Anthony Hubbard writes in the SST:

Of course, no government could go on a spree. Even a Green-led administration would be doing austerity.

Oh wait is that a pig flying over-head.

The parties of the left have opposed pretty much every spending cut or restraint of the last four years. They have done little except to call for more spending and more taxation. To have Hubbard declare a Green-led administration would also do austerity flies in the face of not just four years of press releases from them, but even their own policy statements.  Here’s just a few of their massive spending policies:

• Increase schools operations grant by 10%
• Maximum class sizes no greater than 20
• Increased teacher-child ratios in early childhood services
• More funding for Maori language
• Support pay parity for early childhood, primary and secondary educators
• Write off student loan debt on a year for year basis if they stay in NZ
• Establishing a universal student allowance
• Cap and then progressively reduce student fees
• Increase Community Organisations Grants Scheme (COGS) funding to $34m per annum
• Establish a special fund of $150 million to mitigate the impact of ending pub pokie grants to community and voluntary sector organizations
• Support TVNZ’s channel one becoming a commercial free, New Zealand focussed channel
• Increase acquisition and building of state housing units by at least 3000 units a year for the next 3 years.
• Provide funding to third sector housing organisations for a minimum of 1000 units a year for the next 3 years
• A Universal Child Benefit of $18.40 per week per child for the first child, $13.00 for subsequent children
• Protect all benefit levels by linking rates to a fixed percentage of the average wage (like superannuation).
• Remove discrimination from tax credit regimes such as the In Work Payment component of Working for Families.
• Increase funding to promote health and prevent illness and injury to 10% of the health budget.
• Introduce a free annual wellness check for all New Zealanders.
• Extend the healthcare subsidies available to superannuitants to cover people on sickness and invalid’s benefits.
• Provide free fruit to all primary schools.
• Significantly increase funding for the aged and disability care sector.
• Abolish asset testing for residential care.
• Increase New Zealand’s ODA budget to 0.7% of GNI by 2015
• Publicly funded mediation services for civil proceedings.
• Legal aid available for community organisations in matters of public interest

Any economist want to estimate the cost of just those pledges? I reckon around $10b a year.

And Mr Hubbard would have us believe the Greens are into austerity!

It is worth reflecting that as Labour are polling so badly, any future left-wing Giovernment would be around one third Greens, which means they would realistically expect around a third of their policies to be implemented.

Tags: Anthony Hubbard, austerity, Greens, spending

I get mad when I read this:

A report by the Housing Shareholders Advisory Group in 2010 found there was a 70,000 house shortfall across the country.

The Greens say yesterday’s announcement is ”just a drop in the ocean”.

Co-leader Metiria Turei said the housing crisis was ”a ticking time bomb”.

”We urgently need to increase the supply of housing to cover the 70,000 house deficit we have in New Zealand. At this pace it will take decades.”

Families were struggling with high-cost, low-quality, overcrowded housing while some families didn’t even have housing, she said.

And why do we have high-cost low-quality housing in Auckland especially? Because the Greens and others steadfastly campaign against the one thing which could massively lower the cost of land, and hence housing. That is to increase the urban limit.

The Greens are against this because that means people living further out will drive those evil cars more. Now that is a reasonable point of view to have – that getting rid of cars is more important than affordable housing.

But hell when you then come out all upset over the cost of housing, well go bloody look in the mirror.

Personally I regard making housing in Auckland more affordable as far more important than trying to force people out of their cars. The Greens do not however. Their solution is to keep land prices high.

Tags: Greens, house prices

In my Herald column I ask the question that if you are a voter of the left, why would you not support the Greens over Labour?

Before I explore why the Greens are doing so relatively well at the moment, first let us look at perhaps the historical reasons why left voters generally did not support the Greens.

The first is policy influence. The two larger parties are the one that can shape Government the most. A party on five per cent has little influence compared to a party on 45 per cent. But this is not the environment in 2012. Labour continues to poll in the 20s only, and the Greens have started to poll between 14 per cent and 17 per cent. This means that in any future Government, the Greens could represent a third or more of the Government, which would give them massive influence – at a minimum Russel Norman could expect to be made Minister of Finance.

And the other historical reason:

The second reason why the Greens historically did not attract widespread support from the left is because they were perceived as extremists. Their defence spokesperson hated the United States. Their justice spokesperson was best known for breaking the law. Their economic policy was to argue against economic growth. Their consumer spokesperson railed against the size of easter eggs, and their welfare spokesperson was a former beneficiary rights activist. At one stage a significant portion of their caucus were actually former Marxist and maoists.

I also point out almost all new Labour policies were already Green policies:

Well if you look at almost all the new policies adopted by Labour in the last couple of years, they stole them from the Greens. Capital Gains Tax – was Greens policy. Extending the in work tax credit to beneficiaries – was Greens policy. Modifying the Reserve Bank Act targets – again Greens policy. Paid Parental Leave extension – forced on Labour by the Alliance, and pushed by the Greens. A hike in the minimum wage to $12 and then $15 – Greens and NZ First policy for many years. A tax-free threshold for all earners – again long-standing Greeen policy.

I’m interested especially in views of left voters as to why they might still be a Labour rather than Greens supporter? Is it tradition? Is it policy? Is it leadership?

Tags: David Farrar on Politics, Greens, Labour, NZ Herald

This is a guest post by Green MP Julie-Anne Genter, initiated after some questions in Parliament last session on this issue:

Let me just start with what this post is NOT saying:

1. I am not saying that people should not, or will not, continue to use cars for many trips.
2. I am not saying that all existing roads should be turned into dirt tracks for carts and horses.
3. I am not saying we should ban anything, or eliminate all car parking.
4. I am not saying that you should give up your car, if it doesn’t suit you.

