What is wrong with encouraging people who don’t need a benefit to find a job?

That doesn’t mean that those who are in genuine need of state assistance shouldn’t get it, and get it long term if necessary.

It just means that those who no longer need it should be encouraged towards independence.

But if people on the DPB and sickness or invalids benefits will be expected to stand on their own feet so too must others.

Turning middle and upper income earners into beneficiaries as Working for Families does was never a good idea.

Continuing to give people in want money from the public purse when people in need are being encouraged to look after themselves can not be justified.

Phil Goff has admitted that Labour made a few mistakes and let sideshows sidetrack them from what really mattered.

But he hasn’t yet and maybe never will, accept that they also did the wrong thing with the things that mattered.

He cites Working For Families as one of Labour’s achievements.

Turning middle and upper income families into beneficiaries is nothing to be proud of. This policy and others like interest free student loans, KiwiRail, buying vast tracts of the high country at inflated prices . . . put New Zealand into recession early and continue to hold back the recovery.

Nanny state sideshows annoyed people. But Labour’s expensive social policies and the handicaps they put in the way of economic growth did, and continue to do, much more harm.

Bernard Hickey blogged at the NZ Herald on the way middle class people were rorting Working for Families. Yet this issue has gained very little traction in the media unlike the 160 odd families receiving high levels of the more traditional social welfare. The immediate reaction was to excoriate those involved. Bludger was one of the kinder expressions used by many.

The public applauded the fact that the Top 50 welfare recipients were to be audited, but there appears to be no corrresponding demand regarding the 9700 who arranged their affairs to gain more WFF money. Yet many were incensed that MPs and Ministers did a similar thing.

Hickey writes:-

one family was earning more than $167,000 a year from salaries from an employer and distributions from a family trust, yet was legally able to tell the Inland Revenue Department their taxable income was just $27,303.

They then claimed more than $10,000 in Working for Family payments

This family pays no tax and we pay them. Appalling. No public anger though.

More concern was expressed over the 160 welfare families and the fear they might be rorting than the disgraceful state of affairs that sees over 100,000 people on the DPB.

More energy and indignation is expended on the ‘Smacking’ referendum and related matters than on how we improve the economic state of the country.

There seems to be a rather odd order of priorities at work here.

From Dr Vernie’s story in today’s Dominion Post:

The Tax Working Group suggested total, not taxable, income be used as the basis for calculating the tax credit or reducing the top tax rate and getting rid of Working For Families.

Mr Jenkins suggested to his wife that she might like to go for a run instead of a walk this afternoon or maybe she’d prefer he murder her, burn down the house and host an umu with the remains of both.

Yesterday we learned that some people on benefits receive more than the average wage. Today we discover that Labour’s tax increase and welfare for working families has also resulted in rorts.

The only surprising thing about this is that it has taken so long to make headlines when it is the logical outcome of policies based on political ideology and a desire to retain power rather than an understanding of economics and human nature.

Night follows day and people offered incentives take them.

When National reduced the tax rate on higher incomes in the early 1990s the tax take went up. One of the reasons for that was that people stopped wasting time rejigging their finances to reduce their tax burden and concentrated on making money.

Labour’s increasing the tax on incomes over $60,000 had the reverse effect of encouraging people to arrange their finances to reduce their liability, especially when there was the added incentive of qualifying for a benefit.

The advertisements for Working for Families were clearly targeted at people who already earned enough to afford luxuries.

National swallowed a very big dead rat before the last election in agreeing to keep WFF. But that was before the full extent of the recession and forecast deficits was obvious.

When the government’s aim is to take the sharp edges off the recession it is unlikely to dismantle the scheme in the short term. But this report gives it the ammunition it needs to torpedo it in the long term.

All but the rabid right wing accept that welfare has a place for helping those in genuine need but these rorts show only to clearly the stupidity of extending it to those in want.

If I turned 65 tomorrow on a similar income to my present one I wouldn’t need superannuation.

But would I turn it down? No.

