Home Blog Page 1916

Social Security rewrite entrenches war on the poor – AAAP

6

Screen-Shot-2015-02-03-at-6.16.33-am-300x210-300x210
Last night Parliament voted by a vast majority to support new legislation which entrenches New Zealand’s vindictive and pauperising welfare system.

“While we have always supported a rewrite of the hopelessly fragmented 1964 Social Security Act, AAAP completely opposes the new bill,” says spokesperson Sue Bradford.

“It embeds decades of National and Labour policies aimed at changing welfare from its original 1930s purpose as a safety net for those in need to a system geared to a culture of punishment and disentitlement.

‘Minister Anne Tolley calls the bill ‘policy-neutral’. This couldn’t be further from the truth, either in its technical detail or its overall intentions.

“Right at the start the Principles section stresses the paramountcy of paid work as the goal of welfare, rather than the earlier and more humane principle of ensuring that those in need have the means for dignified survival.

“This focus on paid work ignores both the value our society should place on work such as caring for children and elders in the home, and entrenches the assumption that even people who are sick, injured, disabled and/or caring for young children on their own should be forced into paid work.

“The latest Labour Market Statistics released last week show there are now around 280,000 jobless in New Zealand, and over 100,000 people underemployed.

“AAAP believes that unemployed and underemployed people should be given every assistance possible to access quality education and training and decent work.

“Work & Income should focus on this rather than on pressuring the sick and sole parents into paid work, where all too often they end up competing for the same casualised, temporary, low waged and part time jobs.

“The new bill’s Principles also embed the investment approach in the heart of welfare law. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of all.

“The investment model treats unemployed people, beneficiaries and their children as financial risk factors rather than humans deserving of the same consideration as any other person in our society.

“We congratulate the Greens on being the only party to oppose the bill, and call on Labour, the Māori Party and New Zealand First to reconsider their position in future.

“We are disappointed that the submission process has been shortened to four months, but call on individuals and groups around the country to join us in making submissions in the time available before the bill is reported back to the House in September.”

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Bidvest deliveries to stop as workers take action – First Union

0

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 8.02.16 am 

Bidvest deliveries to stop as workers take action

 

Drivers and store workers at the South African-owned food distribution company Bidvest are taking strike action as the company refuses to negotiate a wage increase for workers in the Hawkes Bay.

 

Approximately 15 workers responsible for around 80% of the company’s deliveries in the Hawkes Bay region will take a series of strike actions over the coming weeks.

 

“These drivers and storeman work their guts out for this company and they deserve a pay rise to reflect that,” said FIRST Union organiser Mike McNab.

 

This action is the latest in a string of industrial disputes at the company. In December the company sought an injunction from the Employment Relations Authority to prevent their Waikato staff from engaging in a pre-Christmas strike. 

 

“Only last week the South African parent company was boasting about how it expects to announce a healthy profit soon. Well, it’s the Bidvest workforce that creates the profit, surely they’re entitled to a decent pay rise in recognition of the work they do to grow the company.”

 

The action is likely to affect supply to local cafés and restaurants and the workers are planning protest action outside clients of the company in and around Napier and Hastings.

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Waatea News Column – The breathtaking racism of Seven Sharp and Mike Hosking’s white privilege

6

Screen Shot 2016-04-20 at 10.29.46 am

The heart breaking story of New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd is bad enough. The abuse he has had to resign from because he had the courage to push for Maori rights should shame NZ because such naked ignorance makes us a lesser country.

What could possibly top such wilful bigotry? Why Mike Hosking of course. Here is what Mike had to say in response to a mayor with the bravery to stand for indigenous rights…

“Sad to say I’d never personally attack him obviously but he’s completely out of touch with middle New Zealand,”

“There’s nothing wrong with Maori representation on councils cause any Maori that wants to stand for a council is more than welcome to do so and you can sell your message and if you’re good enough you’ll get voted on.”

…to have such graceless racism defended rather than challenged by a media personality is bad enough, but on the public broadcaster? This is Paul Henry level offensiveness, we expect more from the public broadcaster.

