several kids?

Are Greens going to promise a state guaranteed mortgage for life for those who choose, regardless of their ability to pay for the borrowed money?

…and in social terms…

Are Greens going to ensure there are no broken homes?

If a mother and father never live in the same home will Greens provide both with a Home for Life for shared custody (and once the kids grow up)?

…and terms of the realities of life:

How would the Greens have ensured a Home for Life for every kid who lived in Christchurch, and every other place that has a natural disaster?

How do Greens propose they force all landlords to upgrade their properties to high standards – and remain as property investors?

And remember that Greens want a CGT to make property investment even less attractive. I guess if landlords go broke Greens would still ensure they kept their own Home for Life.

Some of my cynicism may be because I’ve have about fifteen homes so far in my lifetime (seven involved ownership) and I don’t place the same priority on remaining rooted to the spot, with the Government providing all the fertiliser.

But  this looks like another of the “think of the kids, they deserve a perfect life provided by the Government” idealistic policy that the Greens can never deliver, and that the New Zealand taxpayers could never afford.

Don’t forget that Greens also think paid employment (and therefore taxpaying) should be one of life’s fair choices.

Do Greens actually believe in their dreams of Utopia? Or are they just like the other parties, promising the earth, and other people’s money, to buy votes?

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/home-for-life-a-green-promise/

Ten crosses for National’s opposition

John Armstrong listed ten reasons why National maintains a healthy lead in the polls – Ten ticks for National from John Armstrong

I list ten more, these ones are weaknesses of the Opposition that help National maintain their support.

1. David Shearer

Shearer’s bumbling and balls-ups, and his lack of any clear desire, direction or definitive position on anything, accentuate Key’s accomplished calm assurance. And Labour supporters dread seeing Shearer versus Key in election debates.

2. Labour’s repeating of failed strategies

Not just their clinging to battles long since lost, not just their continued attempts to discredit John Key, Labour look like last century political attack hacks.

3. Labour’s lack of talent

Labour’s caucus is very thin on new talent, it’s old talent often doesn’t look that flash, and some of it’s best talent is relegated to the back benches (David Cunliffe) or is driven out of parliament (Charles Chauvel). Even the new talent that’s rated, like Jacinda Ardern and David Clark, looks superficial – party parrots, not heavy lifters.

4. Green power wariness

The Green party have had an enthusiastic minority following, plus sizable support from people sympathetic to some of their ideals. Especially on environmental issues. A Green voice is good.

But now the Greens look like they could become a significant part of a Labour Green government people are becoming very wary of actual Green power.

5. Russel Norman – whiny and wacky

Norman can have a whiny demeanour. And he has made his financial portfolio ambitions clear – which scare the hell out of many people. They don’t care about Greens and wacky baccy, but wacky money ideas are a real worry.

6. Metirea Turei – socialist and socialite

Turei speaks strongly for people in poverty, but:
- her solutions are seen as serious socialism
- her advocating for people in poverty clashes with her well dressed well heeled image.

Turei’s image clash is a symptom of a more general Green disconnect with their poorly constituents – they look like well meaning well educated middle class do gooders. The Vatican versus the Salvation Army is too extreme to be a fair comparison but Greens don’t look like sleeves rolled up workers for the downtrodden.

They seem keen to transfer other people’s wealth, but not their own.

7. Green Hues of Gareth Hughes

No mining. No drilling. No fracking. No cars. No, Gareth, too much no, no, no.

The great Green alternative won’t just grow on trees by itself and save the world.

There’s a great big gap between great ideals and practical solutions.

8. Winston Peters

9. Winston Peters

10. Winston Peters

by Pete George on March 23, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 23, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/23/ten-crosses-for-nationals-opposition/

Important questions on Citizen Initiated Referenda

I have emailed the following questions to David Shearer, Metiria Turei, Russel Norman and Winston Peters:

Do you think all future Citizen Initiated Referenda should be binding?

Do you think any legislation subject to a petition for a CIR should be put on hold until it is known if the petition is successful?

Do you think any legislation subject to a Citizen Initiated Referendum should be put on hold until ithe result of the referendum is known?

As a citizen I think these are extremely important questions.

Peters’ Executive Assistant has said she will pass it on to him, so far no reply from the others.

A photograph of the new Pope Francis back in 2010 kissing the feet of 12 AIDS sufferers.

by Pete George on March 15, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 15, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/15/important-questions-on-citizen-initiated-referenda/

Metiria clarifies position on four year term

Metiria Turei has responded to a query on the Green Party position on parliamentary terms.

We don’t have a policy on it which is one reason we think it’s fit for a referendum. I talk to many many business and community organisations whose greatest problem is radical shifts in policy. It leads to deep instability and makes planning very difficult.

One of the benefits of a four year term is longer periods of policy implementation and greater stability for those who are affected.

On the other hand, radical governments will still behave appallingly so there is no guarantee and of course, its longer before such a government can be voted out. There are good and bad aspects to the current three year and the suggested four year terms. Its always good to discuss it.