 When we get past the straw man arguments, there is something you and I (and all New Zealanders) can be very concerned about: The Government is planning to spend $14 billion over this next decade — which is more than this year’s deficit and 75% of all new transport infrastructure spending — on a few new state highways with very poor business cases.

Most of that is on 6 projects it calls the ‘Roads of National Significance’. (The 7th, Victoria Park Tunnel, the project with the highest benefit cost ratio, has already been completed.)

It is truly extraordinary that the Government considers the RoNS to be a key plank in their economic strategy, because there is actually no evidence to suggest the additional motorways will have a positive impact on the economy.

A compilation of the benefit-cost ratios carried out by the Parliamentary Library show that, in total, they are projected to return just $1.40 for every $1 invested (if you excluded Vic Park, it would be less). Several of the individual projects will cost more than their benefits, most notably Puhoi to Wellsford and Transmission Gully, which cost nearly a billion dollars more than the benefits they would create.

Moreover, the Government’s numbers are too optimistic. The traditional traffic engineering approach tends to overstate the benefits and understate the costs (PDF) of motorway projects. One of the basic assumptions in the modelling is that traffic volumes will always rise — irrespective of fuel prices and the economy. The RoNS business cases are no exception: Puhoi to Wellsford assumed 4% annual traffic growth from 2006-2026, though NZTA data now shows that didn’t eventuate from 2006-2011. Traffic and freight volumes on state highways aren’t growing because of the impacts of high oil prices and low economic growth—in fact, they’re back to 2004 levels.

We all know petrol prices are at record levels — up 50% in the past five years — and are likely to go much higher this decade. This is a very strong case for deferring the RoNS in favour of more cost-effective projects that also reduce the oil-dependence of the transport sector.

Road users, ratepayers, and the economy will benefit from projects that will move the most people and goods for the lowest cost in the coming decades. And we need to be realistic about the increasing cost of fuel to cars and trucks.

There are better alternatives: Making it easier and safer for kids to cycle and walk to school is one of the cheapest ways to reduce peak hour congestion. By adding capacity to train and bus routes that are already experiencing huge (10-15%) annual patronage growth in Auckland, we can ease congestion on the roads, reduce household petrol bills, and improve the cost effectiveness of public transport. Freight priority (think truck lanes) can be cheaply implemented on key routes at extremely low cost.

Even if you drive everywhere, you benefit when we make it easier for others to leave the car at home, because it’s a cheaper way to reduce congestion (plus it’ll be easier for you to find parking…).

Resources are limited, so we must make choices. Expanding the existing state highway programme is expensive for little gain – but it also means that every other transport category will be squeezed for the next decade: including road policing, local road maintenance, walking, cycling and public transport. So it will be harder for people to get where they need to go. That’s going to mean more congestion, or more lost money in high petrol bills.

If we choose to invest in modern, smart transport solutions, we can spend less on petrol, reduce our international debt, and have a transport system that is better for our economy and better for our people. But, first, we need the Government to honestly re-evaluate its transport priorities.

I think scrutiny of an annual $1.4b spend is a good thing, and JAG makes some reasonable points around the fact some of the RONS do not have a positive benefit to cost ratio. There can be reasons to look at factors beyond the benefit to cost ratio, but Government should generally be careful not to cherry pick “winners”.

I’ve actually advocated that rather than vary the level of benefit to cost ratio which determines a transport project gets funded, we should instead set a constant ratio (maybe 1.5:1) and adjust the level of petrol tax automatically to fund projects which qualify.

On the issue of future traffic volumes, the link provided by JAG is worth reading, showing the recent change in both NZ and global traffic volumes. However I would be cautious about jumping to conclusions over future volumes as I think the three factors are petrol prices, economic growth and population growth. Petrol prices may continue to increase but population growth will remain, and eventually economic growth will be higher (but perhaps not as high as when fuelled by debt).

Thanks to Julie Anne for the post. With $14 billion being spent over a decade, it’s an important debate.

Tags: Greens, Julie Anne Genter, roads, transport

Green MP Steffan Browning blogs:

As a Member of Parliament, I cannot condone illegal activity, but as a participant in the Scion GE tree and Plant & Food Research GE brassica hearings, I know why activists can feel the need to overstep the badly managed processes and take the law into their own hands.

If that’s not an implicit endorsement, I don’t know what is.

The Greens – the party campaigning against science.

Tags: Greens, Steffan Browning

The Greens used to have a section called The Wild Greens, who carried out attacks on stuff they disagree with. The Herald reports:

Scientists have slammed the “senseless” destruction of hundreds of genetically-engineered pine trees during a break-in at a Rotorua plantation.

Scion planted 375 radiata pines last year to test herbicide resistance and study reproductive development.

The company said damage to the trees, which occurred over the Easter Weekend, will cost around $400,000.

Scion Chief Executive Dr Warren Parker describes this as a blatant act of vandalism designed to end Scion’s genetic modification research programme.

Now no one has claimed responsibility for the vandalism yet – which is not surprising, as they will presumably be arrested. But like with the stickers in the election, will there be links to the Green Party, and even the parliamentary wing?

Will the Greens come out and condemn this attack?

Tags: Greens

John Hartevelt at Stuff reports:

The party may yet take a serious run at trying to win the Auckland Central seat in 2014. It is one of four electorates considered potential targets if the party decides to run more than just a party vote campaign next time.

The candidate there, Denise Roche, has a solid history in the electorate and there was a strong Green Party vote there in 2011. The third element needed to encourage serious optimism about a Green winning an electorate is weakish Labour and National candidates – not the case in Auckland Central but potentially true in Rongotai or Dunedin North by 2014.

I had been meaning to write on this issue for a while, as the Greens are indeed considering a number of seats which they could possibly win in 2014. It is unlikely they would ever drop below the 5% threshold and need the “safety net” but there are considerable benefits from having one or more seats anyway in terms of certainity plus broader community mandate and the like.