I wouldn’t say I was entitled to it but I would say I was eligible for it and I’d take it.

Would you?

Unless you’re very different from most of us I suspect you would.

We don’t make the rules but most would play the game if they could and not just with superannuation.

How many people who get Working for Families really need it?

It depends on how you define need. I don’t think anyone who can already afford luxuries needs a benefit.

I can understand why those who qualify for it don’t turn it down. Many will be the people who’ve always been too rich to be poor and too poor to be rich – having too much to qualify for any other assistance but not having enough to be really well off.

Most will set aside any qualms they might have about taking taxpayers’ money they don’t really need, arguing they’ve worked hard and paid a lot of tax and now they’re getting something back.

I wonder how many people who criticise MPs’ pay and allowances could put their hands on their hearts and say they’ve never taken anything they’re eligible for whether or not they need it?

Anyone who can’t is casting stones from a glass house.

There are differences between benefits and the salaries and allowances MPs get, of course.

MPs’ salaries are paid for the job they do and most more than earn it. The allowances are for work related expenses.

However, they make the rules which leads to the perception - probably unfair - that the rules are more than generous.

Their pay is set by an independent body, maybe allowances should be too.

That way MPs would get fair recompense for out of pocket expenses and free them from any suspicion of making rules which give them more than they need.

It would also give them some protection from the stone throwers.

John Turton who runs the Lower Hutt Food Bank has criticised John Key’s suggestion that people who don’t save or spend their tax cuts could give them to charity.

His clients do not qualify for the tax cuts. Most of them get Working for Families payments, disqualifying them from receiving the cuts.

These people are probably getting nearly as much if not more than they pay in tax already so does he think they should have two bites at the public cherry?

Or is he just confused about the difference between tax cuts which allow people to keep a little more of the money they earn and welfare?

Dene Mackenzie uncovered this at a pub in Martinborough:

While most farmers were voting National on the electorate vote, some of those spoken to whispered in hushed tones that some of their “friends” actually voted Labour on the party vote.

Here is why.

Many of the long-time mortgage-free farming families had their assets in a trust.

They paid themselves a low salary, say $35,000, while still getting the benefits of living on the land.

Finance Minister Michael Cullen had generously topped up their salary through working for families.

Of course, none of those spoken to had ever received working for families, but their friends had and they were probably voting Labour on the party vote.

These people need a comprehension test before they vote.

First because National is going to keep WFF.

Second because policies which promote economic growth will enable more people to make more themselves than they’ll ever get from welfare and we’ll only get those policies with a National led government.

Wairapapa farmers have had some bad years and it didn’t help that last summer’s drought coincided with depressed sheep prices. But this is a sign of how pernicious welfare dependency is because if you’re in business and depending on WFF then whether or not you’ve got a trust, you’re going backwards and the country is too.

National’s economic package, including their proposed tax cuts, has been released. Overall it is fairly sensible stuff, a range of tax cuts across the board that is funded by tweaking Kiwisaver, and removing the tax credit for research and development – both policies can be criticised certainly, and I need to look more into the R&D issue before I can conclude this is ok, but remembering we are in tough economic times I think they are probably being reasonable.

But the policy also includes an “Independent Earner Rebate” for people not receiving Working For Families tax credits.

The package would cover those earning between $24,000 and $50,000 and would give workers $10 a week in the first year, eventually rising to $15 a week.

The whole point of Working For Families is to give extra help for families as opposed to single people. If you give similar tax rebates to single people as well, you destroy the entire point of having tax rebates in the first place. If they are going to treat everyone the same they may as well just ditch WFF and cut tax by an equivalent amount in a way that will benefit low-income earners. Far less paperwork, same result.

Furthermore, they are adding more bureaucracy and more central government expenditure around the tax system, when they claim to be trying to reduce bureaucracy. And instead of just working families being on a benefit, now pretty well everyone in the country would be on a benefit. This is actually more socialist than Labour’s policy.

