But the Dom-Post is not overly impressed with what it has seen to date; the editorial begins thus:
Well that didn't take long. Labour's American-style primary contest is only days old, but already it is apparent that in terms of policy none of the three contenders for the leadership has any more to offer than the departing David Shearer.
Caucus favourite Grant Robertson's big idea - one quickly signed up to by party champion David Cunliffe - is to introduce a living wage of $18.40 an hour for all government workers. Meanwhile, Shane Jones, the outsider in the contest, is threatening to pass laws to regulate how much supermarkets can charge for food.
Both ideas sound great. Who doesn't want lowly paid workers to get greater reward for their efforts? Who wouldn't welcome a reduction in food prices? The problem is that neither proposal is remotely deliverable.
Labour's leadership candidates are employing the rhetoric of old-fashioned class warfare. Soak the rich to feed the poor. Unfortunately for them, the world has moved on from the days when governments could change the rules of the game and the players had no choice but to comply.
The Dom-Post leader writer is dead right; as Labour lurches even further to the Left than the Greens (and almost as far as Mana), some of the policy promises that are coming from the mouths of the Three Amigos are getting completely over the top.
And the leader writer reminds Messrs Cunliffe, Jones and Robertson thet economically speaking, New Zealand is a very small fish in a very large pond; read on:
New Zealand is not a fortress economy, but a tiny player in a global market in which every action has a consequence. In their heart of hearts Mr Robertson, Mr Cunliffe and Mr Jones know this. They were all part of the last Labour-led government, which, despite its socialist credentials, quickly came to the realisation that the interests of employers and employees were inextricably intertwined. The government could not impose extra costs on business, without putting at risk the jobs of vulnerable workers.
Mr Robertson will say his proposal applies only to government workers and contractors, but limiting its application only creates inequities of another sort.
Why should a cleaner mopping out a privately owned building earn several dollars an hour less than a cleaner vacuuming a government building? Why should a worker in a privately owned rest home receive less government support than would otherwise be available, because the Labour Party has decided to advantage a subset of all workers.
Mr Robertson and Mr Cunliffe may also point out that their proposal is to introduce a living wage "over time". However, the caveat either renders the proposal meaningless or recklessly irresponsible. Meaningless, if by "over time" they mean the amount of time it would take the minimum wage to rise to that level under the present system. Recklessly irresponsible, if they are actually intent on establishing an elite class of privileged workers.
New Zealand is a global price taker, not a price setter. The country prospers when it is nimble and flexible. It suffers when it is rigid and flat-footed.
Governments can no more raise living standards by decreeing higher wages, than they can by telling supermarkets how much they can charge for a leg of lamb or a box of cornflakes.
If Messrs Robertson, Cunliffe and Jones are serious about running the country, they should advance serious policies.
We could not agree more. Pork-barrel politics and simply telling people what they want to hear does not bode well for good, sound policy should Labour ever get elected to govern again.
No comments:
Post a Comment