The three seats I thought the Greens should (and were) looking at are Wellington Central, Hutt South and Rongotai. I hadn’t considered Auckland Central and Dunedin North so let’s look at them also.

Wellington Central

This is arguably the most winnable seat for the Greens, for two reasons. The first is it had their highest party vote of any seat – 27.7%. They actually got more party votes than Labour did. So if all the Green party voters voted for the Green candidate, then they would be in the game. 62% of Green voters voted for the Labour candidate. If the Greens made it clear they wanted to win the seat, and have it as a secure base for the party, many of their voters would respond.

Now the incumbent Labour MP, Grant Robertson, is generally well regarded in the seat, and you would expect him to retain some support from Green voters. But then we come to the second factor – National voters. 15,000 people voted National, 11,000 Green and around 10,000 Labour. If National voters accepted their candidate could not win the seat (which is my view), how would they vote in a choice between the Labour Party Deputy Leader, and the Green candidate (especially if it is again James Shaw who has wide appeal)? I’d say many National voters would vote for Shaw over Robertson, and the Greens could well win the seat – and hold it for a long time. Worth remembering Wellington City has a Green Mayor.

Rongotai

Rongotai had the second highest party vote for the Greens, at 24.2%. Co-Leader Russel Norman got 20.2% of the electorate vote. More Green voters voted for Norman than King. Now King would be safe in the seat, but a new candidate at the 2014 election (maybe Andrew Little or Darren Hughes) might not fare so well.

But the real excitement is what if Annette King stands for, and wins, Mayor of Wellington, causing a by-election in 2013. By-elections often favour smaller parties. The Alliance almost won Tamaki in 1992 and Selwyn in 1994. ACT came second in Taranaki – King Country in 1997. If there is a 2013 by-election, I think Russel Norman would have a good chance of victory, unless Labour puts up a real star.

Hutt South

Now on the numbers Hutt South is not a Green stronghold. They got 12% on the party vote. But I have spies (well friends) in Hutt South and all I hear about is how new Green MP Holly Walker is everywhere. She is acting as a de facto electorate MP, and lots of people are saying how good she is.

Even the current electorate MP Trevor Mallard won’t say a bad word about her. In fact he seems very proud of her. Now Trevor will stand again, but Hutt South locals could just decide they want a fresh, energetic representative who is likely to become a party (co) leader in due course, and a senior Minister. Plus factor in the Nats whom loathe Mallard, and would tactically vote. Plus there’s a fair few in Labour not so happy with Mallard also, as a reminder of what people voted out in 2008. Now there may not be a lot of them in Hutt South, but I would not under-estimate Walker’s potential appeal.

Auckland Central

Auckland Central is the fourth highest party vote for Greens – at 22.8%. Denise Roche is a well known and quite popular representative (especially on Waiheke). She only got 2,900 or so votes but that is because Green supporters were urged to vote for Jacinda Ardern to try and beat Nikki Kaye. 63% of Green voters voted Ardern and only 21% Roche. However that would change if the Greens were trying to win the seat – especially as Roche is home-grown, and not an import. Labour received only 800 more party votes than Labour.

However I have to say I regard it as unlikely that Roche would win the seat off Kaye in 2014. Kaye saw off the very high profile (and now Labour #4) Jacinda Ardern, and boundary changes next year are likely to favour Kaye. National has grown its party vote in Auckland Central in each of the last three elections, partly as a result of boundary changes.

However if the Greens went for a medium-term strategic approach, they would be sensible to target Auckland Central in 2014. While I do not think they would win in 2014, I think it is quite possible Roche could come second, and when Kaye retires be in prime position to take the seat.

Dunedin North

This has the third highest party vote fr the Greens at 23.4%.  Turei got around 20% of the electorate vote. However Labour had around 3,000 more party votes than the Greens which makes it a harder seat to take. David Clark seems to be reasonably well regarded. Also National’s party vote is not so high in this seat, so even if some of them tactically voted, it is hard to see Clark losing.

So overall while none of them are certs, there are a number of strong possibilities for the Greens. If I were them, I wouldn’t just choose one seat to target, but go for three or four where they could be contenders, to maximise their chances of winning at least one of them. It is not at all impossible that they could even win more than one electorate seat.

Tags: Greens

The Green announced today:

The Green Party has pioneered the co-leadership model which has helped us provide representative and dynamic leadership. We think the time has come for further innovation, said Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman.

We will be introducing a more inclusive model of leadership that covers youth and rainbow representatives, said Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei.

The Green Party is launching today a broader leadership model that will include male and female youth and rainbow co-leaders. The additional co-leaders will be Holly Walker, Gareth Hughes, Jan Logie and Kevin Hague.

Green Party Co-leader Jan Logie added, “This is a great opportunity it has happened pretty quickly but I think I’m ready to take up the challenge.”  

I actually fell for the press release reading that far, thinking how ridiculous it was to have six co-leaders and only the Greens would do it.

Green Party Co-leader Kevin Hague added, “I’m looking forward to providing new leadership and representing the rainbow and shiny pate communities.”

Green Party Co-leader Holly Walker, said, “When Metiria and Russel, told me I was like no way, and they were like way, and I was like that’s like awesome.” 

“This is tots gangsta man, I’m gonna tweet this everywhere, said Green Party Co-leader Gareth Hughes.

This then gave it away.

But not a bad effort, the best AF jokes should be initially believable - as this one was.

Tags: April Fool's Day, Greens

Stuff reports:

Former Alliance Party leader and Cabinet minister Laila Harre has joined the Green Party’s staff.

Harre will take up the newly created position of issues director and will be based in Auckland.