This shows why we need a National-led government rather than a Labour-led one, because on the whole National should be better at managing the economy. But it also shows why we need National in coalition with minor parties, ideally The Family Party and Act, rather than ruling alone, to keep them on track and ensure they don’t have free reign to do whatever they like.

EDIT: They may be more cunning than I thought. If they canned WFF they may risk losing the election, but if they give an equivalent tax rebate to everyone they could get people used to this then propose in a few years canning both and introducing an equivalent tax cut, thus getting rid of WFF while retaining public support. Hmmm, in that case we really need The Family Party in there pushing for income splitting to ensure families aren’t forgotten about.

- Don Franks


Activist and author Anne Else was the keynote speaker at a public meeting of the Campaign Against Rising Prices held on Saturday June 7 in the Wellington suburb of Newtown.

Anne spoke as a member of the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), a non-profit group formed in 1994. CPAG believes that “New Zealand’s high rate of child poverty is not the result of economic necessity, but is due to policy neglect and a flawed ideological emphasis on economic incentives”.

Anne told the meeting about CPAG’s case against the government currently being heard by the Human Rights Review Tribunal. CPAG contends that Labour’s in-work tax credit breaches New Zealand’s human rights legislation by discriminating against children of beneficiaries.

“Current policies ensure that people are trapped in poverty,” Anne said. “The damage done by poverty in childhood never goes away. People are precluded from having a decent life.”

She argued that it is “totally unjust and discriminatory” not to help beneficiaries: “Unpaid work is still work. Bringing up children is work. And it now takes a much bigger investment to produce a child for modern life.”

Anne’s talk inspired this reporter to find out more about the work of the Child Poverty Action Group. Below are some quotes from the CPAG’s legal case against government discrimination of beneficiaries at the Human Right Review Tribunal.

Thousands of children in hardship

In the last decades of the 20th century, New Zealand had the fastest growth in income and wealth inequality in the OECD. Little has been done to improve the situation since then. In 2001, NZ ranked near the bottom of the rich nations’ index measuring infant mortality, children’s health and safety, teenage pregnancy, and immunisation. It also ranked bottom in the percentage of 15-19 year olds in full- or part-time education, and in the number of deaths from accidents and injuries.

Despite the better economy and significant increase in paid employment, between 2000 and 2004 the proportion of all children in severe and significant hardship increased by a third, to 26%. In 2004, there were about 185,000 children in benefit families in some degree of hardship, with 150,000 of them in significant or severe hardship. While official data is yet to be produced for 2007, this report concludes that little has changed for this group of children who have been “left behind”.

Tax credits discriminate

In 1996, child benefit policies that discriminated against the children of beneficiaries were introduced. One key policy was the Child Tax Credit (CTC), which was available only to children whose parents were not on a benefit, ACC or student allowance. These policies undermined the principle that all children from low-income families should be treated the same.

In 2002, the New Zealand government finally acknowledged child poverty, and vowed to eliminate it. Yet it was not until 2005 that Working For Families was implemented. WFF represents a significant redistribution of money in favour of low- and middle-income working families with children, and has reduced child poverty in many of these families. But for families supported by benefits, increased family assistance has been offset by a range of benefit cuts, leaving many simply “no worse off” than they were before these changes. WFF has not only continued the discrimination in the CTC, it has further widened the gap between low-income families on benefits and those in work, by introducing the In-Work Tax Credit (IWTC). The IWTC gives $60 a week to families with up to three children and an additional $15 a week for subsequent children. Now, to be eligible for the IWTC families must come off an income-tested benefit and meet a work test.

Families receiving a benefit are also excluded from receiving the Minimum Family Tax Credit (MFTC), which itself is a very unsatisfactory income support policy.

In 2005 the government augmented the WFF package by an additional $500m by targeting families earning more than $27,500. Children in families receiving benefits were not helped at all by this extra spending and remained excluded from the IWTC.


Work is not sufficient

The reforms to New Zealand’s social security initiated in the 1990s focused on moving people off welfare into work. Principles relating to the health and general welfare of the community, and participation and belonging, were abandoned.

