Posts by A S
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
1 - What does everyone "feeling the pinch" have to do with expecting truckers to pay their fair share for road use? If, as you seem to agree, most people believe that truckies should pay their ‘fair whack’, why would they be more against moves to make that so now while times are though for them (that is, for the ‘everyone’ from whom the burden would be shifted)?
Perhaps people realise perfectly well that truckies "paying their share" actually means the general populace paying more for everything via increased prices.
A cynical member of the public might observe that the tax money not spent "subsidising" truckies is unlikely to be returned to the taxpayers that now have to pay the cost of truckies "paying their share", as well as paying the original "subsidy" that will no doubt now be spent elsewhere.
A logical view point if times are tough might in fact be to say, lets subsidise them on this, because that way at least we aren't any further out of pocket than we are at present.
The populace aren't that dense. There isn't much in it for them except for increased prices. Not really a great selling point.
-
But Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen last night pointed to questions Mr Key asked in Parliament on April 9, 2003, while he still owned the shares.
The transcript of question 8 on that day does make for interesting reading:
8. Tranz Rail—Rail Network
[Volume:607;Page:4969]
8. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Noting that Tranz Rail’s share price has dived, which could lead to it being bought and sold piecemeal, is he contemplating ensuring the rail network survives as one entity; if not, why not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) : The Government’s interest is in rail contributing to its overall land transport strategy. Unified ownership of the present assets is not essential to that objective.
Peter Brown: Does that answer mean the Minister would be quite happy if part of the rail was sold off here and part sold off there, and that it ended up in multiple ownership?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes.
John Key: What instructions has the Minister issued to Treasury regarding the many secret meetings it has held in recent months with Tranz Rail’s management, and can he confirm the reasons that all proposals to spend the $30 million allocated to Transfund in the alternatives to roading schemehave indeed been stonewalled by him to ensure Cabinet had the resources to buy back the tracks, once Treasury reports back to him in a month?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On the latter part, no. On the former part, in fact very few meetings were held with Tranz Rail in recent months.
Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware there are planned meetings between senior Ministers and union officials in the near future to discuss some of the concerns about Tranz Rail being sold piecemeal; if so, what reassurances will the Ministers give to those union officials?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I am not aware, as a relatively senior Minister, that these meetings are to be held. But I point out to the member that there is absolutely no reason, for example, that one company should not own the freight operation and another company own the urban passenger operation.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Given the widespread support for a strong national rail network, why has the Government not sought to purchase Tranz Rail from institutional shareholders, and, if necessary, obtaining an exemption from the Takeovers Code, as it legally can, in order to avoid driving up the share price?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said in a speech at the weekend, it can be no part of the Government’s objective to prop up the asset values of any private company, particularly one that is the beneficiary of a self-privatisation deal.The interesting bit is Cullen indicating that they would be comfortable with the railways being in multiple ownership. The govt line on National and privatisation does look a little hypocritical in light of statements like that.
The question from John Key looks like pretty weak grounds to claim a conflict of interest if govt is after a genuine gotcha.
-
Pretty shallow analysis. Seen from the extremes of left and right it may be the case, just because Labour has not rushed into whole sale nationalisation (or pick your favourite Marxists doctrine) and National are not espousing the destruction of Gummint does not mean they are the same.
I figured I'd stick with the shallow tenor of most of this discussion :p
You're arguing a pretty marginal difference. Both major parties have effectively led a mad dash for the centre (where the votes are). They may not be the same, but they sure as hell aren't much different.
-
NZers need to wake up and understand one thing - there's a lot of shit that will be on unsafe ground after these elections if Key's chaps get in.
I really struggle with these sorts of statements. The Nats and Labour are effectively carbon copies of each other. When the two major parties are reduced to trying to claim each others ideas as their own, things really aren't all that bad.
If I was the labour party I'd be hoping like hell that I lost this election, that way some other bunch of schmucks gets to try to manage through the impending recession/stagflation combo.