Heh, issues director. My interpretation of that is she will be effectively the Auckland Campaign Director.

“Laila’s experience in central and local government, coupled with her strong campaigning background, makes her ideally suited to this job.”

The Greens know that keeping their vote high in Auckland is key to retaining over 10% support. Only 3 out of their 14 MPs are Auckland based. I will not be surprised if Harre turns up on their party list.

Tags: Greens, Laila Harre

The Herald reports:

The Green Party is being accused of politicking and hijacking compensation negotiations between Newmont Waihi Gold and the local community.

But local MP Catherine Delahunty says there is widespread disapproval of the multinational company prospecting throughout the Coromandel Peninsula and people see Waihi as “an object-lesson”.

There may be disapproval from some people in the wider Coromandel, but how much from Waihi locals? I seem to recall a story a while back about how many people there are dependent on mining for their jobs, and in fact would like more jobs.

Placard-waving protesters who had arrived from Tauranga to Colville marched on Newmont Waihi Gold’s office yesterday to raise concerns about the company’s expansion plans for its operations on the peninsula.

So these protesters came from cities such as Tauranga, to speak on behalf of the people of Waihi?

Ms Delahunty said there were concerns that Newmont had permits to explore for gold in over 40,000ha of land in the Coromandel – including in areas of Schedule 4 conservation land.

You can’t apply for a mine, unless you have done some initial exploration. The impact from exploration is quite minor, as I understand it.

Ms Delahunty said mining was an unsustainable “finite industry” and would affect the peninsula’s $360 million-a-year tourism industry.

Nonsense. Sure there are some places you would not stick a gold mine, but I doubt a single tourist would choose not to come to the Coromandel because of some mining. Hell, on the West Coast the mines are actual tourist attractions.

And yes it is a finite industry, but probably will be around for the next 100+ years and during that time it will feed a lot of families who need jobs. Mining jobs tend to be higher paid jobs too.

Tags: Greens, mining, Waihi

The Mercury reports:

The Greens’ hero was met with a standing ovation when he delivered the 2012 Green Oration, which called for a single global and democratic parliament.

“Let us create a global democracy and parliament under the grand idea of one planet, one person, one vote, one value,” he said.

Senator Brown said he would call on the world’s 100 Greens parties to back his “earth parliament” at the third global Greens conference in Senegal next week.

So which Green MPs are attending the global Greens conference and will they be voting in favour of there being one global parliament under one person, one vote, one value.

Under one person, one vote, a majority i the global Parliament would be held by representatives from China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Russia and Bangladesh.

In one sense I  have some agreement with Senator Brown. It would be nice to have a global Parliament, so there are no trade barriers etc. Ironic, as the Greens are the most protectionist party around.

But it could never happy with so many countries presently governed by repressive regimes. It would just extend that repression to the planet. And God knows how many things the Greens would try to ban on a global scale, if there was a global Parliament.

What I would support is a super-parliament of democratic countries. Only countries with true democracies, with freedom of speech and religion, with a free media could join.

Tags: Greens

Derek Cheng at NZ Herald reports:

Labour leader David Shearer has admitted to embarrassing mistakes in his private member’s bill to restrict foreign ownership of farms, including giving the bill two names and unintentionally removing safeguards for native flora and fauna.

The bill was the first major policy release from Mr Shearer since taking over as party leader.

Under the bill, foreign bids would have to bring substantial increases in jobs or exports through new technology or products, and these must be additional to what would happen if a New Zealander bought the land.

The present law lists a number of factors ministers can consider in determining whether the bid would bring “substantial and identifiable” benefit to New Zealand. Among the factors are protection for native flora and fauna, heritage and cultural sites, and wildlife and walking access.

But Mr Shearer’s bill would wipe these factors completely, effectively meaning an application that ticked the box for more exports but destroyed the environment could get the green light.

I think the Greens just won some more votes off Labour.

Tags: David Shearer, foreign investment, Greens

Stuff reports:

Windflow Technology’s boss is batting away any unease about his company’s hook up with a United States giant which makes nuclear submarines, saying it is like turning military weapons to peacetime products.

This week the small, struggling Christchurch turbine manufacturer disclosed a 10-year licensing agreement with General Dynamics SATCOM, a subsidiary of General Dynamics, which manufactures weapons, military vehicles and military communications systems.

Windflow is strapped for cash and needs new customers if it is to survive. …

Henderson said he had not received any criticisms from shareholders about the deal, and had actually received  some congratulations.

This is hilarious. Windflow has been held up as the darling of the Green Party for years. Jeanette was a shareholder, as were other Green MPs. I think their superannuation scheme is also an investor.

Now Russel Norman gets up on regular occasions and demands the NZ Super Fund doesn’t invest in certain companies because one of their subsidiaries in in partnership with some company that does something they don’t like.

I look forward to the Greens extending the same criteria to Windflow and denouncing it. Or maybe it is only the NZ Super Fund they say shouldn’t invest in companies linked to technologies they disapprove of, and it is fine for their own super fund to do so?

Tags: Greens, Windflow

A friend just reminded me of a section of new Green MP Holly Walker’s maiden speech. I’ve blogged in the past that I think Holly will be a very good MP and advocate for her beliefs. But that doesn’t mean I won’t have fun highlighting when she competes with Cath Delahunty to be the most fervent Ngati Pakeha in Parliament.

In Holly’s speech she said:

Mr Speaker, at this point it is appropriate to acknowledge the amazing kākahu that rests on my shoulders tonight. It was woven by long-standing Green Party member and leader Danna Glendinning over 22 months, under the guidance of kuia at Te Rau Awaawa in Hamilton, and gifted to the party at a powhiri in January. This incredible taonga is woven from the feathers of Pākehā birds

How is a bird a Pākehā bird? What makes a bird a Pākehā? What birds are Maori? Are some birds asian?

