OnPoint by Keith Ng

Hey Judith, about that $1.2b figure for your PPP prison. On page 2, it says:

This study assumes that the Prison is built using a traditional approach which means that Central Government are responsible for building and operating the Prison through the Department of Corrections. While the Government is exploring the implications for cost and operational efficiency of establishing a Public Private Partnership (PPP) to develop and run the Prison, it is not possible to build those implications into the economic impact assessment at this stage."

It explicitly treats it as if it *wasn't* a PPP. The whole point of a PPP is that they do it cheaper, which means spending less money, which means less regional economic spin-off. And if they don't spend less money, then why would you bother with a PPP?

And then there's the common sense part. If that's an economic case for building a new prison, it could also be an economic case for building a permanent hole digging and refilling facility.

After all, you need to hire hole diggers to dig holes and fill them back up (job creation!), they need to eat, be housed, and provided with shovels (generate income for local businesses!). All of those things, under this method of analysis, have positive flow-on economic effects. But at the end of the day, they're still just digging a hole and filling it back up.

This sure is some meaningless shit.

UPDATE: The impact assessment report is here.

By David Farrar, Keith Ng, Rob Salmond, and Tim Watkin.

Many people are concerned about the quality of public affairs journalism in New Zealand. Being concerned is a good start, but how can you take the next step? How can you help make it better? Yes, you.

Here is one way. Follow this link and vote for Nicola Kean in the AMP “Do Your Thing” Scholarship competition.

It is an online popularity contest, and the winner gets $10,000 to help them pursue their dreams. Voting is quick, easy, free, and for a good cause. Of course, there are many, many fantastic applicants for this award, and we are not opposed to any one of them winning the money. We’re just especially in favour of Nicola winning, because of the value that her dream holds for all of us.

Nicola’s dream is to go to the US for postgraduate study in journalism. She’s already done the hard part and got accepted to Columbia University, one of the best and most selective programs in the world. Now she just needs a lot of cash.

Nicola, 24, is already a prize-winning journalist, winning an ASPA award in her second year as a Salient staffer and being selected for a global student journalism award handed out by the UN. She is also a prize-winning student, winning a Fulbright scholarship this year and earlier winning three of the big prizes offered in Victoria’s political science department (best first year student, best BA, best Honours student).

She is going to go far (when you start in Upper Hutt that is sometimes a good idea), and could well become one of New Zealand’s very best public affairs journalists. That is what motivates her:

In one of my research papers…, I described the impacts of political journalism becoming increasingly leader-focussed at the expense of policy. In the paper, I found that the increasing focus on leaders and leadership, and the reporting of the ''game'' of politics, in the media was one of many contributing factors in the ''trivialisation'' of New Zealand politics. My medium-term goal is to help counteract this trend in my own reporting…”

How good could she be? That depends partly on whether she gets to learn the state of the art from the world’s best in New York. And that is where you can help by voting for her.

And if you want to help even more, go to her website and give her some money.

This post is going up simultaneously on Kiwiblog, Public Address, Pundit, and The Standard. It is a non-partisan effort. We’re all backing Nicola’s campaign because we, left and right, partisans and non-partisans, all want what you want. We want top quality journalists in New Zealand holding the people in charge, whoever they are, to account for their actions and the consequences.

So let’s all club together and help Nicola get to Columbia.

This is a tax cut for the rich, yes, but I struggle to get too worked up about it. Key said it was a tax cut for the rich, National campaigned on tax cuts for the rich and people elected them to give tax cuts to the rich. Meh, this is how governments work.

However, there are some major deceits in today’s Budget:

The “tax switch” is not revenue neutral

How can everyone get more money without the government losing money? It’s Macroeconomics, stupid.

This is actually a tax cut. It will cost $1.085b in the next four years. The only reason they can say it’s “revenue positive” by 2013/14 is by adding a line called “Adjustment for macroeconomic effects”. That is, they argue that tax cuts will spur economic growth, and therefore the economy will grow faster, and so it’ll be revenue positive by 2013/14.