MORE:

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

How Not To Be An Asshole Episode 49 – You Don’t Wanna Take Me To Your Church Ft. Sam Tanielu

0

https://soundcloud.com/how-not-to-be-an-asshole/episode-49-you-dont-wanna-take-me-to-your-church-ft-sam-tanielu

Screen Shot 2016-05-11 at 8.37.24 am

This week we sit down with teacher, former member of Breakin Wreckwordz and avid tramper, Sam Tanielu. We talk about education and raps, Todd regales the time he escaped from the cops with some loot, Dan tries half heartedly to answer our general questions, and Dominic is disguested in everyones love of rugby.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Political Caption Competition

17

1455859744125

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The Daily Blog Open Mic – Wednesday – 11th May 2016

4

openmike

 

Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.

Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Palino’s grand plans will see Aucklanders suffer – PSA

3

Screen Shot 2016-04-28 at 11.31.53 am

The Public Service Association is urging Aucklanders not to let their mayoralty election become a race to the bottom – as another candidate pledges to cut costs and jobs.

John Palino’s election manifesto promises to cut rates by 10 per cent – and a “sinking lid” on staff numbers at the council.

Mr Palino claims these savings will amount to around $150 million a year, and will be paid for through “efficiencies” without cuts to services.

The PSA’s National Secretary Glenn Barclay says Mr Palino’s promises don’t add up.

“Auckland is our biggest city and it’s growing all the time.

“We cannot see how Mr Palino can deliver these so-called efficiencies without the quality of services deteriorating substantially.

“He’s the second mayoral candidate to promise cuts, and the PSA’s concerned this election will leave Aucklanders with a poorer quality of life.”

Mr Palino’s “sinking lid” policy on staffing would see departing staff not being replaced, and Mr Barclay warns this policy will take a toll.

“In his manifesto, Mr Palino says Auckland is a fantastic place to live, and he wants the council to provide superb services.

“This simply can’t be done without excellent staff both delivering at the front line and offering support in the back office.

“Our members are always looking for efficiencies in their work.

“Headline-grabbing promises of cuts and savings are not what Auckland needs – and we look forward to hearing from candidates who will support the work our members do.”

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Cabinet minister gets the message on equal pay on Working For Free Day – PSA

0

Screen Shot 2016-04-28 at 11.31.53 am

It was a sweet treat carrying a less-than-sweet message for cabinet minister Amy Adams, as she accepted a cake marking the public service Working for Free Day.

The average female public servant is paid 14 per cent less than her male counterpart – so from today until the end of their financial year on June 30, public sector women effectively work for free.

Labour MP Sue Moroney hosted an event at parliament, with MPs from Labour, New Zealand First, the Maori Party and the Greens also attending.

A specially iced cake was served, highlighting the size of the 14 per cent slice – and Justice minister Amy Adams was given a piece with a message to share with her colleagues.

“The public service is 70 per cent female, which means every day women are making this country a great place to live for all New Zealanders”, PSA National Secretary Erin Polaczuk says.

“But the average woman in the public sector takes home 14 per cent less than the average man – which means less to spend on her family, to save for retirement or put back into the economy”.
Ms Moroney told the audience there was “no excuse” for not tackling the equal pay issue.

“The Public Service Association has been campaigning for equal pay for 102 years,” Ms Polaczuk says.

“Let’s make sure today’s not just about cake – we need action.”

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Waatea 5th Estate – What next for the TPPA protest movement?

2

Joining us tonight to discuss what happens next in the anti-TPPA protests…

In studio Law Professor and public academic – Professor Jane Kelsey

It’s our Future spokesperson – Barry Coates

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Key slags Amnesty International, Greenpeace and Mojo Mathers in childish tantrum to deflect Panama Papers

53

BxhPBJrCUAARtJE

The pettiness of Key was on full beam yesterday in Parliament. Instead of acknowledge that he has helped build a tax haven in NZ and promise to clamp down on them so he doesn’t continue to damage and denigrate NZs reputation, Key did what Key always does, become a school yard bully.

He attacked Amnesty International and Greenpeace and then decided to rip into Parliament’s nicest MP, Mojo Mathers. He was so frantic to lash out he was swinging at everyone and everything.

At best his response yesterday was as sophisticated as ‘I know you are, you said you are, but what am I’?

We need to shut this tax haven loophole down now, and all Key is doing is throwing mud so that no one notices he’s covered in it.

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Did Police give Slater ‘mates rates’?

