On the cuppa tea tape and billboard circuses
November 16th, 2011First the secret cuppa tea tape, then the billboard defacement plot. Just when the election campaign looked like the mainstream media might have to focus on boring old policy, here come the diversions to the rescue. Was serial billboard defacer Jolyon White one of Russel Norman’s highly trained squad of Green ninjas, or part of a radical Anglican sleeper cell?
The collateral image to the Greens new image of political sobriety has yet to be assessed, but – clearly – the Greens have more to worry about from the actions of their friends than from their enemies. During the 2002 election campaign, they were left scrambling to avoid blowback from the Corngate revelations by Nicky Hager, despite knowing absolutely nothing about the matter until Hager’s book hit the stands.
As election stunts go, White’s actions were at the low end of public disorder – it was peaceful, satirical comment – and Sue Bradford has a point when she says that by dobbing White in, the current Green party has effectively cut itself off from what used to be its activist base. Even so, at this stage of the campaign, a fairly ruthless cost/benefit standard had to be applied. Could the risks involved with this form of activism be justified, given how it would be used to revive negative stereotypes about the party? Clearly, no.
By hubristically going onto RNZ to brag about his actions, White had made it inevitable that his identity – and affiliations – would eventually become publically known. With less than a fortnight to polling day Norman had no option but to try and pre-empt any revelations that might carry over into the final week. Especially given the fact that even in normal conditions, the Greens have traditionally had trouble carrying their high poll numbers through to the outcome on polling day. As for Norman’s decision to stand down his executive assistant Anne Heins… It seems reasonable to expect a ‘no surprises’ policy from your own support staff.
John Key has the bigger problem. Once things start to go wrong on something like the Epsom stunt, they tend to snowball. Key’s attempt for instance, to liken the leakage from his staged photo op with John Banks to the hacking by News of the World journalists of the cellphone of murdered British schoolgirl Milly Dowler has now been denounced as a “cheap shot” by the British lawyer acting for the Dowler family. For Key’s benefit, British barrister Mark Lewis spelled out the difference:
There is a difference between the News of the World hacking into someone’s phone to find out private information and seemingly – whether accidentally or on purpose – effectively a journalist investigating some kind of political statement.
“But if it’s particularly a political statement which affects the future government or the ways to achieve future government in a country, then that’s something in the public interest and it sounds like it should be reported, without the unfavourable comparison to what was clearly a criminal act.”
Day by day, Key is being left with less and less room to hide. It is time for him to man up and take the consequences of his actions. For someone who has made his carefully manicured personality into his government’s greatest asset, any gap that the tape’s content may reveal between image and substance is going to be magnified – but it is just as clearly in the public interest. Like Jolyon White, Key has only himself and his hubris to blame for the position he finds himself in.
The cuppa tea tape is not the only item relevant to the campaign about which Key has been less than forthcoming. Early last year, a Treasury paper on the links between employment and raising the minimum wage contained evidence that there is no significant causal linkage between the two.
That Treasury paper only became available after an OIA request, and Key has consistently cited an alternative finding in a Department of Labour paper that job losses would result. Labour has now accused Key of selectively using only those bits of publically funded research that fit his party’s policy position, instead of putting all the evidence on the table. In a damage control exercise, National’s campaign manager Steven Joyce has argued to the contrary:
He said Mr Goff’s assertion about the Treasury report was wrong. “The claim that Treasury does not think the minimum wage affects jobs is wrong,” he said. “It was based on an edited quote from an exchange of views between a Treasury staff member and a Labour Department staff member about the youth minimum wage.
“The Treasury has told the Government that the minimum wage does impact on employment.”
If Joyce is right – and if the ‘exchange of views’’ really does (on the whole) come out showing an impact on employment that is demonstrably socially and economically significant, then we may have a global breakthrough here. That Treasury paper dated from March 2010. Late in 2010, US labour market researchers at UC Berkeley released a breakthrough research paper which shows the reverse: that increasing the minimum wage does not lead to the short term or long term loss of low-paying jobs.
The paper is the culmination of a series of competing papers on the links between minimum wage hikes and employment, dating back to the early 1990s. The UC Berkeley paper supports the original seminal paper on the subject by economists David Card and Alan Krueger, who is now Barack Obama’s chief economic adviser.
This is one of the best and most convincing minimum wage papers in recent years,” said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard University and a specialist in labour economics. Much economic policy discussion today is more focused on a general lack of jobs rather than on inadequate pay, said [Berkeley economist Michael] Reich, but that doesn’t negate the need for adequate or “living’” wages.
Although increasing the minimum wage can stimulate the economy by putting more money in the pockets of those most likely to spend it on necessities, he said, suggestions to raise minimum wages typically trigger fears. These fears centre around the idea that raising the minimum wage would force many employers to reduce job offerings to meet a more expensive payroll, or that a “tipping point” where the minimum wage becomes too high has already been reached…. [The] findings indicate that an entire generation of previous minimum wage studies that found negative effects on jobs is fundamentally flawed….
