Children’s policies and the ever changeable Mr Key
John Key appears to be in volatile mode this week on two key matters relating to children – the s59 amendment and the future of the Families Commission.
From the NZ Forum on the Family held in South Auckland on Monday, the NZ Herald reported:
He [Key] said if National gained power it would consider reforming the anti-smacking law.
‘If I can see compelling evidence that the legislation is not working, I will change it,’ he said. ‘To this day, I haven’t seen this evidence.’
While I am heartened that Mr Key, some fifteen months after the passing of the s59 amendment, still hasn’t seen anything to convince him to reverse National’s support, it is worrying that he is prepared at the same time to publicly indicate that they would consider changing the law again if he were to lead the next Government.
Where does National really stand on this? Was Mr Key on Monday simply hedging a bet both ways, or is he serious about the possibility that National may relegalise assault on children?
I sincerely hope that whatever the election outcome, the National Party sticks with its original position, and doesn’t make the mistake of falling into the trap of seeking to define the level and nature of violence we should legally be allowed to use on our children.
On the matter of the Families Commission, as of this morning Mr Key has put forward three different policies within four days.
On Monday he attracted applause at the NZ Forum on the Family by indicating that National would rather put the money currently spent on the Commission into NGOs.
By Tuesday Mr Key appeared to have changed his mind, indicating that National will ‘rebalance’ the Families Commission in a way that United Future, the party which championed its establishment – and from whom National could end up seeking support to form a Government post-election - would find tolerable.
Come Thursday, and John Key is reported as saying it is ‘likely’ National will subsume the Office of the Children’s Commissioner into the Families Commission, while criticising the worth of some of the Families Commission’s work.
The shifting sands of Mr Key’s utterances on just two issues affecting children and families stand in stark contrast to the Green Party’s policy on Children released this Tuesday. I challenge National to come out with a coherent policy in time for people to work out exactly where they stand before they vote.
And – by the way – the Greens support the continuation of the Families Commission, despite having voted against its establishment. It has proved itself an able advocate for the interests of families – and children - and its independent, critical role is not one our society can afford to lose at this time.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Wonder if someone will do a count of how many anti-nat post frog has done this last month (anti-labour count is 1).
paranoia setting in frog?
Or gearing up to be in opposotion?
Or auditioning for a blogger role on the Standard?
Or run out of ideas?
September 12th, 2008 at 10:09 am
This one’s actually Sue Bradford’s, not frog’s, Gerrit.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:13 am
“This one’s actually Sue Bradford’s, not frog’s, Gerrit.”
So in other words it is business as usual.
Can you imagine how it is going to be when the Alliance refugees complete their take over of the Greens, with Dr Norman and Sue B as co leaders we can expect to see daily attacks on the Nat’s.
Now I do not have a problem with this at all, however it might be help if the Greens stopped pretending that they would ever even consider a coalition agreement with anybody other than Labour.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Yep so it is toad, Comment regarding the anti-nat bias in the frogblog still stands.
Any comment on the draft nat policy on health see gleefully leaked by Labour? Jim at the Progressives made a poor hash of it.
Greens better hope for a Labour victory on the 8th November because reading this would indicate that Sue wont be able to work with the nats.
Especially as she no doubt will be voted in as Jeannette successor.
But then again one could consider it a scene setter prior to negotiations after the election?
September 12th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Gerrit, I’ve just done a quick tall of frog’s posts so far this month.
There are 67 in total.
5 are critical of National (or 6 if you count last night’s one re Kiwiblog)
3 are critical of Labour.
1 is critical of both.
57 (or 56, depending on how you count the Kiwiblog one) don’t contain overt criticism of National or Labour.
BB: I don’t know how many times I have to repeat that Sue Bradford was never in the Alliance.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:42 am
is that all toad? I was hoping to have been far more critical than that. Better step up my efforts, eh?
September 12th, 2008 at 10:43 am
I see Steve Pierson over at the Standard has started a similar thread re National’s multiplicity of positions on the Families Commission. But the one at The Standard seems to be staying on topic, at least for now.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:51 am
toad,
Greens were once a party to the Alliance. That is the connection.