Working for Families and Working New Zealand have entrenched and extended this approach, promoting paid work as the way out of poverty.

While work is very important for reducing poverty and increasing overall wellbeing, a “work first” policy is not sufficient to eliminate child poverty. Parental or child illness and disability, physical and social isolation including poor access to services, fewer employment opportunities and lack of support may all act to preclude parents from paid work.

Leveraging more parents into low-wage jobs is expensive and, in the long term, largely ineffective. The cost of the additional administration required for Working New Zealand (WNZ) from 2007 to 2012 was estimated at approximately $100 million.

Contrary to the assumptions underlying WFF and WNZ, evidence shows that most beneficiaries leave the benefit system of their own accord when they can. Generous welfare regimes need not result in a poverty trap and may be the most effective at reducing child poverty.

Unfair taxes

Low-income families are disadvantaged by the combination of New Zealand’s relatively flat personal income tax regime and consumption tax (GST).

Conversely, high-income earners are advantaged by the existing income tax regime and by gaps in the tax system, such as the lack of a capital gains tax.

Recent changes to the tax regime, such as tax breaks for savings in managed funds and KiwiSaver, signal a likely return to manipulations by the better-off to minimise tax, as occurred in the early 1980s. The fiscal costs of these tax breaks may preclude overdue tax cuts for those on low incomes.

Poverty affects health

New Zealand children have higher rates of preventable illness and deaths from injuries than children in almost any other OECD country. They have comparatively high infant mortality rates and low immunisation rates.

The single most important determinant of health is income. A child growing up in poverty is three times more likely to be sick than a child growing up in a higher-income household. Poor nutrition, a stressful environment and substandard housing are factors that diminish a child’s ability to fight infection.

Maori and Pasifika children are most at risk of poor health. Insufficient disposable income, substandard housing, inadequate nutritious food and unequal access to health care all contribute to the risk of poor health. Of all ethnic groups, Pasifika children have the highest rates of infant mortality.

Housing unaffordable

Rates of home ownership are now at their lowest since the early 1950s, reflecting decreased housing affordability and an absence of government-funded programmes to support home ownership for modest income households. Ma¯ori and Pasifika families are disproportionately affected by reduced housing affordability, and as a consequence are most likely to live in inadequate, overcrowded housing.

Low-income families increasingly unable to meet day-to-day expenses are often doubling up in the cheapest accommodation available, often state housing.

Transience is a significant problem for the many thousands of low-income families in private rental accommodation, and has high costs for children’s socialisation, education and health.

Housing and neighbourhood policies that deal with the many disadvantages faced by low-income households and communities are the key to providing stable, safe, healthy living arrangements for children, and supporting their development and education.

Education prospects at risk

Early childhood education (ECE) policies have a profound impact on children and their families. Quality early childhood education has been demonstrated nationally and internationally to have long-lasting benefits for both individuals and society.

Insufficient funding was identified as “the major issue confronting ECE services” in a 2007 national survey of New Zealand early childhood services. Almost a third of parents surveyed stated that they had difficulties in paying fees and donations, with low-income families more likely to face this dilemma.

Whanau-led services such as Playcentre and Te Kohanga Reo are not eligible for the recently introduced provision of 20 hours per week free early childhood education for 3- and 4-year-olds, raising significant equity issues for low-income families who wish to use these services.

Poverty also affects the education prospects of school-age children. Inequalities have been reinforced over time, compounding the disadvantages many children already face. Levels and methods of funding for low-decile schools are an issue, both because of relatively low parent and community contributions in such schools, and because of the sheer scale of their students’ needs.

The reinstatement of school zoning would appear to protect the right of students from poorer families to attend local schools. However, the fact that zones are now drawn up by schools rather than government allows zones to be manipulated to exclude lower socio-economic areas.
The CPAG report concluded by urging the Government to address child poverty in New Zealand now. In the short term, CPAG calls for reforms including immediate tax credits to all families with children and free food for hungry children in poor schools.