The article noted that 17 states and the District of Columbia had a minimum wage higher than the federal level in 2005 and consistently lower job growth than the rest of the country from 1991 to 1996. However, those 17 states and states on the other end of the minimum wage spectrum experienced almost identical job growth between 1996 and 2006.
A link to a subsequent 2011 paper by the UC Berkeley researchers on the (lack of) significant causal linkages impact raising the minimum wage and teen employment can be found here.
In the face of these kind of research findings, those claming that raising the minimum wage in New Zealand will have an unacceptably high impact on jobs tend to make a kind of ‘Goldilocks’ argument – that the US data is from states where the minimum wage is too low to have relevance here, while the minimum wage in Australia is too high to be relevant, either. And if you believe that we’re so unique that economic findings from elsewhere have no relevance… then I have a state asset I’d like to sell you, cheap.
Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url
Print this post
Parliament Headlines
Headlines
Headlines
Headlines
Headlines
9 Responses to “On the cuppa tea tape and billboard circuses”
By Grumpy on Nov 16, 2011 | Reply
We are in serious trouble as a nation if it has become acceptable to dob in your mates.
It is a breach of the basic solidarity that holds working class communities together and clearly puts the Greens on the side of the boss class.
The good thing is that this happened before election day and voters can choose to support a party that has some principles.
By Margaret on Nov 16, 2011 | Reply
If you were a parent wanting to discuss your suicidal child would you meet at a popular coffee house and invite the media along.
I think John Keys minders just tried to grab hold of the most emotional heart wrentching aspect of parenting as an excuse not to release the tapes.
It really just show how little the National Party Politicians think about the public of NZ.
The poor people of Epsom, how many ACT implosions have they had to put up with in their electorate, but it seems another could be right on the heels of ACT getting back into government. John Banks head of the ACT party, sound good to you?
By Eric Crampton on Nov 16, 2011 | Reply
Gordon,
I’m pretty sure the Treasury report the Herald’s mentioning is the same one that Patrick Gower linked. If so, it is just a letter from one Treasury analyst to a DoL analyst noting that, because a study on the effects of the early 2000s change in youth minimum wages found little effect on youth unemployment, we oughtn’t immediately conclude that the 2008 changes to youth minimum wages caused the recent changes in youth unemployment.
It says nothing about proposals to change the overall minimum wage from $13 to $15. Indeed, Treasury is in print, in Cabinet Papers and RIS, opposing the increase from $12.75 to $13 as being too likely to hurt employment. It is implausible that Treasury would find it likely that a $2 increase would do no harm where they thought a $0.25 increase would.
As I’d noted here, what matters is the ratio of the minimum to average wages. You might also note that Australia hasn’t a single minimum wage but rather a complicated set of different minimum wages, with minimums much lower than New Zealand’s in areas where minimum wages would otherwise do particular harm. For instance, the minimum wage facing a 17 year old in Australia is $8.98, to New Zealand’s $13.
By Peter on Nov 16, 2011 | Reply
How about a contra strategy here at work. Key wants this to go on and is saying what seem to be increasingly stupid things to ensure it does. He will look more like a victim of featherweight media, who are boring the pants of the public by running the same story for days ( ditto Zack Guildford). His News of the World allusion was inappropriate, his suicidal young man in the poorest taste and bringing in the police bizarre.
This was a publicity stunt to rort the people of Epsom – ANYTHING those men said is in the public interest, since all they were interested in is staying and getting in power. My biggest concern is the pathetic lack of publication after all this time. What on earth are they waiting for? That they even asked for permission… well, for me a bit more News of the World behaviour would throw much needed light in New Zealand. Publish and be damned.
By Peter on Nov 16, 2011 | Reply
The most interesting aspect on this paper on the minimum wage which you mention in your article – is the reporting on one finding in this report without any mention of the boundary conditions which existed when the study was done. It is obvious that if the minimum wage was set at a silly figure – lets say as high as the maximum wage then there would be an issue. That would be silly of course – but equally one could assume that there is a point along a sliding scale at which point the minimum wage would cause an issue. I assume that the global and local conditions under which the study was undertaken would also have an impact on the results – therefore any discussion on the result without qualification of the boundary conditions would make the reporting of results suspect. But I note that (a) the report is only being mentioned by people who support the raising of the min wage (b) they are not mentioning any boundary conditions listed in the report which might support or qualify the findings. Lastly it is noticeable that those supporting the min wage are setting the difference at $13 vs $15 when as I have read and I might be wrong, the min wage under Labours proposal is to gradually raise the min wage to $15 by 2014. Under the current national policy as it seems to be panning out, the min wage should be around $13.75 coming up to $14 so there is only $1 to $1.25 difference between the policies, given inflation, impact of other proposed policies – the difference may not even be relevant in terms of take home pay or spending power. Very few analysts seem to be looking at the combined impact of several policies – i.e. raise the min wage – but make KiwiSaver compulsory, work to reduce the exchange rates etc. What will be the combined impact when taking into consideration inflation, additional savings, extra pay etc. There is absolutely no sophistication in any analysis by experts and commentators. They merely list/summarise the policies individually – the average New Zealander would have difficulty doing this, getting the info having the expertise yet we have to vote – so how do we do so – based on trust? Frankly the media’s efforts have been atrocious.