Back on topic,
Noticed Sue has not come where the child benefit will be funded from (its Green party policy) not were the capitilisation cashflow will come from to enable families to purchase their first homes.
We discussed this in earlier comments.
So sure shoot down what the nats are doing, but by crickey, have your own house in order first.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Gerrit, Sue Bradford didn’t rejoin the Greens until after they had voted to leave the Alliance.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:58 am
It’s not hard to be biased against National - most of what they say is wrong.
I’d have thought these kinds of flipflops would be most worrying for National blaggarts like Gerrit and BB. Evidently, the only thing they like less than an incosistent and misguided leader is for these shortcomings to be pointed out by more observant commentators than themselves.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Paradox,
Paradoxically we can berate the Greens for having policy that they cannot cost, not have included in any budget.
So while even Cullen has forecast reduced government spending due to the reduced tax take and a dive in the economy (read this budget), the Greens policy is for more government spending.
So were wil it come from?
Hey it is easy to have policies that promise the earth, they are meaningless unless you can fund them from a financial resource. You could even say “misguided” and totally unrealistic.
So yes berate the National party, just be ready for a financial prudent backlash from those who are “more observant commentators”.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Gerrit, I think there is a bit of a difference between not releasing detailed costings of policies and releasing 3 different policy positions on the Families Commission within one week.
Don’t you want to know what National actually will do with the Families Commission? Or whether there will be $50 a week road tolls or not, and if so, on what roads? Or what National plan to do re the Kiwisaver employer contribution? Or whether National plans to sell Kiwibank “eventually”?
I do, and the number of issues on which they have a multiplicity of positions depending on who is speaking or to whom they are speaking is to me very disturbing.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:43 am
If John Key is vacillating then that is healthy as making laws that cut through the complexities of human social interaction requires a large degree of open mindedness and skepticism. Only an Ayatollah like Sue Bradford would drive her bulldozer in with full confidence :smile:.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:53 am
jh: Saying an issue needs more investigation before you will commit to a position on it is healthy.
Having 2 or 3 different positions on an issue depending upon the composition of your audience is not healthy - it is duplicitous and slippery.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
toad,
Absolutely, but as jh says, it also shows flexability. Not that i’m advocating that what National is doing by inconsistent policy announcements is right (sorry paradox, i’m not a National voter).
But if you are going to pull up on every nuance on differing policies that fine, but dont expect the Greens policies not to come under the same scrutiny.
I dont know what business or vocation you are in toad, but my experience (ranging from the coalface to the boardroom to self employment) indicates everything and anything can be subject to change. Even kiwisaver.
Am old enough to remember all the other government promises (1s 6p in the pound compulsary super deduction was the start) that have been broken (by both Labour and National).
I’m sure that you will be able to find a heap of other examples.
I think the Natioanl party position on state assets is quite clear. Let all state SOE and government organistions be kept in check (in regards expenses) by open competition.
So dont be suprised that Accident Insurance will be able to be covered by either the ACC (state owned) or any other insurance provider.
Noticed John Key got booyed by delegates at a conference for suggesting “boot camps” for wayward youth.
I noticed that the Green party policy has no provision for what will happen to kids that “go off the rails”.
What will the Greens do with those kids (12-17 year olds mainly) that need help beyond what their families can provide? cant find reference to it in the policy statement.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
“Now I do not have a problem with this at all, however it might be help if the Greens stopped pretending that they would ever even consider a coalition agreement with anybody other than Labour.”
I’ve challenged straw man, I mean big bro, in the past to point out where the Greens have ever said they’d consider coalition with National. He hasn’t done so, but keeps posting the myth anyway.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Gerrit: Try this:
In fact, try large sections of this.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Gerrit,
I find your comments about lack of costings odd, as it’s not like anybody is hiding anything.
Google our last census results. 23% of Kiwis are kids under 15 - we have about 850,000 kids in our country. Approx 40% are eldest or sole kids. So 52 * (( 34k * 16.50 /wk ) + ( 510k * 11.50/wk)) = $1.15 mill/wk
Or about $5.75 per taxpayer per week - though obviously those in the higher tax brackets pay more and those in the lower tax brackets pay less.
