A reforming second term
In my column at the NZ Herald I write on how National’s second term looks to have plenty of reform:
Many National supporters were frustrated at the lack of reform in National’s first term.
They saw National cancels its planned income tax cuts for 2010 and 2011, rather than cut interest free student loans and Working for Families. They saw a soaring deficit, and the Government’s response was to slow the rate of spending increase only. They saw a ban on asset sales, despite this being common amongst centre-right and centre-left Governments around the world.
National’s second term is looking to be far more pleasing to those who want to see a reform agenda. This doesn’t just mean a more right wing agenda. The Hawke/Keating Governments in Australia were good reformers, as was Tony Blair in the UK and Bill Clinton in the US. Even Julia Gillard is undertaking some quite good reforms.
So what are the areas of reform for John Key’s second term?
Industrial Relations
The current industrial action at Ports of Auckland is a good reminder that we still lose too much money through strikes and lockouts. Many people are staggered that an unskilled job can pay an average of over $90,000 a year and still have people on strike over it.
I also cover asset part-sales, welfare reform, education and spending.
9(unknown*no*no*1)&guid=ON){kind=small}
December 9th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
“The current industrial action at Ports of Auckland is a good reminder that we still lose too much money through …”
Oh, you mean like that industrial action of Maersk’s in striking their business out of town?
And you get all upset boo hoo when another industrial component, namely labour, deals with its business in a similar manner?
What a hypocrite.
[DPF: You seem to fail to grasp the most basic concepts. Maersk have gone elsewhere because they think they will get more reliable service.
This is like an employee swapping employers because they think they will get a better job elsewhere. It is nothing to do with striking.]
December 9th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Time for Labour lite to muster some courage and deliver the reforms NZ needs.
December 9th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Jeez vto – “Oh, you mean like that industrial action of Maersk’s in striking their business out of town?” Whaaaaat?
Its apparent that logic has disappeared from your brain only to be replaced with more ideology based crap.
Maersk shifted business because they could not trust ‘continuity of service’ at the Port of Auckland – due to the obscene demands by the intransigent Maritime Union.
It follows that the Ports of Auckland will shortly make some stevedores redundant – all because a key customer took ~11% of their revenue when they decided to relocate to Tauranga.
And who is to blame? No-one else but the Maritime Union. They have shot themselves in the foot – again! And who will bleat the loudest? The same Maritime Union.
Boo ferkin hoo.
December 9th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
wooosh – right over the top of your head
Maersk are unhappy and have taken action and apparently that is understandable and ok in the world of commerce.
The workers are unhappy and have taken action and that is entirely unreasonable and bad.
Perhaps you can explain why workers are not allowed to play by the same antics and tactics as maersk?? After all, it is the world of commerce and under this government anything you can get away with goes. What’s the problem?
[DPF: Again you get it wrong. A strike is not the same as quitting your job. Nothing prevents any employe at POA from quitting their job and getting a higher paid job elsewhere]
December 9th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
vto:
“Maersk are unhappy and have taken action and apparently that is understandable and ok”
Well, I think continuity of service is a reasonable expectation, particularly for employees on $90000+. Failure to meet that expectation seems reasonable grounds for action to me.
“The workers are unhappy and have taken action and that is entirely unreasonable and bad”
If you are unhappy with being paid $91000 for unskilled labour then yes, most people will think you’re an unreasonable jerk. More to the point, demanding that OTHERS CAN’T GET THE SAME DEAL AS YOU is extremely offensive, particularly to New Zealanders who have an ingrained sense of egalitarianism and ‘fair go for everyone’.
December 9th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
@ vto so in your world of equal treatment for labour and capital organised cartels whcih collude on price and prevent competitors entering the market are fair enough?
Workers are entirely entitled to quit their jobs and work for someone else (essentially the equivalent of what Maersk has done).
December 9th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
kiwigreg, no don’t assume. I did not say anything about breaking the law.
Maersk is playing entirely within the bounds of the law and applying pressure to achieve results.