In the longer term, CPAG calls on the government to:

* provide affordable, accessible and healthy housing for all low-income New Zealanders

* provide free health care for all children under 18 – day or night

* provide genuinely free, quality public education for all, with no school fees.

* legislate a realistic minimum wage for raising a family today.


Union leaders’ response

Following the release of the Child Poverty Action Group’s report, Council of Trade Unions secretary Carol Beaumont made a statement commending the group for their “persistent work in keeping child poverty in the public domain and on everyone’s agenda”.

Carol Beaumont “agreed with many of the points made in the report”, but did not suggest any meaningful ways to fight poverty. Instead, she returned yet again to the tired old CTU leaders’ theme of seeking excuses for the Labour party: “We also recognise changes that have been made by this government that have benefited low-income people and working people.”

The CTU comment on the report concluded lamely: “It’s an important discussion to have with government and the political parties.”

Not so surprising when you remember that Carol Beaumont is a Labour candidate in a safe Labour seat this year. But that still leaves a huge unresolved problem for the working class. Faced with a comprehensive report of desperate poverty in New Zealand, leaders of the largest workers’ organisation in the land don’t really want to know.

The demands of the Child Poverty Action Group are just and reasonable, but they will require nationwide mass action from below to be realised. That will call for a stronger and braver form of workers’ organisation than we have at the moment.

The Child Poverty Action Group opens it challenge against Working for Families before the Human Rights Review Tribunal today.

The group claims that the in-work credit of $60 a week breaches the Human Rights Act and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by discriminating against people because of their employment status.The credit is given to single parents who work at least 20 hours a week, and two-parent families who work at least 30 hours between them, provided neither parent receives any income-tested benefit.

There would be no case to answer if people had tax cuts rather than a benefit which is what WWF is. However, while tax cuts would be better than a benefit for those on medium to high incomes, they would not give a similar level of help as WWF does to low income working families.

And that still leaves the problem of beneficiaries. But how do we help those in genuine need without propping up those who can help themselves, what’s poverty and how much is enough?

Keeping Stock  says that after a trip to Ethiopia his perception of poverty has changed. That reminded me of a comment by an Oamaru vicar who had been asked if it was alright to steal food if you were hungry. He responded that he found it difficult to accept there was real hunger in New Zealand because he came from South Africa where hundreds of people shared one cold water tap whereas here people drove to the food bank.

That is not to say that children are not in desperate need here, and when you are on a low income it is very difficult not to go backwards because no matter how carefully you budget there will often be too much week left after the end of your money.

But sadly that happens to people who by any reasonable measure are earning more than enough to be above the poverty line too. We see numerous examples of this on the dairy farm where people are earning at least $35,000 a year and have a house supplied which must be worth at least another $10,000, but still run out of money before payday.

Since assuming the National Party leadership in 2006, John Key has had somewhat of a dream run with the media and, consequently, the New Zealand public. At the same time, however, scrutiny of Helen Clark and her government has been very intense, and it would appear that the “pack mentality” of the Press Gallery is decidedly in favour of a National Party victory. Indeed, not all media outlets have been so subtle in their desires for such a result. Throughout all of this though, Helen Clark’s approach has been to continue rolling out policy and to simply get on with governing. Such pragmatism has been a hallmark of her leadership.

Now into her 8^th year as Prime Minister, Helen Clark’s achievements are as numerous as they are impressive. Her involvement in New Zealand politics spans more than 30 years, since joining the Labour Party in 1971. During that time she has been both Chair and a member of numerous Cabinet and Select Committees; Minister of various portfolios; Opposition Leader; and of course New Zealand’s ninth longest serving and first elected female Prime Minister. But Clark’s achievements are not confined to New Zealand’s boarders. Indeed, they span the international political stage. In 1986 she was awarded the annual Peace Prize of the Danish Peace Foundation for her work promoting disarmament, and this year received a special award from the United Nations for her work on Climate Change. New Zealand’s 37^th Prime Minister will certainly go down in history as one of our best.

