Posts Tagged ‘National Party’

English to Hong Kong

Finance Minister Bill English will leave the country to visit investors in Hong Kong and London. According to the beehive press release, he will be trying to convince local business people that NZ economy is sound, and an investment in NZ is well worth it. In next four years NZ government needs to borrow about $40 billion and that money has to come from somewhere.

On a completely irrelevant sidenote, Mr English's domestic credit rating has sunk into a new low after the his housing allowance saga.

TVNZ's real problem

The government.

TVNZ is not a fully funded state broadcaster like BBC domestic broadcasting because as a small nation, we probably cannot afford it. Therefore its channels carry adverts, and is exposed to the what Nats are usually proud to say "real business world" out there and needs to compete its way out.

Under the current economic situation, we see countless number of privately owned businesses experiencing significantly reduced profit, or even go into deficit. If you are an investor to a large corporation, you wouldn't expect your dividend to be as high as last year, or you may just get ready to sacrifise your dividend for a year to keep your investment safe.

So Why John Key, aka "the man with real economic sense"  is expecting a unrealistic dividend from TVNZ:

From the Crown's point of view we have $200 million invested in TVNZ, that's the equity in TVNZ, if we don't receive a return on that equity and we don't receive a dividend, that's less money the Crown has to pay for hospital beds, less money it has to pay its doctors and less money it has to pay its teachers.

Nice words, sounds sympathetic, but does it really mean anything? Last year TVNZ paid out $10 million to the government, don't tell me that our health and education system would fail for a shortfall of $10 million dollars.

As TVNZ is going to cut 90 employees, more pressure will be added to the dole queue. So what National government did is, forcing TVNZ to reduce costs by reduce amount of local made programmes (that's what state owned media is for, in my opinion) and axes kiwi jobs to meet government dividend demand so Mr Key can have more money to pay for hospital beds.

I hope those people who will lost their job could find a job soon otherwise the whole thing is just pointless - a large chunk of the few million dollars dividend will be used to pay the added dole queue anyway, when those people really should be working and contributing at least some value back to our society. Now you call that real business sense?

By the way, I remember this government was claiming itself dedicated to keep kiwi jobs.

It's very hard to believe there's no hidden agenda behind this movement.

nine-day fortnight work plan released

In one sentence, Government will pay minimum wage of $12.5for up to 5 hours per day to employees who have taken an extra day off. For rest of the scheme:

• Will be available to businesses with more than 100 employees. There are about 1600 companies which fit this category and they employ 580,000 people.
• Will be available to businesses from March 27, 2009 through until December 31, 2010 - but only for up to a six month period within these dates.
• The government’s contribution will be paid direct to employers to give to the workers it has negotiated a voluntary agreement with to reduce work hours to a nine-day fortnight.
• Will be available to up to 10 employees for each averted redundancy.
• Will apply to employees who have been full-time for the two months preceding going into the scheme.
• Is anticipated to be picked up by between 20,000 and 25,000 workers, making the approximate cost $16 million to $20 million.

Overall I'm pretty happy about it, and I think it will be a way reduce redundancies in big companies. In a recession the most import thing to maintain is not just economic growth, but fundamentally, confidence. If employees are given the promise that they will not be made redundant, it will give them confidence, and they are more likely to spend rather than save for the unforeseeable future.

But I do have a mixed feeling about this. Employees are not responsible for the current economic situation, making them suffer should be the last resort to keep this economic going.  There are long suspicions that some employers are using economic recession as an excuse to carry out restructuring. I think this scheme should only be available for companies who are experiencing losses, not just a reduction of profits.   I can see the same greed which was responsible for the current situation, is still in the market. Companies should just accept a significantly reduced profit for now, rather let the same greed take over, dreaming of the high profits they've experienced in the last few years.

The scheme will only work if employers are welling to join it, but I don't think they are. As a employer,  how much can you save from this? Let's assume a company maximises its opportunity, put 10 employee who receives an average $20 wage and work 8 hours a day in this. So the calculation goes like:

13 x 10 x 20 x 8 = $20,800

For a 100 employees company, that's kind of nothing -  make one employee redundant saves more than this, and that size of businesses don't fail for short of 20,000 dollars.