So too is Ports of Auckland.
The union is doing the exact same thing as both the Ports of Auckland and Maersk.
So, again, what is the problem?
December 9th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
@vto: simple really – consequences. If you threaten, make sure you understand the consequences. Both Maersk and the wharfies had options. The wharfies chose one that put their livelihoods at risk, outside of the control of their employer. They rolled the dice, and sure as hell, the consequences will follow. They made a play that had risk they could not manage or control, and fucked up, totally.
Basic risk management really. Im sure you get basic concepts, right?
December 9th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
vto: I suspect you’re taking the piss…. but I’ll explain it for you anyway:
Maersk are a customer. You know – the one that pays the bills. They want their containers moved through a port quickly. If there is a disruption (or a threat of disruption), then that can affect their service KPIs (that they, in turn offer their own customers). The prospect of pissed off customers will prompt any commercial organisation to opt to use a port where the chances of disruption are greatly lessened. Cue Tauranga. Where they have no union issues – funny that.
The crunch is that the PoA wants to maintain the right to enter IECs with any party they wish, but the Union says “No” – our rights are exclusive to us!” The Union actually wants to decide who is employed (and paid) by the PoA! The union wants to determine the terms and conditions for non members!
Bwahahahaaaaaaa – no way!
The right to employ rests solely with the PoA. If they decide to contract out / hire anyone they want, then that is THEIR right. And if the Union doesn’t like the fact their lowest paid member on site ‘earned’ north of $91,000 then they can simply piss off and make way for someone who wants to work. And if that happens to be a contractor, then so be it.
You see, vto, the days of industry being driven by unions, is fast coming to an end. If someone wants to strike on safety grounds etc, then most people will say “fair enough”. But striking because the PoA wants to set their own terms and conditions in their own IEC’s??? Nah.
This action by the Maritime Union is pathetic and they will only have themselves to blame when the PoA hands out redundancy letters. In the meantime, Maersk (and their own customers) will receive good, ongoing service as their ships now berth at Tauranga.
December 9th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Sheesh, I see that my point has gone right over the top of Farrar’s head too.
Everyone is playing hardball within the bounds of the law, but apparently the workers are the only ones not allowed to so play. That is the hypocrisy.
Can you lot not see it? I say best of luck to each of them, may the best player win. Go hard or go home – just don’t sit there as lazy hypocrites singling out just one of the players and whingeing. Whingeing like a bunch of unionised poms – ha ha, bloody useless you lot.
December 9th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
LMAO @ VTO
December 9th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
vto –
Unskilled labourer scum who aren’t happy with getting paid $90k for being unskilled labourer scum, COULD HAVE gone and tried to find someone who wants to pay them even more for their services.
But instead, they CHOSE to declare war and try to hold the whole country to ransom. That is their right, but it is something they have chosen, so they cannot complain about how their own actions are perceived.
Bunch of lazy shit bag thugs, with a sense of entitlement surpassed only by politicians and certain Maori academic groups. Fuck them.
Where is Pepper Spraying Cop when you really need him?
December 9th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Sorry, I just keep getting the same thing back from you lot – anger at the unions doing that they are entitled to under the law. Just like PoA and Maersk.
I asked what the problem was with that, as I don’t see any problem. Everyone is perfectly entitled to take their business elsewhere, propose new employment contracts, go on strike, etc.
It seems to me that, from your answers, the problem is that ITS NOT FAIR….. WAH WAH WAH.
pathetic as well as hypocritical.
December 9th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Well actually vto your initial point was that labour was just doing what another industrial component was doing. After you got shown you were wrong you have moved that to “it’s all legal so stop complaining” which is a different matter entirely.
December 9th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
vto – comprehension not your strong point, huh? Try reading the various comments again. S-l-o-w-l-y.
Oh, never mind….