Clark, this year, became the longest serving Labour leader, and is also the longest serving female MP currently in Parliament, earning her the unofficial title of “Mother of the house”.  She is one of the most experienced New Zealand politicians, and her leadership is second to none. Her grasp of MMP politics and her ability to form progressive and lasting coalitions will certainly be one of the many things she will be remembered for.

In a 2006 feature in the Dominion Post celebrating Helen Clarks 7^th year as Prime Minister, Clark said of herself:

“I would like to think that, many years down the track, people would say that I gave it everything I had, that I was very dedicated to the job, that I was pretty accessible and approachable, and got out and about, which I do.”

There is no doubt that Helen Clark will be remembered for exactly that, and much more. New Zealand would certainly be wise to hold on to such an experienced leader. Later this year the public will have the opportunity to give their assessment of Helen Clark’s leadership, and this long weekend provides an excellent time for us all to think about some of the many great things Helen Clark’s Labour has delivered for all New Zealanders. They include, but are certainly not limited to:

• Seeing off 3 opposition leaders (with Key gone by the end of the year)
• The entrenchment of New Zealand’s nuclear free policy
• Working for Families
• Kiwisaver
• Interest-free student loans
• 14 weeks paid parental leave
• Restoration of income-related rents for state houses
• Keeping New Zealand out of the war in Iraq
• Fostering the closest relations with the united States since ANZUS
• Establishment of Kiwi Bank
• Iminent free trade deal with China – the first western country to do so
• Ratification of Kyoto
• 4 weeks annual leave
• More affordable primary healthcare, including cheaper doctors visits and prescriptions
• Biggest upgrade of New Zealand’s public health services ever undertaken
• Making it compulsory for electricity retailers to offer a tariff with a daily charge of 30 cents per day, so that those who use modest amounts of power don’t have to pay a fortune just to keep electricity connected.
• Civil Unions
• Maori Television
• Nationwide FM Pacific Radio Network.
• The Employment Relations Act and the restoration of some degree of equality in employment bargaining
• Economic growth amongst the highest in the world
• The World Bank’s Doing Business in 2005 report showed that New Zealand is the easiest country in the world in which to do business
• $1.42 billion business tax relief package for small business
• The modern apprenticeships programme, which has turned out more than 8,000 modern apprentices
• Establishment of NZ Trade and Enterprise
• Restoration of the married rate of superannuation to not less than 65 per cent of the average net ordinary time weekly wage
• Establishment of the “Cullen” superannuation fund
• Establishment of the $700m NZ Fast Forward research fund
• Increasing Research, Science and Technology funding by 65% percent
• Investing heavily in New Zealand art, culture and heritage
• Funding strong growth in the basic sciences through the Marsden Fund and the New Economy Research Fund
• Establishing the $100m New Zealand Venture Investment Fund
• Increasing the minimum wage every year, due to reach $12/hr in April
• Committed $22.3 billion to address key land transport priorities
• Purchasing back the nation’s rail track and investing over $200 million in maintenance and new capital projects
• Free meningitis vaccinations for all New Zealand children
• Starting work on major Auckland transport projects
• Developing New Zealand’s first ever Rail Strategy, and Walking and Cycling strategy
• Reinstating ACC workplace cover to a full social insurance scheme
• Increasing surgical funding for key operations, such as hip and cateract
• Rebuilding the school dental service
• The implementation of major programmes, such as HEHA, targeting obesity and related diseases
• NCEA
• Increasing investment in conservation and environment policy
• Completing free trade negotiations with Singapore, Thailand, Chile and Brunei and is in the process of negotiating others
• Increasing New Zealand’s international presence, with new embassies in Brasilia, Warsaw, and Cairo
• Committing almost $5b in extra funding for New Zealand’s Defence Force, and radically upgrading equipment, including new Navy frigates and helicopters
• Settling eight major Treaty claims, with at least another 26 in progress
• Delivering rates rebates for older New Zealanders
• Saving Air New Zealand from collapse
• Committing to keeping New Zealand assets in New Zealand hands
• Increasing funding for sport and recreation by almost 20 times its 1999 level
• FORCING NATIONAL TO MOVE TO THE LEFT