5

Screen Shot 2016-05-10 at 5.20.11 pm

So Slater, who already has half a dozen previous convictions for cybercrime, has been let off trying to pay for a hack of a rival blog with diversion and 30hours worth of community service.

That’s a remarkably light sentence for a recidivist criminal.

Did the Police let Slater off the hook because he does seem to have many fans within the Police doesn’t he? He was able to get his accusations against Hager actioned immediately with an illegal search of Nicky’s house and Police have always fed Slater information so the incredibly generous sentence suggests mates rates rather than blind justice.

Even when spiteful and sadistic hate speech merchants get caught trying to pay for illegal activities they seem to manage to get away with it, that is the sad state of affairs in NZ now.

Next up for Slater is the Matthew Blomfield and Colin Craig defamation cases. Talking to sources within that legal debate, Slater will likely be facing bankruptcy if he loses those cases.

If explaining is losing, Slater is chewing off both sides of his mouth today as he publishes 10 000 word blogs trying to explain why he broke the law. It’s cringe worthy and embarrassing and only the most deluded right wing nutter would continue to believe anything that pops out of his mouth now.

On a personal note, it’s terribly sad to see that Cam has dropped naming me as part of the conspiracy against him.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Cameron Slater – the man who decries suppression orders has just had his lifted and he has been charged with funding a hacking

33

Working-for-Whale-Oil-600x339

Oh dear. Right wing hate speech merchant, Cameron Slater has had his suppression lifted and it turns out he’s been convicted of paying Rachinger $5000 to try and hack the Standard...

The blogger who was infamously hacked and then exposed in Dirty Politics has himself admitted hiring someone to illegally access the computer files of opponents.

Whale Oil’s Cameron Slater has been granted diversion by police for attempting to hire Ben Rachinger for $5000 to get into the left-wing “The Standard” blog. Instead of being convicted and sentenced, he has arranged to do 40 hours work for the children’s charity Kidscan.

Judge Richard McIlraith said: “He has accepted his guilt and embarked upon a programme of diversion to address that.”

…so after years of screaming about the powerful being able to get name suppression, Slater tried to get name suppression for trying to pay someone to hack a blog? So he’s a criminal and a hypocrite?

He’s a disgrace. Dirty Politics, taking money from corporates to attack health campaigns, he’s as rotten to the core as it gets, and all those words he wrote trying to claim he was innocent is just the icing on the cake.

Why does the PM still call him a mate? Why does Judith Collins still call him? Why does a Mayoralty candidate have him on his campaign team?

Slater has managed to implode and this latest cocktail of hypocrisy and criminal offending must signal his end of influence in civil society.

Screen Shot 2016-05-10 at 5.20.11 pm

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The Number Of The Beast: The New Zealand Left’s Abiding Obsession With John Key

64

unnamed-3

BRINGING DOWN JOHN KEY has become an abiding obsession of the New Zealand Left. As if all of New Zealand’s problems have their origins in the actions of a single individual. As if the Prime Minister hasn’t been shaped by the people he governs every bit as much as they have been shaped by him. As if Key’s uncanny ability to extricate himself from scandal after scandal hasn’t been made possible by the electorate’s willingness to look the other way while he does it.

All of which suggests that the Left’s obsession with bringing down Key isn’t about the National Party Leader at all, but about its own inability to attract and hold the same level of popular support that keeps him in power. All of which raises the possibility that the Left’s real problem isn’t with Key at all – but with the democratic process itself.

Over the past fortnight, for example, the Left has been outraged by revelations contained in the so-called “Panama Papers”. These have been seized upon as conclusive proof of John Key’s determination to transform New Zealand into a tax haven.

That the New Zealand-related documents contained in the Panama Papers might be interpreted as the legal firm at the centre of the controversy, Mossack Fonseca’s, back-handed tribute to this country’s reputation for honesty and fair-dealing does not appear to have occurred to the implacable prosecutors of the Left.

Similarly failing to register with them is the indisputable fact that the formation of trusts (both foreign and domestic) is a perfectly legal activity engaged in not only by dubious South American businessmen, but also by thousands of ordinary New Zealand families. The purposes of these legal instruments is much the same in both instances: to shield the assets of their beneficiaries from the fiscal and/or administrative exactions of the state.

That is why John Key is not about to get on his high moral horse about trusts. Not when to do so would put him offside with tens-of-thousands of his most loyal supporters!