December 9th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
vto – the issue most people have is the effect it has on businesses. a lot of them have had a shit couple of years. they choose the worst possible time to strike. sure they are well within their rights to do so, but it does make them shit heads.
im not angry at them, i think its funny a bunch of them will get laid off because of their greed.
personally i think it should be illegal to strike. if you dont like it, fuck off somewhere else. i dont like that greed can shut down a generous employer.
the left say things like “well thats capitalism”. no its not. its capitalism that has been fucked with. there should never be a need to strike in this day n age.
thinking back to the progressive strike. i wonder if those people have caught up on lost pay yet? its only been 4 years or so… funnily enough, union leaders dont seem to go without when theres a strike…
December 9th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Congratulations VTO on summing up the Union’s arguments in a nutshell!
December 9th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
kiwigreg, perhaps I din’t explain my first point that well, but that has been my entire point. That each of the 3 parties is acting entirely within the law and acting hardballs. All 3 of them.
If you don’t like the law that allows labour to do what it is doing then you will have to change the law. And that is what Farrar thinks should be done. And clearly so do a lot of you others.
So, go change the law – if you can. But don’t whinge like a bunch of kids in the sandpit picking on the kid with the smallest toys. It is just pathetic. A good example of that is dime above, who complains about the combined effect of the actions of 3 parties involved, but singles out just one – the workers. The effect is the result of the actions of PoA in proposing something unpalatable and the actions of Maersk in taking their business elsewhere and the actions of the union in going on strike. Throw your anger at the other 2 as well – go on – you are just being suckered in by PoA and Maersk. The plotline is as old as the hills. Some people never learn.
December 9th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
vto – mind if me and some buddies fuck your 16 year old daughter/sister/niece? its legal. if ya dont like it you can just campaign to get the law changed… all the while my reply would be “wah wah wah me and the boys tag teamed your 16 year old daughter wah wah wah”
im sorry but the workers are being singled out because they are greedy. dont strike around xmas and hurt other businesses. its just not cool. are things really that bad that they have to strike? really?
just because something is legal doesnt mean youre not an asshole for sticking within the law.
December 9th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
What on Earth makes you think these jobs are unskilled? Or semi-skilled, for that matter?
December 9th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
One of the biggest problems New Zealanders face is buying a home. The governments own Savings Working Group has advised that immigration needs looking at as it is putting house prices up and the extra infrastructure is a burden on our low wage economy. The government chooses to ignore that however as they are beholden to a group whose business plan is mining capital gains. Their response will be to blame “greenies” and lowering impediments to private developers (that’s “Bankies” job)..
December 9th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
vto,
The effect is the result of the actions of PoA in proposing something unpalatable and the actions of Maersk in taking their business elsewhere and the actions of the union in going on strike. Throw your anger at the other 2 as well – go on – you are just being suckered in by PoA and Maersk.
That something is “unpalatable” to the union does not make it unreasonable. That there is a disagreement between multiple parties does not necessarily make all parties worthy of censure and the fact that all actions taken may be legal does not mean that no party deserves censure. Legal conduct can still be worthy of criticism.
December 9th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Graeme – no qualifications required, 3 weeks training provided.
December 9th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Take a look at the Herald comments. It’s quite obvious isn’t it there are many people in this country who don’t understand conservative thinking which is merely economic rationalism: i.e. how it really works.
Instead they appear to live in some bizarre fantasy world where we as in, the govt, must wrap people in cotton wool and prevent the evil business people from oppressing them which they’ll do in a heartbeat if one ever lets them.
This childish unreal notion reminds me of symptoms exhibited by people with BPD (Borderline Personality Discorder). Sufferers, just exactly like these people, form detailed scenarios inside their head about how the world works and no amount of evidence can shift it. Then they proceed to attempt to manipulate people in order to address whatever the problem is which they’ve diagnosed in their fantasy. The really sad part is, sufferers, just like these people, don’t even realise this is what they’re doing.
vto your obdurate refusal to accept the clear difference between Mearsk and the unions illustrates this perfectly so thanks for that.