You may or may not think that financially prudent. But don’t pretend it’s hard to calculate. And if you think it’s not financially prudent, then you must regard National’s plans to cut taxes as financially utterly reckless.
You may, at this point, be tempted to repeat the canard that our country’s level of govt spending (and, equivalently, taxation) is too high. But as a % of GDP, NZ’s govt spending is low See this, for example:
http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/7863B3D4-68D4-4224-AC5B-3298904C 38B5/0/GovernmentspendingandreceiptsGraphofGeneralGovernmentTotalOutla ys.xls
Or look at the various World Bank comparative studies.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“If John Key is vacillating then that is healthy as making laws that cut through the complexities of human social interaction requires a large degree of open mindedness and skepticism. Only an Ayatollah like Sue Bradford would drive her bulldozer in with full confidence :smile:.”
jh, obviously you couldn’t keep a straight face typing that. I assure you that National won’t vacillate if they get into power. That’s when we’ll see the real agenda.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
icehawk,
you miss the point alltogether.
It is not for me to cost the polices. It is for the Greens to do.
PLUS
With Cullen budget that is forecating reduced state expenditure, what programmes will you cut?, what taxes will you raise? what borrowing will you need to achieve the policy.
And if you read the whole policy, there are many, many examples of
increased expenditure without costings
Now part of the policy has the requirement to
looking forward to this part of the policy to be “fleshed out” and included in the next Labour or National budget.
For if the costings (you know those things on which budgets are set) dont stack up then it wont be inluded in any budget and the whole policy is but a pipe dream.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Given that I was at the Family First conference I feel I have more knowledge of what John Key actually said after his speech and druing the questin time afterwards - and what he did not state.
1. He did not state anything different about the smacking law than he said earlier.
2. He did not say that he will put all the money spend on the Families Commission to NGOs. He said he would be better if some of the funding of the Families Commission - and the Children’s Commission for that matter - into NGOs. He said a ton of money was spent on the Commission with no real benefit, and money from some of these commissions - even the Children’s Commission - should go into frontline services, including NGOs.
Roll on Nov 8 - 55 sleeps to go!
September 12th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Gerrit,
In your “concern” about the costing of Green Policies, perhaps you have overlooked the fact that Green policy/policies (in full or in part) would/will only be implemented in negotiation and agreement with another Party.
(That Party would be “occupying the Treasury Benches”.)
At THAT time, accurate rather than general costings would be appropriate.
At THIS time, formalizing a full (and interrelating) set of Policies is the Green’s priority.
ALL member of the Green Party are involved in this process.
(Can any of the other Political Parties say the same, I wonder?)
September 12th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Gerrit, et al
a quick, back of the envelope, cast of the cost of the things you detailed shows about a billion dollars of added cost.
put that in line with a billion shortfall in government revenue due to the failing economy and there is a need for a $2,000 000 000 tax increase to maintain the forecast end-of-year position. That’s about an additional $100 per week per taxpayer.
to put it more decently though, the green party policies, as currently declared in this thread alone, would the average tax-paying family aboiut $100 per week! That’s a lot of groceries!
September 12th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
eredwen
usually you are more sensible than this, but let’s take it as said.
What you are implying is that, besides having no desire to be the dominant party in a government, you believe it doesn’t matter what the fiscal and financial impact of your policies are. That’s irresponsible to the nth degree, unless you are saying you will compromise them to be in a position of influence, and so your policies are being formulated to trade off against a set of ‘core’ policies, which you are not declaring (yet?) as being the ‘this far and no further’ core of your negotiating position.
Interesting.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
>>At THIS time, formalizing a full (and interrelating) set of Policies is the Green’s priority.
May as well say you’re going to turn the sky into a nice shade of pink.
Releasing policy with no hope of implementation is pure marketing spin of the worst kind.
Sell outs. Package to sell.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Strings,
You want the next govt to increase taxes (or cut spending) by a billion just to cover the effects of our current cyclic downturn in the economy? That’s not how the game works. We handle cyclic downturns by running a deficit, just as we handle cyclic booms by running a surplus. It’s the long-term govt budget that must balance, not every year’s.