Does she mean a Pākehā bird is a non-endemic to New Zealand bird? Or does she mean a Pākehā bird is a non-native bird?

I’ve never heard a bird referred to as a Pākehā before. It is somewhat ironic as some say that the term is derived from “Pa-Kea”, a long nosed bird that was often found in the pa.

 including caged battery hens, who have found a freedom in death in this kākahu that they never had in life. 

A freedom in death? Remind me never to give Holly an enduring power of attorney over me My idea of freedom doesn’t include being made into a cloak!

Tags: Greens, Holly Walker

Jared Smith at Stuff reports:

Opponents of the oil drilling practice of fracking are unmoved by a report showing the controversial process does not cause earthquakes.

The GNS Science study – commissioned by Taranaki Regional Council – was released yesterday in response to growing public and media scrutiny of fracking.

“There is no evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities in Taranaki between 2000 and mid-2011 have triggered, or have had any observable effect on, natural earthquake activity,” the conclusion states.

Neither would there be any earthquake caused by long-term deep injection activities.

The earthquake study follows TRC’s report last year stating fracking posed no meaningful risk of contaminating Taranaki fresh water.

However, Gareth Hughes, Green Party spokesman on energy and fracking, said the process should be halted “in the interests of caution”, including an investigation by the parliamentary commissioner for the environment.

Once the Greens decide something is bad, no amount of science can convince them otherwise.

TRC’s director of environment quality Gary Bedford said fracking is a slow process and being 4km underground the rock creates a “back pressure”.

“You can’t get a runaway fracking activity,” he said.

Fracking causes a “shift trigger” in the earth of a few millimetres, whereas an earthquake along a fault line would travel hundreds and thousands of miles, Mr Bedford said.

“There’s no sensible comparison between the two.

But plenty of unsensible comparisons.

GNS studied 3300 earthquakes in Taranaki from 2000-2011, focusing on areas within 10km of any fracking location and occurring within three months of fracking activity. Only one quake – at Kaimiro near Inglewood – happened right on the 10km boundary and it happened three months later.

Mr Bedford said Kaimiro was an active fault line and earthquakes had happened before fracking took place there.

Who needs GNS with their scientific witchcraft? How dare they actually do a scientific study? The Greens have spoken and said fracking is bad. It must be stopped immediately, because they know best.

Tags: fracking, Greens

John Hartevelt reports at the SST:

A bigger, stronger Green Party says it will not be “tuakana teina” to anyone.

Green co-leader Metiria Turei is today set to stake out what the party plans to make of its increased caucus and party membership.

In Maoridom, “tuakana teina” describes a relationship between an older and younger sibling. In a keynote speech to the Green Party policy conference in Palmerston North today, Turei will assert that the party should expect to be in government in 2014, but not in a “tuakana teina” relationship with either of the major parties.

“What we have seen when Labour and National have negotiated deals, the small parties have been the receivers of whatever the bigger parties want to dole out but not necessarily decision making,” Turei said.

“We will be the ones who decide how we engage with government. From the outset, we need to make it really explicit that we are the ones that make the decisions.”

Very ballsy talk. It does pose the question though about what the Greens will do if Labour doesn’t agree to their “decisions”. Would they refuse supply and confidence?

Tags: Greens

The maiden speeches of the new Green MPs are here.

Mojo Mathers:

I joined the Green Party and stood as a candidate for the first time in the 2005 general election. When I first stood I had no concept of what huge challenges lay ahead of me as a deaf candidate and activist. I just wanted to speak out in defence of our water and our environment and be heard. But I learnt the hard way that passion and knowledge were not enough. I had to find different ways of doing politics, ways of getting around the barriers posed by being deaf, ways that allowed me to participate and engage effectively. I started learning New Zealand Sign Language and using sign language interpreters when I spoke to submissions to the local city and regional councils. I am absolutely thrilled that there are New Zealand Sign Language interpreters in the gallery today, and I note that it is the first time in New Zealand that a maiden speech is being covered this way. I hope that this will be the start of greater recognition by Parliament of the status of New Zealand Sign as our third official language.

And Denise Roche:

 I set out on a journey that began as a union organiser, initially with the Theatrical Workers Union, hitching rides on trains in the guards’ van with my dad’s union mates and fighting for the rights of cinema workers around the northern part of our country. I have protested and picketed with the best. I can attest that love and politics can mix: my first date with my life partner, John, was at a union picket at the Devonport Docks.

Romance at union pickets. Not likely to happen at Ports of Auckland as the union blokes have managed to keep all but two women away from working there.

I can assure the House that even though I am the Greens’ gambling spokesperson, I am not an anti-gambling zealot, and I will prove that to you by selling you a raffle ticket during the dinner break. I am, however, deeply concerned with the harm caused by commercialised gambling, and especially by the blight on our communities caused by pokie machines. Kiwis know that these machines reap their profits from problem gambling. Kiwis know that they can harm whole communities, which is why whenever they have been asked if they want more pokies, people say no. The former Manukau City Council received over 6,000 submissions asking it to restrict pokies. Active, engaged citizens are saying no to pokies, and will be dismayed by the banana republic, back-room deal being done by the Government, where our laws are for sale, and where the Auckland casino, a monopoly provider, is to be expanded in return for a convention centre—or was that 30 pieces of silver. Commercial gambling is deeply regressive, and cynically exploitative. It is a transfer of wealth from the brown to the white, from the women to the men, and from the poor to the rich. Casinos are an engine of crime and inequality.

If that is NOT being an anti-gaming zealot, I’d hate to see what an actual anti-gaming zealot looks like!