Seriously, if you can’t understand the foolishness of the unions in precipitating this especially since this would not have been a bolt out of the blue, they would have known this was in the wind as they were laying the strike groundwork, but they went ahead with it regardless and lo, when the inevitable happens, why it wasn’t our fault, is what they say, or will, you watch. This massive own goal, which will result in terminations, was almost certainly done because the idiots would have thought, this’ll fix em, let’s damage the company and then they’ll have to talk to us. This is the only calculation which makes sense. The fact none not one of the commie idiots ever thought to think through what this might mean for some of their own members, indicates vto doesn’t it, that without doubt they haven’t done their job. Entirely through their own intentional action, they have destroyed the lives of many of their members.
Of course they’ll turn around and blame the company for making them go out on strike since their demands were so reasonable and this is where the $90k average pay comes in, doesn’t it.
But mere facts like these doesn’t stop the poisonous lefties from propagating their denial and spreading slanderous hatred toward totally innocent parties who never wanted any of this to happen.
December 9th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
It is inevitable that there will be job losses on the Auckland wharf as a consequence of Mearsk departing. And I guess the Union will oppose job losses; then again, no they wont, because unions have a history of putting energy into seeking redundancy payments rather than working with the employer to enable job levels to be maintained.
December 9th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
RRM 1:24 You nailed it.
cheers
David Prosser
December 9th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Reid, straight back at ya.
So many of you have such a simplistic take on strikes and unions. The plays and the press releases and manouervres and timing and everything is being played by all groups, not just the union. But the union cops it. If PoA was not so unreasonable there would clearly be no need to strike – but I mean that is obvious surely and PoA act with entirely good intentions. ha.
And fwiw I aint a union member, was only a couple of times when a youngster, and have been in business myself for donkeys years. I should be on ‘your side’. But I’m not. I’m not because imo a society that is strong on the bottom is strong all the way up. A society which is only strong on the top is weak-arsed, and is also in fact worse for business. Would you lot not prefer that we have a prosperous and contented working class? Is that not better for business? Who cares if us business owners and the rich have a smaller slice of the pie – the pie will be bigger and taste much better anyway. You won’t need to fight off others for it. Sheesh, dunno why people can’t see that what is good for the workers is also much better for business.
and as for dime “im sorry but the workers are being singled out because they are greedy” ha ha ha ha you are the biggest fool of all, as well being a ………….. (you fill in the gaps, it wont be hard to imagine) for your last comment. Shithead.
December 9th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
If PoA was not so unreasonable there would clearly be no need to strike – but I mean that is obvious surely and PoA act with entirely good intentions. ha.
But crikey vto this is mental. Of course there is doubt over PoA being unreasonable for the mere fact that $90k is their average wage. Der.
Someone above maybe you alleged it was cause there was 70 hour work weeks which frankly, knowing wharfies, is fucking bullshit. What planet have you been living on where any NZ wharfy did that, week after week. Pull the other one.
So vto based on facts to date you have nothing to stand on. Simple as that. Yet still, like a BPD sufferer you continue to deny reality even exists but yet insist your fantasy which is based on nothing but your own poisonous hatred which twists everything for people like you, is in fact the way that it is. Despite as I say, these clear and present facts to date.
December 9th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Of course – how National performs will determine whether they get a third term.
Leftards seem to think 2014 is in the bag. While the right seems to be a little pessimistic about their chances. Then again, that probably just reflects the mind sets of the two camps.
It’s weird – even though the Nats won 48% of the vote – it’s the left who seem to be cock-a-hoop.
December 9th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
reid, you and facts are mutually exclusive. I see no facts in any of the posts above – just regurgitated polemic. Has anybody posted or linked to any evidence to support any of the claims? Not one. Not a single one.
My very specific point outlined in the first few posts of mine stands.
Mearsk has thrown its toys out of the cot which it is entitled to do.
PoA has thrown its toys out of the cot which it is entitled to do.
The union has thrown its toys out of the cot which it is entitled to do.