It would be unfair to call this magic money, but at the very least, it’s entirely theoretical money. Not only can we not know whether it’s real or not now, but we won’t know whether it’s real or not in 2013/14.

Ah, macroeconomics. You are always (by definition) right.

Budget 2010 does not reduce long-term debt

English was very careful to say that debt decreased “as a result of policy decisions” in Budget 2009, and it has gone down further in Budget 2010. That’s because the “debt reduction” in Budget 2010 is a consequence of a better economic outlook, and has little to do with policy changes in this Budget. English confirmed this to me in the Lock-Up.

Of course, the debt reduction programme in Budget 2009 was problematic for its own reasons.

Of course it’s a tax cut for the rich

There’re some half-arsed and far-stretched arguments about why this isn’t a tax cut for the rich.

First, they’ve been bandying around graphs showing that households earning more than $85k/year only get twice as much of a tax cut as households on $40k-85k… when you compare the “tax changes as % of the average disposable household income”. Of course, rich households have a much higher income (well above $85k), and so in real dollar terms, rich households get about four times as much as average households.

Their second equity line is: “Two-thirds of the tax cut goes into reducing the bottom two brackets.”

People on higher income take a bite out of the low bracket cuts *and* the high bracket cuts. Even very high income earners have a “first $14,000” of income. Yes, a large chunk of the package goes to low bracket cuts, but a good chunk of this goes to high income earners. Which is why it’s stupid to talk about low brackets, and you’d only do it if you were deliberately trying to mislead.

--

The big surprise is, as everyone else will no doubt point out, the unexpectedly large cut in the second rate, from 21% to 17.5%. This, together with the changes to super and benefits, does a very effective job in compensating for the impact of GST. I need to spend more quality nerd time on it, but I reckon it will pass the test in that regard.

Their objective was to make the tax system less progressive and to shift taxes away from income and corporate tax, and they’ve managed to do it in a pretty reasonable way.

But spending is still the outstanding issue – as I wrote at the beginning of the year, the permanent constraint on spending will loom over all future budgets. They’ve managed to free up money by “cutting out the fat” this year, but once they’ve cut out all the fat, can they cut out all the fat again? And again?

Why did you print an op-ed (in the print edition on 17 May) on why Chinese people should be denied basic civil rights in Japan?

I'm not sure if anyone from your paper actually read the piece by Yuriko Koike, but in her article (also available via an online syndication service), nominally about the Chinese naval build-up in the Pacific, she talked about "particular foreign residents" and “foreigners with a particular interest”. Specifically, she railed against a "controversial" law that would "allow particular foreign residents on the island to vote in local elections".

If you don't understand the euphemism, let me spell it out: She is saying that it's dangerous to let Chinese residents in Japan to vote in local elections.

Koike is a Japanese politician, and of course it's her right to say such things. But it seems a little fucked up for a New Zealand paper to give half a page to a Japanese politician arguing against giving Chinese residents the vote in Japan.

That's the explicit one. The rest is really subtle and I guess you can be forgiven for missing it.

The world watches and wonders whether China will follow Japan’s path and emerge as a fully modern yet peacefully inclined country."

History has repeatedly demonstrated that such ambiguity, particular if practiced by a rising power, can spark an arms race. The secretive naval build-up of Kaiser Wilhelm II’s Germany, for example, helped incite World War I."

What's wrong with these sections? Don't you find it a little weird that she compares China's naval build-up in the Pacific with Kaiser Wilhelm II’s Germany? The last real challenge to US naval supremacy in the Pacific was, of course, the Empire of Japan. The fact that she omits that, and cites Japan as the model of peaceful development is dog whistling a very specific political worldview.