Powered by Qumana

If last week’s announcement by Act that Roger Douglas was planning a return to Parliament sent shock waves around the country, then today’s revelations about what he plans to do once he’s there must surely be like history repeating itself. It seems that Douglas didn’t quite get his fill of the far right agenda he pursued while Finance Minister for the fourth Labour government, and today outlined some of the policies he would like to pursue should he ever make it back to cabinet. They included:

• Privatizing the health system
• Scrapping Working for Families
• Cut between $3-$5b of government spending
• Drop the top tax rate to 33c in the dollar
• Introduce education vouchers for children

One can only assume that those policies announced today are just the tip of a very large and ugly iceberg. We can also expect privatization of education and state owned assets, welfare cuts, and a general return to the “Rogernomic” and “Ruthenasia” policies of the past. Of course, the prospect of Act being in any position to implement these policies in their own right is very slim indeed, but the likelihood of them gaining enough of the party vote in this year’s general election to make them a real contender for a spot in a right-wing coalition has increased exponentially since National began its move to the left. John Key has certainly been slow in quashing any speculation that Act, Let alone Douglas, would have any prospect of a position in a government he leads.  

National’s dallying over the issue of Douglas will certainly not have alleviated suspicions of a hidden right wing agenda, nor quelled public fears of the type of Prime Minister Key would be. In fact, it is not hard at all to imagine a National government pursuing some, if not all, of the policies outlined by Act today, especially given the large number of current members of National’s caucus who were great admirers of “Rogernomics”, and were happy to continue his legacy under Ruth Richardson during the 1990s. And while John Key has taken a somewhat silent approach to this, Rodney Hide has been very vocal indeed, today saying:

“There are a lot of people in the National Party who agree with what we are saying.”

That is certainly an indication that John Key will have a job on his hands in trying to ensure that National remains a more centrist party than it has been in the past, especially once coalition negotiations start. While today Key is saying there is no possibility whatsoever that National would pursue a far-right agenda should it gain the Treasury benches, the cards dealt after the election and the strength of his desires to become New Zealand’s 38th Prime Minister could certainly change all of that.

Powered by Qumana

As John Key’s chief press officer is away on holiday at present, you could be forgiven for thinking that Key had employed the services of Brian Tamaki in the drafting of his speech on state sector bureaucracy this afternoon. Indeed, if anything, Key’s declaration of “enough is enough” smacked of the vague, knee jerk babble of Destiny party policy. But sadly, it was the words of a man who hopes to be New Zealand’s next Prime Minister.

Key’s announcement was both confusing and lacking in substance. He first chastised Labour for the number of employees working in the state sector’s “core bureaucracy”, then in almost the same breath effectively endorsed Labour’s policy by stating employee numbers would be capped, not reduced. As is becoming customary, Key provided no substantial plans for improving state sector performance, but did say:

“We are going to make do with the resource we have”

If Key’s vision for New Zealand’s state sector is to simply “make do”, then he is hardly the ambitious leader full of ideas he makes himself out to be.

National’s hypocrisy aside, the actual growth in the state sector needs to be considered in light of the major advancement in New Zealand’s public services since Labour came into office. Indeed, public services were in a particularly poor state during the 90s, and this has required a lot of work by Labour to restore them to a standard that New Zealanders both deserve and expect. Consequently, this work has required a lot of careful planning and management, which goes a long way to explaining state sector growth.

All three areas outlined in Key’s announcement, health, education and social development, have been undergoing particularly large transformations over the past eight years. It’s both sensible and logical that whenever such transformations are undertaken, there should first be careful planning of how this is to occur, and then support and supervision during implementation. This is the role that so-called “core bureaucrats” play, and despite National’s view, it is a very important one. It is quite ironic that National is the first to cry out for accountability whenever something goes wrong, and yet they are trying to remove the very checks and balances which prevent such problems arising.