All I do is laugh at the right who, when their own game gets thrown straight back at them, goes crying wah wah wah. Well suck it up big boys – its a free world, as you so desire. Deal with the consequences.
You lot have the stench of hypocrisy.
December 9th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Well, I’d call that an outstandingly successful troll by vto. Well threadjacked.
But in terms a reforming Government – as I see it, the only real reform on the cards here is Charter Schools. The rest, including the spending cap, is tinkering. Which doesn’t make the changes bad – just that they are incremental rather than changing anything substantial. Still no reform to WFF or interest free student loans, for example.
Basically – the Govt is happy to play according to rules dictated by the last Govt in most areas.
December 9th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
VTO – if you ordered fish & chips, paid for fish & chips, then after 20 minutes the guy came out and said “fuck you, guy, I’m not gonna make you your fish & chips until my boss starts paying me more”…
would you:
(a) Ring up the shop owner, and spend 45 minutes lobbying them on the employee’s behalf to increase wages;
(b) Just wait patiently in the fish & chip shop all night, all the next day, until next week sometime when the fish shop owner and his employee have sorted their shit out and finally make you your dinner you needed last week.
(c) Fuck off next door to the Thai curry place, where you are immediately served what you want, by hard-working people who appreciate and value your business.
Moral of this story:
Maersk are the customer in all of this. It is ridiculous to suggest they are somehow to blame for the problems by deciding to switch suppliers after getting dicked around by the people who previously had the privilege of offering Maersk their services.
Don’t get me wrong vto I’m an ideological leftie and Green party voter. I believe it is important that government provides laws and regulations to stop the powerful from fucking the powerless over in the name of profits.
But I have to ask – Have you ever had to look after a customer at all vto?
Have you ever had to win someone’s business through offering to do a better job than the competition, sooner than the competition, at a better price than the competition?
I ask this because your comments on this thread suggest you have led a sheltered existence, where you just turn up in the morning and punch time, and at the end of the fortnight you get paid regardless of whether you’ve actually achieved anything.
Am I right?
December 9th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
as I see it, the only real reform on the cards here is Charter Schools. The rest, including the spending cap, is tinkering.
Nick I agree with DPF, the spending cap has more punch than one realises. It totally fucks the leftist agenda since it’s something, like the ECA, that will form an eternal sticking point between both sides and it’s a moral high-ground as well.
It remains to be seen how well National plays the propaganda card on this over this next term for this is the one and only opportunity to embed it into the reef fish so that when Liarbore inevitably campaign on repealing it which they have to since they can’t operate with it – they’re not capable of designing policies that live within the tax we give the govt, they just can’t do it – the reef fish will take note, and learn that one of the diffs betw National and Liarbore is that National actually cares about the economy.
Waxing lyrical it’s an opportunity to break the propaganda inroads which result in most of the electorate and almost the entire media stating as a fact that whenever National propose any spending at all it’s purely to selfishly benefit their own and when they propose cuts it’s always to the detriment of the poor and vulnerable. About a million or so voters actually truly believe this as a result of decades of propaganda like “failed policies of the 90′s.”
December 9th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
I hope the next three years do not involve a great deal of reforming; it would be nice if Mr Key did not scare the horses and simply focused on exports and cutting the welfare bill.
Nothing whatsoever needs ‘reforming’ so do not bother. 20 people in the beltway saying “____ needs reforming” does not mean it actually is required.
December 9th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
20 people in the beltway saying “____ needs reforming” does not mean it actually is required.
JamesS not sure if you’re joking but if not then simple fact is we can’t afford the debt to GDP ratio Liarbore handed the country with its entrenched spending promises. Simple as that.
If you want to argue we can afford it, in today’s global uncertainty which seems these days to change daily, then go ahead.
December 9th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
I suspect vto’s argument is an attempted reductio ad absurdum. S/he’s saying: Ok, you want the power of the free market? Don’t complain when market power is exercised by unions. Hence accusations of “hypocrisy” by those on the right. But I don’t necessarily agree that his/her second argument is sound (that if people “on the bottom” are strong, society is stronger generally): Unions aren’t always the ones “on the bottom”.