Or maybe the whole thing is just another publicity stunt from John Key?

New Employment Relation Act effective from today

Now your new boss can fire you at will within 90 days.  You chose that,  you voted for it.

This is what National Party is all about. Like the recent job summit, aimmed to "create jobs", but let's face it, it's just a bad publicity stunt. When you see a group of predominantly white, rich bosses sit around talking about "create and save job", you immediately smells something strange. Aren't they the guys who are responsible for the current situation? In fact, to me, it was more like a discussion on how to save their big fat pay cheques.

My suggestions for this ERA is, refuse to sign any contract that has that 90 days clause in it.  Yes I recognise employers need confidence, but 90 days trial period is too long. 30 days is more than enough to see whether a new employee is a lazy bum and lives up to employer's expectations. 90 days is way to long, it just opens a big opportunity for those bad employers out there.

But if you don't have a choice - then sign the contract anyway.

Last comments

Although I did not give my party vote to Labour yesterday, I still consider the party the lesser of two evils- in last years New Zealand enjoyed a continuous stability and economic growth. And most importantly, the growth was enjoyed by all New Zealanders regardless of their gender, ethnicity or social statues, it was a sustainable growth, not the kind of growth achieved at the expense of part of our society.

It's also because I can never forget and forgive the massive incompetence of the last National Government and how that was ended nearly in tragedy.

Helen Clark and the Labour Party have done a good job in last nine years. There were downsides and unpopular movements, but if you look back, most of them were from Green politics.

I personally admired Helen Clark's strong leadership, a courage to do what's best to the country, not what electorates want. History will prove this.

She was also a great ambassador of New Zealand, she won respect for herself and New Zealand when she said no to invasion in Iraq. In China, many of my friends admired New Zealand's dignity, impartiality and selflessness as Clark first tipped the milk scandal in China.

And I'm glad to have her as my local MP for the last 27 years. She fought tirelessly for the benefit of the local community, and helped me during my hard time.

There was no doubt that National is on the road to form next government, but as I marked in my twitter, no matter who wins, it will sure be a sad turning point of New Zealand politics. As New Zealand First gradually fades away, New Zealand departed from centrist route, becoming vulnerable to irresponsible acts done by either extreme right wing like ACT or extreme left represented by Greens.

I consider myself pretty centred so it was a hard choice for me.  But when I looked at the current economic crisis, I had to come to the conclusion that John Key might be a better choice - there's no doubt that bankers and capitalists like John Key are responsible for the current world economic crisis, so he should know how to manage New Zealand through it. Why? Arsonists are usually the best fire-fighters, because only they know where the fire started.

It must be warned that John Key needs to be strong enough to resist temptations from old guards inside the National Party. I don't know much about John Key, but most of us know fairly well about old faces like Bill English, a guy like him should never be left in charge of anything alone.

John Key was also given a mandate to keep National as a centrist party and not influenced by 5 ACT MPs especially Roger Douglas otherwise he risks to become a one term PM.

Finally, just a condolence to Labour party and last nine years, it has been good nine years. Brooke Fraser, arithmetics(although it is actually a Christian song):

Politician and politician ...

If we are here to talking about the format, I liked the "two johns" ad,  it's like a variation of National's 2005 red and blue billboards, simple, clear and precise.

But I just keep feeling creepy every time this ad appears on TV. Last line of the ad reads something like "...you know you can trust Helen Clark and Labour." I don't know whether it's just me feeling this way, is this some kind of brainwashing ad with a hidden subliminal message "you should trust Helen Clark"?

I mean the wording of the last line is bit strange. How come they know that I know Helen Clark is more trustworthy? It made me quite scared that they may possess some kind of mind reading secret technique.

But if not,  then don't tell me what I suppose to or not to know. I know (well, everybody knows) Auntie Clarkie signed paintings which were done by someone else.

"trust" and "politician" are just two very incompatible words and I think Clark is quite stupid to set the tone of the election in this way. The ad itself also played a very stupid logic game: any fully minded person should know that an "untrustworthy John" does not logically equal to the statement "Labour is trustworthy".

BTW ... here's a story about two Helens ...