Think I'm being overly sensitive? Turns out, she is actually a member of the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform and pays homage at the Yasukuni Shrine. She is a card-carrying historical revisionist. As in literally revising history books. She is of the view that the historical narrative of Japan as an aggressor in World War II, of the atrocities committed during its invasions and occupations, is mostly anti-Japanese propaganda. The Nanking Massacre, where 100,000-300,000 people were killed and 20,000-80,000 women and girls were raped, was literally reduced to a footnote in these textbooks:

At this time, many Chinese soldiers and civilians were killed or wounded by Japanese troops (the Nanking Incident). Documentary evidence has raised doubts about the actual number of victims claimed by the incident. The debate continues even today.”

She is, to a Chinese person, what a Holocaust denier is to a Jew.

Again, she has the right to say such things. But it makes this article analogous to a Holocaust denier talking about why Israel's military might is a threat to stability in the Middle East and saying that they need to disarm and be a model of peaceful development and multilateralism like Germany.

At face value, it's a straightforward argument. But in a historical context, it's deeply and grossly offensive.

Dear DomPost, I don't mean to be a dick about it, but clearly, this all went over your head. However, the voting thing should have stood out. Anyone who read the piece should have realised that "particular foreign residents" was a xenophobic euphemism. Even if you didn't notice the large historical revisionism elephant in the room, you should've seen that it was at least a thinly veiled piece of xenophobia.

My beef isn't that you printed something that I found offensive, but that you didn't have a clue that it was. You skimmed through a wire service you subscribe to and saw something about Chinese naval influence in the Pacific – which is practically a New Zealand angle, right? There was a whole lot of stuff in there that didn't immediately make sense, but you had half a page to fill on a budget of nothing, so you pulled it down and forwarded it to layout. Besides, it's just filler, so who gives a shit? Right?

P.S. Please consider this a submission to your opinion page. Thanks.

You know how I was suggesting that perhaps Glenn Inwood was just a decent, helpful guy who likes to help people get their mail and lend his office space to good, worthwhile causes like smoking?

Turns out, he is!

The Herald Online did the leg-work on this story yesterday, and interviewed both Richard Green (frontman for the Association of Community Retailers) and Glenn Inwood (spin doctor for whaling and Big Tobacco).

Green helpfully confirmed Inwood's involvement with the Stay Displays campaign and the ACR. And that the ACR is an organisation of mum and dad small retailer who “run on the smell of an oily rag", but who thought it was prudent to hire two staff members despite not having figured out how to pay them. And yet, unless the two staff members are working there on credit, they seem to have figured out how to pay them, despite not having figured out how to pay them.

Meanwhile, Inwood said that the Association of Community Retailers receives no funding from tobacco companies or himself, and he implied that he lets them use his office spaces purely because he knows Green from the good old days of Stay Displays – the last genuine grassroot community group of mum and dad retailers that they worked together on (and presumably wasn't paid for by Big Tobacco, either).

I think their arguments are so powerful that it's not necessary to talk about it.

--

Where else might the money have come from, if not directly from tobacco companies?

I don't know, but another SpinItWide client, via Carrick Graham's Facilitate Communications, is the New Zealand Association of Convenience Stores. Their "Premium Members" include the confectionery and tobacco brands in the title of this post.

The ACR was created to deal with wider issues that Stay Displays (created over cigarette display advertising) didn't cover. What are some of the issues that concern the ACR? Chocolate and sweets.

The Association of Community Retailers is finding that confectionery and food marketing has begun following the same path as alcohol and tobacco... A number of so-called obesity and health organisations are pushing for stricter laws surrounding the advertising and display of confectionery and soft-drinks in convenience store, dairies and supermarkets.

It looks like ACR is ready to fight them on the chocolate and sweets, just like they're ready to fight them on the cigarettes.

Does it mean that the confectionery industry are getting ready to play the same game as Big Tobacco? I don't know, but in the spirit of facilitating communication, though, I want to speak in the language that big corporations understand.