In another thread I mentioned how in the past, several large unions routinely held the country’s public services and businesses to ransom with rolling strikes on the waterfront, on the railways, in the hospitals, in the schools, and in many other industries. Often over trivial matters such as the timing of meal breaks and work demarcation. They did it because they could. That kind of power doesn’t strike me (no pun intended) as the actions of people “on the bottom”.
Things may be different now – and I don’t know the reasons why the stevedore workers went on strike. But in the shadow of the GFC, if the viability of local businesses are affected by the actions of unions, government policy or other businesses, there better be good reasons for it or people are understandably pissed off.
December 9th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Reid I am quite serious; life for me is going very well at the moment (I appear to own one of the few companies actually making a profit) and do not see why we should start reforming things just to be all liberal and modern.
There are plenty of ‘one issue’ nutters who believe their pet project is so bloody important the world is about to end unless parliament legislates. But no one takes any notice of nutters. And the World is yet to end.
I hope Mr Key just ignores the rubbish and concentrates on maintaining the status quo during the next three years.
December 9th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Putting wharfies to shame.
http://screencast.com/t/b7BLXIOJJgs
http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/19579-smit-borneo-lifting-begins.html
December 9th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
dime: “no qualifications required, 3 weeks training provided.”
Then the job can’t be unskilled, as training is required.
December 9th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
bc – so if im employed you to pick up my dogs shit and had to show you how to use the pooper scooper, would you pass yourself off as a skilled employee?
December 9th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Would 3 weeks training be required?
December 9th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Possibly.
December 9th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Natinal reform ?
December 10th, 2011 at 6:48 am
No skills required to be an assessor for ECQ on $75/hr (equating to $185,000 p.a?). Apply Gerry Brownlie. Then There’s Jenny Shipley’s $1000/day; but they are the “I people” (like us).
December 10th, 2011 at 10:24 am
reid: Why have the Nats done nothing about the entrenched spending of Labour. I posit that the spending limit will have more of an effect on the Nats than on labour as typically the country is happy with a labour govt during times of plenty where tax revenue is high, yet votes Nat when things get tight. If the Nats don’t so anything about the entrenched spending they’ll be the ones raising the limit in the next cycle.
December 10th, 2011 at 11:55 am
None of the items listed in DPF’s reform agenda will improve New Zealand’s international competitiveness or lift productivity. In essense the reforms are simplistic cost cutting measures that don’t deliver growth or stimulate the market place to grow and provide more jobs and income opportunities.
December 10th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Are all the retarded loons commenting on the herald articles now or is NZ so screwed up that those commenting on the website are a reflection of normal NZérs. Those people commenting on the herald seem to have the economic literacy of a tree stump.
Although in saying that with the NZ Heralds progression to being a left leaning paper, perhaps it is only natural that noisy lefty bastards comment more on it. Add that to the fact that they don’t seem to post half my comments but are all to eager to post comments from all those tossers on there.
Out of the first 12 comments on Davids article, only one of them didn’t come from a lefty.
December 10th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Rather there than here.
December 10th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Probably a bit late to this discussion, but I drive past the POA every day and these guys aren’t getting support from motorists at all. No one here has raised the point about what effect this has on the ratepayers of Auckland as the Council’s dividend from POA is cut with the loss of the MAERSK contract to Tauranga. So this strike has the bearing on every ratepayer.
Similarly the Occupy protest has a cost to ratepayers. I read the costs to clean up after they are gone and well they didn’t seem that substantial, but they are yet to determine whether there has been damage done to the membrane that protects the Civic carpark from tent pegs. Remember the millions that has been spent fixing that.
Fine to strike, and protest, but it seems to me that someone has to pay in the end and in these two cases ratepayers are two of the biggest losers.
December 10th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Are policemen also unskilled labourers since police college in only 19 weeks?