The Left constantly fails to register the brute realities of living in a society driven by the neoliberal imperatives of twenty-first century capitalism. In a world where the interests of the successful individual trump everybody else’s, avoiding and/or evading tax has become an industry in its own right.

Whether these sovereign individuals are the heirs to old family fortunes, or the lumpenproletarian leaders of methamphetamine-distributing street gangs, makes little difference. Large piles of cash must first be sanitised, and then they must be protected. If the Panama Papers prove nothing else, it’s that law firms dedicated to providing such services are not confined to the pages of John Grisham novels!

It takes a touching degree of innocence, not to say naiveté, to assume that the whole nation will rise up as one against the spectacle of extremely wealthy individuals and families setting up trusts in foreign lands to avoid paying tax at home. The Left clearly does not grasp the huge number of people who, aspiring to become extremely wealthy individuals themselves, observe the depredations of the One Percent with feelings more akin to admiration than disgust.

The New Zealand Left’s animosity towards John Key is, thus, curiously reminiscent of the early Christian Church’s animosity towards the Roman Emperor, Nero. In both cases we are presented with a minority utterly convinced of its moral righteousness, and absolutely unwilling to compromise its principles. Unsurprisingly, such stiff-necked insistence on their own rectitude, asserted aggressively in the midst of an avaricious and morally undemanding society, not only got these groups offside with their neighbours, but also with the authorities. Finding themselves under political pressure, it is hard to blame either Nero, or John Key, for making scapegoats of their unpopular critics.

Not that John Key has gone so far as to transform his left-wing opponents into human torches! Like Nero, however, he has boosted his own popularity at their expense – and they hate him for it.

The Early Christians worked Nero’s name into their identification of the Beast of the Book of Revelation: “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.”

The New Zealand Left is equally obsessed with numbers – even if, in the case of John Key, they are the numbers hidden in the spreadsheets of the Panama Papers.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

EXCLUSIVE: Waitangi Tribunal ruling on TPPA – “it was unlikely that the Tribunal in this claim would opt to talk truth to power”

4

NZ-CORPORATE-FLAG

The Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is a paradox. Time and again the Tribunal says it is ‘troubled’ and ‘concerned’ about aspects of the TPPA and its implications for Maori.

It does not buy the Crown’s assurance that ‘nothing in the TPPA will prevent the Crown from meeting its Treaty obligations to Maori’, or that claimants’ concerns about investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and the chilling effect on governments’ decisions are overstated. It agrees that the ‘full constitutional reach of the Treaty relationship may not be as clearly protected and preserved under the TPPA as it might be’ and the Treaty of Waitangi exception is limited in scope. Nor is there any evidence that the Crown has attempted to review the Treaty exception that’s been rolled over since the Singapore free trade agreement in 2001, despite the much higher risks in the TPPA, let alone to actively engage with Maori to learn and respond to their concerns.

Yet the Tribunal holds that the Crown did not breach the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi because the Treaty exception is likely to operate in the TPPA substantially as intended and therefore can be said to offer a reasonable degree of protection to Maori interests.

There are ways to make sense of this. But before explaining the report, it’s important to stress the positive take-home message. The Tribunal claim has raised awareness among Maori, the media, politicians, and the Tribunal and created a new level of confidence and capacity to challenge these agreements. The government was forced to defend its position and failed on most of the major arguments. It was saved by pragmatism that may apply only to the TPPA.  

There is a new starting point for Maori to challenge other mega-FTAs that the government is trying to negotiate behind closed doors and to demand a real say in what is done, why and how. The Maori Party’s submission to the select committee proposed a Treaty of Waitangi (Free Trade Agreements) Bill setting out some base lines. The iwi chairs are already in talks with the government on future changes, having been excluded from the TPPA process, while others are determined not to leave it to them. Various hapu, iwi, and wananga are taking initiatives to educate themselves. Activists and advocates, such as organics producers and health professionals, are discussing what to do next. Internationally, the UN Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples Victoria Tauli-Corpuz has just held regional consultations in Peru and Thailand focused on implications of ISDS, with Maori attending each.

The limitations on the Tribunal’s report need to be seen in this broader context. Three main factors that explain the outcome.