Julie-Anne Genter:

I studied philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, to try to uncover the rational underpinnings of my political and ethical convictions. In my final year I took up French, in part due to a love of Voltaire and his pragmatic approach to humanism. Ten years ago I left the United States. I initially went to France to gain fluency in the language, but I stayed because I could not bear to return to a country engaged in the futile and destructive wars championed by George W Bush. After some time working and travelling in Europe I was fortunate enough to receive a scholarship to undertake postgraduate study at Sciences Po in Paris, where I was able to study economics and political theory. My questions about the places we live and the nature of our economy were slowly informed by my experiences, as well as by my studies. I eagerly delved deeper into new approaches to urban planning, transport, and resource management at the University of Auckland, and in my subsequent work as a transport consultant. Everyone one of us travels, most every day, and every one of us consumes goods that have been transported from further and further away. We are all very personally familiar with the annoyances and the injustices that inevitably occur when we are running late and need to get somewhere, but there is a much bigger picture. The places we live are fundamentally shaped by the transport system and policies put in place by the Government. In turn, this affects the money and time we must spend travelling, the quality of our air and water, the fact that nearly 40 percent of our energy use is for transport. We increasingly see that it affects our health, the value of our land, the cost of development, the affordability of housing—it even affects the amount of interaction we have with our neighbours. 

Jan Logie:

We are all beneficiaries and should be proud to be so. I am the beneficiary of years of support from family, friends, the State, not to mention the beneficiary of colonisation and at times the unemployment benefit. There should not be a stigma in accepting help when you need it. And there is benefit in sharing and helping others when they need it. Individualism locks in inequality and depression, and as a result we all lose out.

This qualifies for statements ever made I most disagree with.

There is a huge difference between individualism and being selfish. Often those who stick up for individualism are amongst the most generous helpers and supporters of others – when their help and support is given voluntarily.

Steffan Browning:

Forestry—foreign companies such as Tiong own or control the vast majority of logs or timber products going offshore, yet this Government seems hell bent on making it easier for them. One is letting them keep gassing our communities and the ozone layer with spent neurotoxic and carcinogenic, ozone-depleting methyl bromide from the log fumigations. Labour and National have both dodged forcing recapture of the invisible, odourless gas that cannot be tracked with confidence. Giving the industry 10 years latitude, while we increase our exports and fumigations, people are getting sick and dying—dying for whom? 

Eugenie Sage:

When I first walked on to Parliament’s grounds as a member of this House last November, I heard a tui, practising its scales below the Beehive. The tui’s chorus is sweeter than anything I might say in this Chamber, so I took its song as auspicious—a sign that if tui have come to Parliament, their oral petitions would encourage this House to give more serious attention to our wild landscapes and our indigenous plants and animals whose ancestry and tenure in those islands is so much longer than our own. Aotearoa’s 70 million years of geographic isolation from other parts of Gondwana produced some of the world’s oldest and most unusual life forms: trees such as the kahikatea, fruit basket of the forest, and animals such as the tuatara, the wētā, and the carnivorous land snails, Powelliphanta. We can and must invest more in safeguarding the first inhabitants of Aotearoa and the places where they live. We have no treaty with them, but they define who we are. They are what makes New Zealand so distinctive in the eyes of the world. 

Holly Walker:

Because I never met Rod I never got to tell him that he was partly responsible for the formation of my political consciousness. It was 1997 and I was sitting in a sweltering upstairs classroom at Hutt Valley High School watching a video in fourth form social studies about the 1981 Springbok Tour . Suddenly, there was young Rod, resplendent in his flouro vest and orange bike helmet—clashing spectacularly with his shaggy red hair and beard. He spoke earnestly into the camera about why he was putting his safety on the line to march in the front lines of the increasingly terrifying anti-apartheid protests. I was moved, fascinated, and, strangely, jealous. I went home and told my mum that I wished we had issues like that to protest about these days. She laughed and told me there were plenty. I started paying attention and realised she was right. So I have Rod to thank, in part, for setting me on the path to politics

I suspect Rod would find this the highest compliment.

With the fantastic education I received at public schools in the Hutt Valley, I grew up to win a Rhodes Scholarship and get elected to Parliament, aged 29. But, in the words of Russel Norman in his maiden statement to this House, these stories do not mean that a State house kid, or a public school kid, or a DPB mum can do anything. They mean that the State’s commitment of resources towards housing, education, and income support really does make a difference.

A fair point.

Tags: Greens, maiden speeches

John Roughan writes at NZ Herald:

Then Hone Harawira and Greens co-leader Metiria Turei were called to the platform. Turei, declaring her background to be anarchism, said her concept of life was that we all lived in a cage with wild monsters trying to tear down the walls that protected us.

These monsters were corporate capitalism, she said, and she saw her job as trying to push out the walls of the cage and increase our living space. Weird.

Yes wild monsters are trying to eat our young and destroy us. They’re called businesses and are evil.

Tags: Greens, Metiria Turei

In my Herald column yesterday I asked if 2012 will be the year of the Greens?

Tags: David Farrar on Politics, Greens, NZ Herald

The SST report:

Woolworths New Zealand’s underlying profit margins have increased much faster than the cost of food for the past three years.

Australian-owned Woolworths, which operates Countdown supermarkets locally, said the results were due to improved efficiency, but the Green Party said an investigation into supermarket pricing is overdue and the industry is in need of tighter regulation.

What a bizarre comparison. It is a good thing that profits have increased faster than the cost of food.

Are the Greens saying that if profits had stayed the same, and food prices had increased more (hence decreasing the gap), that would be good for NZers?

Are they saying that if profits had stayed the same, and food prices had dropped (hence increasing the gap), that would be bad for NZers?

The comparison is absolutely nonsensical. What the Greens are really saying is that just don’t like companies making profits.