And then you’re taking that billion/year increase in tax, which no-one but you is suggesting we should do, and claiming it’s “the green party policies, as currently declared in this thread alone”. No, it’s your policies as declared in this thread.
Gerrit,
The Green’s policy is cuts to personal income taxes, accompanied by introduction of resources taxes. Tax pollution instead not income. You’re pointing at the tax cut as a cost without pointing at the accompanying tax increase that should net it out. If you want to understand the bigger picture you’re going to have to read more Green policy.
Sorry, it just *is* more complicated that one press release can take. Likewise the costings: their policy is telling you 2 and 2 and you’re complaining that they don’t bother telling you that it adds up to 4. I continue to say that them not giving you the costings in a policy press release isn’t their problem.
A general debate about the budget is a good thing, but if you want that you’re going to need to base it off more than this single blog post and thread.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
davec: You went to the Family Fist conference!!!
I can assure you Green Party ones are much more friendly and non-violent in their rhetoric.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I am just wondering Toad [in between puting up those wonderful Green billboards -they look especially good beside those drab uninspiring -like their owners-blue ones] how you find the time or the will to respond to people that make comments that i see above this point.
I guess one day [and it took me 40 years] when these people have experienced the fruits of failed national policies over many decades they will wake up and smell the grass [make that the flowers -some people have problem with grass!]
In my time starting with Rob. The ‘bomb maker -Albert’, said something like this ” The type of thinking that got use into our problems is not the type of thinking that will get us out of them”.
I see another version of Rob in Mr K. [I don’t use his name has it might be seen as giving him mana- which he does not deserve] except I detect a more cunning clone, who has other people doing his thinking.
I really enjoyed the hollowmen movie the other night, I did not go in to watch it -but bought a copy [to watch later] and handed out good green stuff outside the theatre. It was interesting to match up the body language with the refusal to take Green newsletters etc. Although some men took it cos they thought ‘the wife might be interested in it’.
There is hope as long as there is life -but that option is rapidly running out.
cheers
Dave [ Man I can’t get over how good those billboards look].
September 12th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
ps I did not tick the box for follow up comments.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:00 am
The green party only produces “dream” policy since none of it has been costed how can anyone vote for this party since a vote for the greens is a vote of the unknown.
Also how come when ever we debate green policy some green member ALWAYS posts the following comment:
“ALL member of the Green Party are involved in this process.
(Can any of the other Political Parties say the same, I wonder?)”
As if letting all the green party members have input on policy will some how produce better policy. Of course it should be clear to all that this simply doesn’t work and the end result is all these stupid un-budgeted policy documents that will never see the light of day.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Icehawk,
You would be refering to the joint co leaders tax policy statement?
The one that starts with
As a result the Government will take just over $1 billion less in income tax. We will replace this revenue with money from eco-taxes.
That tax reduction will be wiped out by increased electricity charges (got notice from mercury energy today that price will go up by $5 average a month) An electricity increase that has as yet nothing to do with meeting the billion dollar a year kyoto protocal.
Now eco taxes will start with
Which no doubt will increase the price of all goods including food as those extra taxes will be passed on to the consumer.
And suprisingly we find this little gem.
So the cullen fund and kiwisaver will be gone by lunchtime?
September 14th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Icehawk,
A follow up,
The first $5000 tax free retains $15 per week (that is what the policy says).
Little more then cullens block of cheese tax cuts. But remeber on top of cellens tax cuts of the same amount. So the government will actually have 2 billion less in tax revenue but a billion dollar kyoto commitment plus another billion for warm housing agreement to fund.
Do pray tell where the tax revenue will flow from.
Reading the last policy statement in regards the canning of the superfund (did Muldoon not do this to a previous - Rowling?- Labour super fund?).
Will the Greens be advocating returning this money to the contributors (plus interest) or simply spend it. Hoping like Muldoon that future generations will provide the tax revenue to pay for the oldies retirement.
That is so right wing it makes me wonder how it got into the Green policy document.
But a policy I dont see being trumpeted from the rooftops!!
September 14th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Gerrit Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 6:27 am
> Reading the last policy statement in regards the canning of the superfund (did Muldoon not do this to a previous - Rowling?- Labour super fund?).