First, the claimants’ arguments and demands were politically controversial, requiring the Tribunal to take a risk in supporting them. That was always a huge ask. The TPPA is a long and incredibly complex technical document that was kept secret, aside from leaks, until the urgent hearing began in November. Any tribunal would struggle to deal with the details even with a full inquiry, let alone an urgent report. Most impacts of the TPPA will arise in the future and require speculation about what might happen.

Crown Law played every trick in the book. It blocked the hearing until the Agreement was signed, then said it was too late to make any changes. After the Tribunal said several times that the Crown couldn’t introduce a second expert opinion that took a different line than its first expert, it circulated it anyway; its legal arguments and evidence then shifted to reflect that excluded evidence. Almost every decision of the Tribunal faced implied threats of judicial review.

As I have pointed out over many years, the Waitangi Tribunal itself is an agency of the Crown as part of the judicial system. Members are appointed by the government. In this Tribunal they included three Pakeha men – a Maori land court judge, a former National Party cabinet minister, and a special counsel to a major law firm – along with a kaumatua of great mana, but who is not a lawyer, and a younger Maori woman with experience in the commercial world.

All up, it was unlikely that the Tribunal in this claim would opt to talk truth to power.

The second factor reflects the problems with a Tribunal claim heard under urgency. The Tribunal narrowed the broad range of arguments to just two questions it considered central and that could be addressed in the very narrow time frame.

The first question was whether the Treaty of Waitangi exception, which has been included in New Zealand’s free trade agreements (FTAs) since the Singapore FTA in 2001 but never been reviewed, was effective. This excluded the impacts of the TPPA on intellectual property arising from the Tribunal report on the Wai 262 claim on traditional knowledge, the requirement for New Zealand to adopt UPOV 1991, a convention on plant variety rights, rights to affordable medicines. The Treaty exception was seen as not relevant to them and therefore outside the scope of the inquiry (even though the Tribunal could have found that the fact the Treaty exception did not apply to them showed it was inadequate).

The second urgency issue was the Crown’s future engagement with Maori after the signing. By focusing only on the future, the manifest failure to consult with Maori before and during the negotiations was reduced to background information.

The Tribunal’s conclusions relate only to these two narrowly defined issues.

The third factor is more systemic. The Tribunal’s mandate under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 is inquire into claims that an action or omission of the Crown is inconsistent with the ‘principles of the Treaty’. I have a longstanding antipathy to the concept of Treaty ‘principles’, which provides the wriggle room to avoid applying a more direct interpretation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and He Whakaputanga (the Declaration of Independence 1835).

Interpretation of the ‘principles’ of the Treaty dates back to court cases in the 1980s, when Maori successfully challenged the State-owned Enterprises Act in 1987, fisheries, coal privatisation, sale of the broadcasting spectrum, among other disputes. But the principles, as enunciated by the courts, government agencies, and then the Waitangi Tribunal, effectively reconcile the conflict between Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which affirms Maori rangatiratanga, and the Treaty of Waitangi, where Maori cede sovereignty to the Crown, in favour of the Crown.

The TPPA Tribunal said the recent Waitangi Tribunal report on Te Tiriti and He Whakaputanga found there was no cession of sovereignty, at least by iwi from the North, was not relevant. It adopted the previous interpretations the Crown had the right to govern but must provide active protection for Maori interests.  That ‘active protection’ was reduced to steps it was ‘reasonable for the Crown to take in the situation’.

So long as these Treaty ‘principles’ hold sway, Maori rights under Te Tiriti will be subordinated to the government’s broader assessment of national interests, provided it has taken some positive steps to protect Maori interests in the overall scheme. In the context of the TPPA and similar deals, the government will always claim that its assessment of competing factors should hold sway. This poses a much bigger constitutional challenge to give real meaning to tino rangatiratanga in Aotearoa today.

All the main documents from the Waitangi Tribunal hearing will be posted on tpplegal.wordpress.com by the end of this week, along with a reference guide to the Tribunal’s report.  

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Foot in Mouth award – Former ACT MP exposes flaw in free-market system

12

.

Foot In Mouth Award

.

Meet Ken Shirley;

.

ken shirley ACT MP

.

Most folk won’t remember who Ken Shirley was, prior to his current ‘gig’ as  CEO of the Road Transport Forum (RTF), representing road transport interests since July 2010.