Let’s take a look at some of the major drivers in state sector employment in the three areas outlined.

Education:

• Development and implementation of NCEA
• Introduction of free early childhood education services
• Overhaul of New Zealand’s education syllabus
• Development of modern apprenticeships
• Establishment of the Tertiary Education Commission
• Introduction of the Performance Based Research funding model

Health:

• Largest upgrade of public hospitals in New Zealand’s history
• Introduction of Primary Health Organizations
• Development of New Zealand’s Cancer Control Strategy
• Heavy investment in improving rural access to healthcare services
• Development and implementation of a number of public health strategies, including HEHA and Mission On
• Re-establishment of the school dental service

Social Development:

• Development and implementation of Working for Families

It is not surprising that massive investment in these three sectors has reaped great rewards. As well as having some of the lowest unemployment rates in the Western world, New Zealanders are healthier and wealthier than they were under the last National government.Those rewards have not only come because of the excellent frontline services provided by our doctors, teachers, and allied professionals, but also because of the diligent planning, development and support of those working behind the scenes. These so-called “bureaucrats” often work without acknowledgement and, as shown today, whilst being harshly criticised.

Powered by Qumana

The 2005 general election was perhaps the most polarising and divisive in New Zealand’s history. Voters were presented with two vastly different visions for New Zealand’s future, promoting the contrasting ideologies that underlie National and Labour Party politics. During the election these ideologies were manifested in the policies of each party, perhaps more so than ever before, and vigorously promoted by their members. It is thus very surprising that in little over 15 months since assuming the National Party leadership, and on the rare occasions when he actually remembers what his party’s policies are, John Key seems to be indicating that that ideology has changed.

Key’s bid to bring National policy towards the left and thus make it more appealing to the electorate has seen the adoption of many Labour policies from the 2005 election, and the consequent neutralisation of a number of difficult policy areas. Kiwi Saver, Working for Families, interest free student loans, employment law, nuclear free and climate change are just some of the areas where National has back-tracked in recent times, and Key has been quick to distance his National from that of Don Brash. Opinion polls have suggested that this so-called “new” National has found favour with voters, but can such a dramatic change in core party beliefs be possible in such a short space of time or is National presenting an artificial image to the public?

The answer to that question is perhaps made most apparent in Key’s maiden speech as Leader of the Opposition. In it Key made much of New Zealand’s so-called “underclass”, yet he was the architect of National’s proposed election tax cuts of $10b which, according to the Ministry of Social Development, would have seen child poverty increase by 18-percent by 2007, and which he had been rigorously advocating for just over a year earlier. It is certainly difficult to reconcile these two positions, and the overwhelming inference is that Key’s overtures to the “underclass” were simply a disingenuous attempt to win votes. Similarly, National’s approach to Maori issues has softened, so much so that a coalition with the Maori Party is not being completely ruled out, and the definite deadline for settling historical Treaty grievances, a major driver of party support leading up to 2005, is, as of yesterday, no longer that definite.

Of course, National did gain a number of new MPs in 2005, and Key has been quick to present them as the new, younger, “fresh” face of the “government in waiting”. But the vast majority of National MPs were in Parliament long before 2005. They were the engineers of National’s divisive policies. They were the ones who fought hard to sell them to the electorate, and some of them are still there on the front bench. It is hard to see how any changes in core National Party beliefs and a consequential shift to the left could occur while the McCully’s and Williamson’s of the party still help direct party policy. All of this would seem to suggest that while National presents a very popular centrist visage to the populous, behind that is an ever-present right-wing agenda.

If the National Party has, as John Key claims, undergone a change of direction then one of two conclusions can be made. Either National MPs didn’t actually believe in the policies they promoted in 2005 and simply towed the party line, or their beliefs and convictions are weak and easily changed. Either way, it is worrying that such personalities could be in government post-election 2008.

Powered by Qumana