So, brand guardians of Cadbury, Coca Cola, Bluebird, Tip Top, Mars, Nestle, Streets, consider this. You make junk food. You've got Sue Kedgley crawling up your ass. You're holding back the tide reasonably well, because most people see junk food bans as being just a little too nanny state. They see junk food as a little bit naughty, but nothing too serious. Not like cigarettes. Nothing like cigarettes.

You join organisations like the New Zealand Association of Convenience Stores. You pay people like Glenn Inwood, his companies Omeka Public Relations (aka Omeka Communications), SpinItWide, GlobalPR Limited, or Carrick Graham of Facilitate Communications.

You think of this as the army you need to hold back the tide that's coming at you.

Try these on for size:

“...industry lobby group NZACS, which represents companies like British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco, Cadbury and Nestle."

“...says Glenn Inwood, spokesperson for Coca Cola, Bluebird, Tip Top, and the whaling industry."

“...Carrick Graham, formerly of British American Tobacco, on behalf of Mars and Streets."

I don't want to tell you how to suck eggs, but what do you think will happen to your brand when it becomes associated with Big Tobacco and whaling? How popular do you think these things are in New Zealand? How much of a hit do you think Big Tobacco took when they were seen as “unwholesome"? How much of a hit do you think your fun-for-the-whole-family-ice-cream will take when it's associated with Big Tobacco?

I guess, to an extent, I can see why nominally “family" brands like Cadbury, Coca Cola, Bluebird, Tip Top, Mars, Nestle and Streets would want to ally themselves with Big Tobacco. You operate in the same market, you are all fast-moving consumer goods, and you realise that one way or another, you'll be in Big Tobacco's shoes soon enough.

Right now, your best defence is that you're *not* Big Tobacco. And yet, you want to protect yourselves by using the same tactics as Big Tobacco, using the same people to execute the same tactics as Big Tobacco, and associating yourselves with Big Tobacco as they are pulling the same shit that's seen them be despised.

And since Big Tobacco didn't carry enough stench for you, you get the guy who does whaling *and* Big Tobacco. Save yourselves some time. Just change your logo to a swastika.

I don't really know what's in it for the other organisations connected with Inwood, though. I have no idea what's so spectacularly dodgy about the NZ Aged Care Association that they need the Whaling Guy to sort them out, but hell, I sure am curious now.

On the other hand, it's fairly straightforward why Te Ohu Kaimoana (The Maori Fisheries Trust) needs the Whaling Guy. To lobby for whaling.

But hey, people have short memories. Next time you get Glenn Inwood or Carrick Graham to do media work or lobby for you, journalists and politicians may well forget that they have “Whaling" and “Big Tobacco" tattooed on their respective foreheads. And when your genuine grassroot organisation of Adorable Orphans Concerned About Chocolate and Ice-Cream sends out their press releases on SpinItWide, hey, who's going to remember this little incident, eh?

In fact, it's pretty futile of me to keep talking about Glenn Inwood of Omeka Public Relations, GlobalPR and SpinItWide, or Carrick Graham of Facilitate Communications. It's probably not going to achieve anything apart from making them rank higher on Google searches. Oh well.

(UPDATE: There's been some questions raised about the links. So here's what we know, stated as clearly and concisely as possible:

* These confectionery brands are a part of an industry group, the New Zealand Association of Convenience Stores, with the tobacco brands.
* NZACS actively campaigns on tobacco issues. It is, for all intents and purposes, a tobacco lobby among other things.
* NZACS is represented by Carrick Graham, of Facilitate Communications, and they have an ongoing relationship with Glenn Inwood (what the nature of that relationship is, that's the unknown variable).
* Glenn Inwood is involved with the Association of Community Retailers.
* ACR actively campaigns on tobacco issues, and looks set to campaign on confectionery.

There is no clear evidence that the ACR is backed by NZACS, and I make no such claim. But what I can say with certainty is that these confectionery brands are part of organisations that work for the interests of Big Tobacco, their public relations money goes into the pockets of people who makes their living doing questionable things on behalf of Big Tobacco and whaling.

These are facts that will, and should, poison these family brands.)