I agree it is worth seriously discussing. There are always pros and cons, it’s a matter of weighing them up. This should happen via the constitutional review that’s under way.

And once discussed the final decision should go to the people via a referendum.

by Pete George on February 8, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 8, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/08/metiria-clarifies-position-on-four-year-term/

Green conflict over four year term?

‘James Henderson’ has posted Against a four year term at The Standard.

Key and Shearer want 4 year terms of parliament.

Regular opportunities to vote the bastards out is all we have.

That’s why Kiwis rejected a change to a four year term by a margin of more than two to one when the question was put to us in referenda in 1967 and 1990. That’s why we would reject it again. Indeed, both the public’s adoption to MMP in the 1990s and our strong decision to retain it in 2011 show that we want more controls on the power of government, not less.

(** And with both National and Labour having put themselves on the wrong side of public opinion on this, if there is a referendum in 2014 on a four year term, there’s big opportunities for parties that support a three year term.)

It is correct that the 1990 referendum rejected four year terms. But that was 23 years ago, and as a Herald editorial Four year term better for country says.

Voters were in no mood to give the Executive more time to push through radical and unpopular reforms. Bruised by the Douglas-ite mantra that there was no alternative, the public chose what appeared to be one of its few remaining sanctions – the three-yearly chance to cry “enough”.

The referendum defeat for the four-year term preceded the adoption of the new MMP electoral system, which took effect at the 1996 election.

And ‘James Henderson’, who some believe is a Green Party author, appears to be at odds with Metiria Turei. As reported in the Herald’s Key pushes for four-year terms:

And Greens co-leader Metiria Turei says she thinks the public would support the move.

“Most of the public agree it’s better for governments to have more time to implement policy rather than going from election to election.”

When Turei said that on Waitangi Day I don’t know what she based her claim on, but a Stuff poll suggests she could be right, currently showing:

Should Parliament have a four-year term?

Yes: 1230 votes, 67.4%

No: 596 votes, 32.6%

Total 1826 votes

Turei obviously speaks for the Green Party. Who does ‘James Henderson’ speak for? He has effectively said that Turei has put herself “on the wrong side of public opinion on this“, contradicting what she said at Waitangi.

by Pete George on February 8, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 8, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/08/green-conflict-over-four-year-term/

Four year term supported by most party leaders

At Waitangi today John Key floated the idea of a four year term. It’s obviously not new but it gave media the opportunity to check it out with other parties in attendance.

Key pushes for four-year terms

The Prime Minister is using his spotlight at Waitangi to push the idea of a fixed four-year term for the Government, and he’s got support from his political opponents.

The crowds at Waitangi are a good sounding board for politicians, so John Key’s using the event to push the boat out on this pet project of his – extending the Government’s reign to four years, with a fixed date.

“I think it makes a lot more sense to know when the date is and it makes a lot more sense to have it for four years,” he says.

But Mr Key would need either 75 percent support from MPs or the majority in a referendum.

Support from MPs would be easiest.

Opposition leader David Shearer says he agrees with the idea.

“In many ways it’s a very short period of time,” he says. “It’s too long in opposition I have to say!”

Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples seems in favour.

“That’s probably a good idea too. You just seem to get started and bang, it’s election time,” he says.

And Greens co-leader Metiria Turei says she thinks the public would support the move.

“Most of the public agree it’s better for governments to have more time to implement policy rather than going from election to election.”

I don’t think Turei is correct on public agreement unless she knows something that’s not public knowledge. In 1990 69% opted to stick with three years.

Peter Dunne is definitely in favour, I asked him and he replied:

Yes, I do and the fixed Election Day

If their parties followed their lead that’s well over 75% (National plus Labour would be enough).

3News also asked Hone Harawira:

However Mana leader Hone Harawira isn’t convinced.

“As long as I’m not in Government I think it’s a ratshit idea,” he says.

That just leaves Winston and NZ First, but the numbers look favourable for four years.

But it looks like if this went to parliament it would stand a good chance of succeeding.

I also agree, three years seems too short for a Government. The first year is generally settling in and getting up to speed on policies and portfolios, and gathering information. Year two is cram time for implementing as much as possible. And year three is dominated by the election. A second middle year would make a big difference.

A common preference amongst the public is that the shorter the better in case the don’t like who is in Government. But it’s rare to have a one term government.

It can be presumed that a longer term would increase the chance of being rejected at the first re-election attempt, so four years would be shorter than six (two terms).

And it would be much harder to stay for a third term, so eight years is shorter than nine.

How likely and how soon? From NZ Herald’s Leaders support four year term:

The review began in 2010 and is being led by Deputy Prime Minister Bill English and Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples who have appointed an advisory panel to consider it. However, there is no report date, and Mr English told iwi leaders at Waitangi that “it will take as long as it takes”.

He said it would be some time before any recommendations were made – and even then the Government might not act on them if it could not secure widespread agreement.

Don’t hold your breath.

 

by Pete George on February 6, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 6, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/06/four-year-term/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 74 other followers