Calculations by the Sunday Star-Times show that once unusual costs and income are stripped out of Woolworths NZ’s accounts – items such as losses on the company’s investment in The Warehouse and the impact of the Christchurch earthquakes – the business posted year-on-year increases in earnings before interest and tax of 14.3%, 19.3% and 9.6% over the period.

Recorded food inflation over the same time-frame was 7%, -0.7% and 7.5%, according to Statistics New Zealand.

Again, so what? Take the middle year – EBIT increased 19.3% and food prices dropped by 0.7%. Great.

If you want to make the case the supermarkets are making excessive profits, then you need to be looking at profits compared to capital and dividends compared to share price etc.

The supermarket operator’s latest financial statements show that it earned gross revenue of $22.33 for each $100 of sales shoppers put through its tills in the year to the end of June 2011. That was up from $21.95 in 2010 and $21.61 the year before.

That’s higher than UK chains Tesco and Sainsburys, which earned gross revenue of 8.30 and 5.50 respectively for every 100 that went through their tills.

Gross margins mean little, especially when comparing just four companies in two countries. What about economy of scale, what about underlying costs?

Green MP Mojo Mathers said the country needs to act on food prices, and promote “genuine” competition.

“We are overdue for an investigation into supermarket pricing practices,” she told the Sunday Star-Times. “We need a supermarket code of conduct and a supermarket ombudsman set up to enforce the code.”

Such measures, now established in the UK and being considered in Australia, will help create a level playing field for consumers and producers, Mathers said.

I fail to understand what is needed beyond the current provisions of the Commerce Act and Fair Trading Act. I suspect the Green call for an Ombudsman is so the Greens can achieve their long held desire to ban foods they don’t approve of, such as large easter eggs which Sue Kedgley used to campaign against.

However, Woolworths said its margin and earnings improvements are the result of investment in efficient systems that have delivered food price increases below the rate of inflation.

“We think there is a really great business story in our results over the past three years, which, in the main, is due to the significant investment Woolworths has been making in Progressive Enterprises and our brand Countdown,” said Dave Chambers, the managing director of Woolworths’ subsidiary Progressive Enterprises.

“This investment in new systems, new warehouses, and new and refurbished stores is now well in excess of $1 billion and has meant our Countdown stores are more appealing to customers, as evidenced by our sales growing ahead of the market,” he said.

As a result, the company has reduced wastage, stock losses and trimmed stock in the supply chain.

Sounds good to me.

Tags: food prices, Greens, supermarkets

MPs in

Eugenie Sage (List), Jane Logie (List), Steffan Browning (List), Denise Roche (List), Holly Walker (List), Julie Anne Genther (List). Mojo Mathers may come in on specials.

MPs out

None

Result

7.5/10.

The Greens break the 10% barrier, which may be a first for a Green Party. They grow their caucus by four or five MPs, and just as importantly ranked their list smartly so that the new MPs are relatively youthful and talented. They have changed their brand significantly, no longer seen as the radical hippies. All very good achievements. They probably never have to worry about dropping below the 5% threshold again.

They will be slightly disappointed that as usual the vote dropped back from the polls. Getting James Shaw in would have been a coup. It also would have positioned them better to try and be seen as a “major” party not a “minor” party. But they only have five more seats than NZ First, so will be clumped together with them as a large minor party.

The only other disappointment for them, is one they had no control over. Labour did so badly that once again they are not in Government.

Challenges

To some degree their biggest challenge is NZ First. The left could do well in 2014, but it is hard to see that Labour and Greens alone could win a majority. This means that NZ First may hold the balance of power. As in 2005, this could see Peters insist to Labour that the Greens do not get to be Ministers as the price of their votes for confidence and supply. There may be no way for the Greens to ever get into Government unless they can reach some common ground with NZ First.

Another challenge is the relationship with National. The decision to do a policy co-operation agreement with them in 2008 paid off, as did their decision to not rule them out in 2011. It is part of the reason their vote increased. What areas can they get a policy co-operation agreement in, and how do they walk that line between not being too close to National but also not being seen as just a greener shade of Labour?

Tags: Greens

I blogged on Monday how if there is a Labour-led Government, it will be unlike any previous MMP Government as the major party will be only 50% to 55% of the Government, not 80% to 90%.

This means that the parties they need to negotiate with to form a Government will have massive power, much more power than any other minority partner under MMP. Because the larger your proportion of the votes the Government needs, the more say you get. This is an issue that as far as I know, no media has seriously looked at – what would be the policy mix of a Government that had Labour on 25%, Greens on 15%, NZ First on 5% and the Maori and Mana parties on say 5% between them.

I estimated NZ First’s spending and tax manifesto would add up to around $40b over four years. If you doubt that go and look at their list of spending policies which is massive.

Trying to cost the Greens almost as massively long list was beyond me, but thankfully the good Mr Joyce has done it for me. he has it at $25b over four years. The Greens claim they have fiscal costings, but the link they publish comes up as page not found. Probably a reason for that.

Now the Greens would be 30% of a Labour-Led Government and NZ First (if they make it) 10%, so assume they respectively get 30% and 10% of their policies.

Take the $12b extra borrowing I make it under Labour and add on 10% of $40b and 30% of $25b and that is conservatively a total of $24 billion extra borrowing.

At 6% interest, the increase in interest on the debt would be around $1.44b a year by year four. And that doesn’t even include working out the compounding  nature of debt.

The one thing which would be very clear is that there is no way a Labour-led Government could actually get the books back into surplus. You simply can not add on around $6b a year of extra spending, and get back into surplus. You will have a permanent structural deficit where debt only increases – the exact situation National inherited in 2008 (PREFU had a decade of deficits, DEFU had a permament structural deficit). All the gains and hard work of the last three years to restraing spending growth (including nil growth in an election year) will be wasted.