From 1984 to 1990, Shirley was nominally a Labour Party MP. He was closely aligned with the likes of Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, and other right-wingers who had seized control of the party during the 1980s.

From 1996 to 2005, Shirley was an ACT Party MP. As such, he was an acolyte of  the neo-liberal school of economics and a strong adherent of free market forces. Part of ACT’s policies is to scrap the minimum wage.

Indeed, to under-score ACT’s abhorrence of the minimum wage, ACT’s current leader (and sole MP), David Seymour, condemned a recent rise in minimum wage levels. On 26 February this year, Seymour was scathing;

“The new $15.25 minimum wage will hit regional employers especially hard… In Auckland, $15.25 might not sound like much, but small businesses in the regions who generally charge less will struggle to bear the cost. Hikes to the minimum wage will discourage new employment, and lead to more lay-offs and business failures.

The first employees to suffer will be young, low-skilled workers who won’t be offered a chance to prove their worth. Pulling up the jobs ladder will only add to poverty in low-income areas.

This is a wage set for the distorted Auckland economy. Why should the rest of the country have to bear the same costs?”

[Fun Fact: As a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Seymour is currently a taxpayer-funded beneficiary on a salary of $185,098 p.a. – which equates to nearly $89 per hour. One wonders if “small businesses in the regions who generally charge less will struggle to bear the cost” of Seymour’s salary?]

But returning to Ken Shirley; as an ex-ACT member of Parliament he is still most likely an  advocate for the abolition of the minimum wage.

On 5 May, Shirley was invited to be a commentator on Radio NZ’s afternoon Panel, hosted by Jim Mora;

 “Ken Shirley of the Road Transport Forum discusses what’s behind logging truck crashes and what needs to be done.”

At one point in the discussion, a suggestion was made that low wages in the trucking industry is not attracting the most highly-skilled and experienced workers;

@ 7.50

Jim Mora: “How bad do you think, Ken, is this situation with truck driving?”

Ken Shirley: “Oh, the spate we’ve had in Northland is just unacceptable. There’s no excuse for roll-over[s]. We know we have some difficult roads in New Zealand with topography, Northland’s is particularly difficult.

But there’s an obligation on the drivers and the forestry companies who hire the drivers to make sure they drive to the conditions. That’s the obligation on all drivers, and the spate we’ve had is just unacceptable, and I think inevitably it seems it’s not mechanical failure, it is driver error.

Whether it’s speed, inattention, or fatigue.”

Jim Mora: “So, it’s a…what, is it a hiring of drivers problem, hiring the wrong drivers, or is it a keeping-costs down problem, Ken? What do you think?”

Ken Shirley: “Well, the two are related of course. We have a chronic shortage of H5 drivers in New Zealand. That’s the heavy combination driver, the truck and trailer. It’s a global problem, but it’s particularly severe in New Zealand at this time. We’ve had it for many years, but with the activity in the economy now, that we are currently having, there is a chronic shortage of drivers.

Many of our members throughout the country are just saying they simply cannot get drivers. And I guess inevitably, you can, in that situation, such a tight situation, out of desperation, you can perhaps hire someone who’s not as skilled as you would like or need, out of sheer necessity. But at the end of the day, there’s no excuse. This should not be happening. We’re taking it very seriously.

We’ve actually instigated a series of roll-over prevention seminars in conjunction with NZTA around the country. They started some six weeks back. And these are actually very good seminars. But we have to educate the drivers, the loaders, the dispatchers, the transport operators themselves, but we must not have this level of roll-over.”

Jim Mora: “Ken, is it the… what is it deep down? Is it the meager wages paid, as some people are saying? You’re just not attracting the skills to the industry?”

Ken Shirley: “Ah, no, you do, it’s, you know, you can have a driver error. But it’s, it’s… you have to have better training, better awareness, that has to be the answer.”

Jim Mora: “So, there was this work-force development strategy, wasn’t there, ah, put into place a wee while back to try and try to entice more people to become truck drivers because of that shortage. But what is the point of a work-force development strategy if we know what the problem basically is, which I’m interpreting as maybe a lack of training and a lack of procedures put in place in the industry – [garbled].”