By Joe Blow on Nov 16, 2011 | Reply
@ Peter
If you were on minimum wage you would think that a $1 to $1.25 difference was a huge difference…
By Leon Henderson on Nov 17, 2011 | Reply
When the Labour Party were in government they increased the Minimum Wage by one dollar per year (the infuriated Alliance of 1999 – 2002 had from the outset demanded an immediate increase of the [adult] Minimum Wage from the miserable $7.00 GROSS that it was by 1999 [from 1990 when the rotten National Party became the government, until they were ignominiously thrown out in 1990 by the infuriated, poverty-stricken populace, they had increased the adult Minimum Wage by a whopping SIXTY CENTS in NINE YEARS!!!], to $9.00 in the hand per hour,together with the abolition of the evil “Youth Rates” that were, with the fervent support of the Labour Party, legislated into Statutory Law by the National Party. The Labour Party venomously refused, and after a protracted period of excruciatingly hostile squabbling with The Alliance, finally grudgingly increased the Adult Minimum Wage by one dollar!)and they continued each year (even after they got rid of The Alliance over Afghanistan in 1992) to increase it by one dollar. They were in power for nine years and the adult Minimum Wage increased therefore by $9.00 per hour in total.
But ever since the lousy National Party got back in again in 2008, their venal conspiracy against the Working Class immediately raised it’s ugly snout with the “Sacking-On-The-Spot” Bill, the brutal slashing of employers contributions to KiwiSaver, the Privatization Of Water Bill, the vicious legislative onslaught against ACC (the first barrages to “soften it up” for eventual privatization)and the announcement that the $1.00 per year Minimum Wage increases were going to stop because “the country cannot afford it and it leads to unemployment”.
In 2009 they “gave” a miserly Minimum Wage increase of …. thirty cents!!! By now, the end of 2011, it is doubtful if the three years of Scrooge-like National Party Minimum Wage increases even amounts to one dollar in total!!!
By Leon Henderson on Nov 17, 2011 | Reply
Here are the Minimum Wage Rates (Gross) in NZ from 1985, through to 2004. Observe the National Party era (1990 to 1999)and how in many of that interminable nine years of Hell there were no Minimum Wage increases at all, not even of the typical measly National Party variety. They brought in Youth Rates in 1994, which as said in the previous post was wholeheartedly supported by the Labour Party. The National Party to this very day rant and trumpet that the period 1994 – 1999 was a time of “vigorous economic growth”, but for the Working-Class New Zealanders it sure as damn wasn’t, because their real incomes and standard of living relentlessly continued to plummet in the face of zero pay increases; rampant price increases in the cost of living; and soaring levels of part-time on-call employment for minimal pay as desperate people in vast numbers grabbed any work they could get, no matter how detestable and abominably paid.
I was earlier wrong thinking that The Alliance managed to wring a $1.00 per hour per year Minimum Wage increase out of the surly Labour Party from 1999/2000 onwards: the following statistics show that this was not the case, and instead indicate what a horrible time The Alliance were having trying to get ANYTHING out of the Labour Party.
Also the figures show that the National Party actually increased the Minimum Wage by 88 cents from 1990 through to November 1999. However this is the gross figure, and apparantly after tax is taken into account it actually works out to approximately sixty cents!!! Sixty cents in NINE YEARS!!!
Don’t let the thugs back in: Vote Mighty, Mighty NZ Green Party!!! Vote Mana!!! Vote MMP!!!
Feb 1985 (No Youth Rates) $2.50
Sept. 1985 (No Youth Rates) $2.80
Feb 1987 (No Youth Rates) $5.25
Feb 1988 (No Youth Rates) $5.62
May 1989 (No Youth Rates) $5.87
Sept 1990 (No Youth Rates) $6.12
March 1994 (Youth Rates Made Law) $6.12
March 1995 $6.25
March 1996 $6.37
March 1997 $7.00
March 1998 $7.00
March 1999 $7.00
March 2000 $7.55
March 2001 $7.70
March 2002 $8.00
March 2003 $8.50
March 2004 $9.00
By Joe Blow on Nov 17, 2011 | Reply
I posted this yesterday but it never appeared. Got swallowed by the monitor:
Greens and Key
I think Bradford is right that the most damage done to the Greens is from being sensible and apologising to Key – that’s got to hurt their traditional activist support who will turn to Mana instead…
Could Key actually agree to release the recording now that a criminal investigation is underway? I guess he could as he is the complainant and he could withdraw the complaint (the police can still press charges even if the complaint is withdrawn though). I think that Key is begining to crack. It appears to be the closest he’s come to it anyway… I think the media have more to gain from not releasing the recording in the mean time as the speculation is running rampant. They will eventually though as it looks like the recording’s contents have been passed around a few different people now… none of the news agencies will want to be the last to publish it either…
Minimum Wage
I’d like to read the actual Treasury paper if you can get your hands on it Gordon.