And imagine if Europe does plunge, and our revenue forecasts plunge also. Can you imagine Winston, Hone and the Greens agreeing to spending cuts to match? It would never ever happen. Don’t take my word for it – ask them.

Tags: debt. deficit, Greens, Labour, NZ First

As readers will know there has been a lot of scrutiny about how much extra debt there would be under a Labour Goverment over the next four years. Labour says it would be around $4b, National says around $16b and my calculation has it at around $12b (of which half is the Goofynomics borrow to save strategy for the Super Fund).

Let’s go with my figure of $12b for now (which is in fact only $2b different from Labour’s $4b as they acknowledge that excludes borrowing for the Super Fund). Now that is what the extra debt would be for a Labour majority Government. If Labour got 50%, then they could implement their policies without compromise.

But if Labour does manage to put together a government, they will comprise (based on current polls) only around 55% of the Government. On the Roy Morgan poll they would in fact be just 50%.

This means that the parties they need to negotiate with to form a Government will have massive power, much more power than any other minority partner under MMP. Because the larger your proportion of the votes the Government needs, the more say you get. This is an issue that as far as I know, no media has seriously looked at – what would be the policy mix of a Government that had Labour on 25%, Greens on 15%, NZ First on 5% and the Maori and Mana parties on say 5% between them.

That $12b of debt would be just a start. Let us look at the policies NZ First will want included in a budget:

• universal student allowances
• match student loan repayments $1 for $1
• Cut tax rate for new exporters to 20%
• lower company tax rate to 27%
• lower GST to 12.5%
• tax free threshold of $100/week
• turn TV One non-commercial
• Increase Govt R&D spending from 0.3% of GDP to 2% – a 600% increase
• Accelerated depreciation for specified industries
• 10% off power prices for pensioners
• Increased funding to decile 3- 10 schools
• reduce class sizes for lower decile schools
• increase health expenditure to 10% of GDP
• Increase defence spending to 2% of GDP
• abolish GST on rates
• abolish income tax on secondary jobs
• abolish tax on savings
• cap tuition fees, eventually reducing them to zero

There’s probably even more than this but I can spend only so long reading their manifesto. I can’t even begin to add them up but I’d say we are talking ten billions dollars a year in lost revenue and extra spending. Now let’s say he even gets 20% of his wishlist, and that is probably an extra $8 of borrowing over four years.

And bear in mind also that Winston is saying he would refuse any agreement in advance for how much extra spending will be needed to have him vote for the Government for three years. So every year Labour would have to feed him as much money as he can get, to keep their Government in office. This is not scare-mongering – this is exactly what Winston is promising to do, and there is no way Labour could govern without him.

But Winston is only the entree. Let us look at what the Greens want. At 15% they would have over half of Labour’s support, and be around one third of the Government. So they may get up to one third of their wishlist. That includes:

• tax-free income threshold of $10,000/year
• Write off all student debt, even for those not in paid employment
• tax-deductible study costs for those with no allowance
• A full universal student allowance for those aged 16+
• Increased accommodation allowance for students
• Reduce then abolish tertiary fees
• Increase school operations grant by 10%
• Maximum class size of 20 for schools
• Increase benefit levels to “sufficient for all basic needs”
• Increase public health spending to 10% of total health budget

There are again many more beyond that. And again the bill will run into the billions, and even the Greens can only come up with so many extra eco-taxes to plug the hole.

The two major parties are normally the ones who get the most intense scrutiny over the costings of their policies, and that is because they form the bulk of the Government. For example even if National reaches out again to ACT, United Future and Maori parties, National will be probably 90% of the Government. Hence, highly likely their debt track will hold up (especially as ACT ask for less spending not more).

But Labour is looking to be 50% to 55% of a Labour-led Government. This is vastly different to when they were last in power and they were over 80% of the Government. At 50% to 55% they will be comparatively weak, and the parties they will need to vote for their budget will have much more power and say than in the past – hence why it is important to also scrutinise their tax and spending plans.

I haven’t even looked at what spending one might have to agree to for the Mana and Maori parties, but it will not be nothing, and a Labour-led Government is only possible if Labour, Greens, Maori NZ First and Mana parties all vote for their budget.

So forget about $12b of extra debt. That is just the starting position. It is inevitable it would be significantly more than that.

Tags: debt, Greens, Labour, NZ First

This is the annual trade deficit with China over the last decade. Both the Greens and Winston rail against imports and say we need to export more and reduce the trade deficit.

They also both voted against the China-NZ Free Trade Agreement in 2008. They both still maintain it was a mistake, and a bad thing to do.

The results speak for themselves. After the trade deficit rose from $1b to almost $4b, it has reduced to $1.5b in just three years.

The Greens, like all of us, care deeply about the environment. But on economic policy, they and Winston are consistently wrong. They are skilled at talking about problems, but their solutions are toxic.

Exports to China in the three years prior to the FTA were $5.7b. In the three years since, they have been $13.1b. Those exports have helped keep kiwis in jobs, have grown the economy and provided billions more in tax revenue to help pay for schools, hospitals and welfare. And if the Greens and Winston had their way, it would not have happened (unless you wish to argue the massive unprecedented growth in exports was a coincidence).

Tags: China, free trade agreement, Greens

Former Green party member Jolyon White has said he co-ordinated the sticker campaign, but did not take part himself.

But how curious is it, that a man and a woman riding the motorcycle registered to him were seen vandalising billboards in Christchurch with the stickers?

The most likely explanation is that this Anglican Church employee is lying. And if he is lying about this, why would he be telling the truth about how he arranged the nationwide campaign.

The Greens have not said how many of their parliamentary staff knew about the campaign. We know at least one did. They have said they will not investigate until after the election. This leaves open the possibility that several of their staff knew, or were involved, in the campaign.

Tags: billboards, Greens, Jolyon White