After a further exchange between Jim More, Peter Elliot (one of the panelists), and Ken Shirley, the host returned the discussion to the matter of wage rates;

Jim Mora: “It does seem though, with the wage rates that we see talked about, that you might not be getting the optimum recruits for the job? Is that a fair criticism, or not?”

Ken Shirley: “Well we know that the skilled labour market across the economy, whether it’s a diesel mechanic, a skilled driver, all of of those industries are, are, reporting severe chronic shortages. And because they are so highly skilled, reliant on a high level of, of, of, experience, when there is a chronic shortage, there is a temptation to often, out of desperation [to] take what you can get. And, and, that’s, that’s when you start to get into issues that like we are seeing and that’s when you start introducing potential road safety problems.”

Jim Mora: “I understand, but would you solve your chronic shortage if you paid higher wage rates?”

Ken Shirley: “Well, indeed, and all the members I speak to want to, but there’s been a race to the bottom, it’s –

[panelist scoffing (?) noise]

such a fiercely competive industry…”

Shirley’s admissions are astounding.

His comments appear to be a frank admission that the free market has experienced a spectacular  failure on a key point in the Northland logging industry;  that if there is a shortage of  skilled labour, the price of that labour (heavy-truck drivers in this case) should rise – not fall – to attract skilled labour. That is a basic tenet of supply and demand in the free market system.

As the guru of free market economics, Milton Friedman put it;

“But when workers get higher wages and better working conditions through the free market, when they get raises by firm[s] competing with one another for the best workers, by workers competing with one another for the best jobs, those higher wages are at nobody’s expense. “

And Investopedia described a free labour market thusly;

Assuming there are a large number of employers in a region, or that workers are highly mobile geographically, the wages that a company will pay workers is dependent on the competitive market wage for a given skill set. This means that any company is a wage taker, which is simply another way of saying companies must pay competitive wages in order to obtain workers.

None of which seems to be happening in Northland at present.

To the contrary, logging companies – according to their own spokesperson, Ken Shirley – are engaged in a “a race to the bottom” with drivers’ wages.

To compound the problem, in April of this year, Shirley specifically opposed and condemned outright any attempt to increase the wages of drivers;

“The link between remuneration and road safety is highly questionable and as a recent PWC report highlights, the system will result in a net cost to the Australian economy of more than A$2 billion over 15 years.

It is therefore very concerning that the Labour Party here advocated for the same policy and campaigned on it during the last election.”

National awards and government-imposed orders are not the way to lift industry wage rates or make the industry safer. All they do is saddle the industry with inflexible and time-consuming obligations and additional costs.

Let’s not repeat Australia’s mistake in New Zealand. It has been proven that national awards burden the economy and cost jobs and I hope that Labour and other political parties here will accept that reality and ditch the concept once and for all.”

Shirley’s comments last month are in stark contrast to his public lamentations on Radio NZ.

Not only has the free market failed in one of it’s key tenets – but Shirley is actively opposed to raising wages by any means necessary, to attract skilled, experienced truck drivers.

This should serve as a clear lesson that the innate contradictions of the free market ideology – many of which are little more than articles of faith – will eventually become more and more apparent.

Shirley has inadvertently helped with the slow dismantling of the neo-liberal fantasy.

Appendix1

Unfortunately, knowing how the system operates  in this country,  it will takes catastrophic events with several tragic deaths, before the government acts on this growing problem.

That’s how we roll in New Zealand.

Over bodies.

.

Tourist dies in logging truck crash near Matamata

.

.

.

References

Wikipedia: Ken Shirley

ACT NZ: Welfare and family

ACT NZ: Minimum wage hike whacks regional employers

Parliament: Current MPs – David Seymour

Parliament: Salaries payable under section 8 of Members of Parliament

Radio NZ: The Panel with Peter Elliott and Susan Guthrie

Good Reads: Milton Friedman

Investopedia: Breaking down ‘Demand For Labor’

Scoop media: Government imposed remuneration orders have no place in NZ

NZ Herald: Tourist dies in logging truck crash near Matamata

Additional

Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal: About road safety remuneration orders

.

.

.

John Key says I'd like to raise wages but I can't

 

.

.

= fs =

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

STAY CONNECTED

11,996FansLike
4,057FollowersFollow

Foreign policy + Intel + Security

Subscribe | Follow | Bookmark
and join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday

MIL Public Webcast Service