In three years, after someone else has copped all the flak in the ugly times, the opposition in a situation like that would stand a pretty good chance of winning, and not being tarred like the bunch that had to try and steer an impossible course through a recession they can't do much about.
-
I guess this is what it all boils down to: National have indicated that their collective minds are made up and, come 2014 (and assuming they have the numbers), they'll delete the Maori seats. No parley.
Given the historic patterns of MMP representation in NZ, miraculously abolishing the Maori seats, is pretty unlikely, and almost sounds like scare-mongering.
Based on a realistic situation, National could only achieve this with the support of a number of other parties, the only parties likely to return members to parliament are Jim Andertons lot, the Maori party, and maybe UF via electorates. If the Greens holds up, then they're in. ACT are pretty unlikely, and NZF are polling abysmally. Who amongst those likely to get in would support getting rid of the Maori seats?
I think that particular National policy is idiotic, and it will quite probably preclude me voting for them, but lets not try to suggest that somehow only National have a track record of riding roughshod over the wishes of the people when it suits.
I believe someone elsewhere in this or a similar thread made mention of glasshouses and throwing stones, and I can think of a few recent significant changes and some proposed changes that couldn't really claim to have the widespread support of the people...
-
The only model we have at the moment is iwi by iwi, and/or hapu by hapu, such as recently was the case for those involved in the Treelord settlement. A lot more time-consuming that ramming a bill through parliament, and only of use if you are interested in buy-in rather than imposition.
Iwi/hapu aren't really that good a representive structure for Maori either though. The majority of us who are Maori don't live in our rohe, nor do most of us have strong links back to iwi/hapu. In effect adopting such a model would disenfranchise us just as much, if not more than the status quo, but without the transparency and accountability mechanisms we currently have for monitoring the activities of the govt of the day.
All in all, and speaking as a Maori, I'd rather we stuck with a parliamentary democracy rather than a bunch of small iwi/hapu fiefdoms ruled by those with the right surnames, which is the situation that characterises iwi/hapu politics now....
-
A lot of the discussion appears (to me anyway) to carry an implication that CIR are somehow a bad thing.
Is this correct? Do we think that CIR are bad? Should the public be allowed a voice on issues outside of the election process? I for one, would be quite interested in the different perspectives on this.
Do we in fact need to separate the topic of this particular CIR, from the function of the CIR?
Actually, from a certain POV (and a conservative one, I would argue) laws that are unenforced (or not applied to all without bias, fear or favour) or unenforceable are truly destructive of civil society -- of which general respect for the rule of law is an integral part.
I'm in total agreement with you on that sentiment, Craig.
-
It's that easy for the Chief Electoral Office to get extra funds? Really? I find that rather hard to believe. There's a reason that the Budget is handled in legislation.
Yes it is that easy. In fact it happens on an almost weekly basis. Where else do you think those random announcements of additional $ for various things get the money from? Most of those were never announced or planned for in the budget.
If the will to have a CIR is there obtaining the funding can be done very quickly, and very simply.
If anyone seriously believes that cabinet couldn't find an extra $10 or $20 mil for this if govt thought it would be of benefit to them, I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying.
-
If you read the document that I/S linked to, you'll see that money isn't a prime factor. Where it's mentioned the primary concern is that they don't have any money for it at all, so would have to bid for additional money between budgets.
I don't think the funding is really a problem if the will is there. All it takes to get some extra dosh lined up is ten minutes around the cabinet table on a monday morning. If the will isn't there, then it will indeed take a lot longer....
-
It is worth bearing in mind that the one election in which there was also a CIR ballot was a shambles in which the votes took far too long to be counted and everybody complained.
I remember that election. In the fallout from it all, was it the CIR that held things up, or was it all just a bit of a cockup by the organisers?
I also remember the complaints, but the cause of the delay and the response to the problems are kind of lost in the mists of history... Is anyone elses memory less hazy than mine on this?