> Will the Greens be advocating returning this money to the contributors (plus interest) or simply spend it. Hoping like Muldoon that future generations will provide the tax revenue to pay for the oldies retirement.
Of course they could invest it, but invest it in things like education, preventative healthcare, and infrastructure, which will lead to financial benefits to the country in the future.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
kahikatea
I hope you tell all those people who have invested into kiwisaver that their “investment” is to be in non returning infastructure (unless you add charges to health, schools, roads, PT, etc. to enable the funds to grow). Meaning after the fund adminitrators have taken their cut, the return will be less then their input.
I’m not sure, but you wont get many takers for that idea.
Now with inflation currently running at 5%, would you like to place your savings into kiwisaver were you will get a negative return?
When the bank will get you 8%.
I would say that if kiwisaver funds were placed into non returning infastructure assets the contributors could sue for fraud.
That is not how the scheme was sold. Neither was the cullen fund.
Now how will the Greens reconcile
with the current schemes.
The only ethical option is to return all contributions to shareholders, scrap the schemes and OUTLINE the new
in a policy document.
Be an interesting document!!
September 14th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Gerrit Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
> I hope you tell all those people who have invested into kiwisaver that their “investment� is to be in non returning infastructure
I was only talking about the Cullen superfund. I don’t think Green Party policy involves any changes to Kiwisaver, and Kiwisaver accounts aren’t government property anyway.
The reason for transferring money from the Cullen Superfund to invest in things that do not provide a return to investors is that those are investments that only the government can make a profit from. The government makes a profit from preventative healthcare because it reduces the amount of money the government has to spend on treating health problems in the future. The government makes money from education through extra tax revenue in the future if the education leads to higher taxable incomes. Infrastructure built now is of benefit to future taxpayers, who are the people who will pay taxes to support national superranuation in the future.
It makes sense for the government to invest in those things, because only the government can make a return on them. Investing in overseas sharemarkets means they’re competing with the private sector for the same investment opportunities that the private sector is going for because the private sector can’t make money out of investing in public services.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
kahikatea,
Your sentiments are exactly the same as Muldoons were.
Reading it right you say that the cullen fund, set up and sold to the New Zealand public as a superannuation scheme that would safeguards the pensions for ALL New Zealanders. Will be plundered for non returning infastructure?
Thanks for clarifying that. Hopefully, the voters will be made fully aware of this hijacking of the pension funds.
Sounds like those union US pension funds raided by the union bosses for personal gain or lending to the mafia.
Well if that is what the Green party support , lets hear it shouted from the rooftops. Let the voters decide that is the best avenue for their retirement investments.
Looking forward to the billboards.
Becasue currently it is hidden in a policy statement.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:41 am
davec: You went to the Family Fist conference!!!
Whats whrong with that? Are you prejudiced or something?
Jeannete was also there. I would have gone to the Every Child counts conference too had I not had other engagements.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Notice how the Greens demonize Family First but embrace the Urewera 17.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:22 am
icehawk
September 12th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
“Strings,
You want the next govt to increase taxes (or cut spending) by a billion just to cover the effects of our current cyclic downturn in the economy? ”
Erm, NO!
You didn’t read the post, maybe I should type louder.
The point was that the policies expounded on THIS THREAD ALONE would cost an additional BILLION DOLLARS.
Additionally
While a deficit is quite an attractive option for some, you need to see it in the light of day. To make it easier for you, I’ll put it in terms of the ‘average’ family.
Borrowing for something that will maintain its value, (in other words it can generate ‘revenue’ (iun the case of a house through price inflation) is a rasonable thing to do. Borrowing for the milk, bread, tea coffee and tofu isn’t! YOIu havce to cut your budget to fit your income - otherwise the family gets into trouble. Governments go the same way if they run operatiung deficits and use debt to finance them.. AMerica’s 5 TRILLION dollar debt will be a millstone around the necks of as yet unborn citizens - and I don’t want to see my great grandchildren paying for today’s life-styles.
SO. Message received - read the post, then comment sensibly. It’s a simple approach to debate but one that works.
Have a nice Monday.