• Full Story

Party profile: New Zealand Labour Party

Print

Thu, 24 Nov 2011 4:49p.m.

Opinion by Kieran Meredith

All eyes are now on the political spectrum as the 2011 General Election draws near.

With 200,000 Kiwi kids living in poverty, 44,000 of whom are of Pacific decent, an unemployment rate whereby 27 percent of our teenagers are without work and the cost of living going up – poverty and inequality are likely to be issues in people’s minds as they head to the polling booth.

Which party will best represent, advocate for and implement the change that is needed to solve these plundering factors in order to allow a clear pathway of success for all New Zealanders?

The Labour Party has released a clear framework of policies which are forward-thinking, realistic and achievable. These policies underpin the Party’s belief of returning New Zealand back into surplus by 2014.

The Labour Party has released a framework of policies which, in some circles, have been praised for providing workable structural change.

These policies underpin the Party’s belief of returning New Zealand back into surplus by 2014, or so we are told.

A minor flop by party Leader Phil Goff on TV3’s The Nation had him scurrying for his papers as he couldn’t quite remember the figures the Capital Gains Tax would raise in the first year. When challenged by Duncan Garner, Goff responded with; “Oh no, look there's 70 different figures here Duncan, and I'm sure you wouldn't remember them off by heart as well. What I do know is this. We get into surplus again in 2014, made that clear on that programme. We pay off the debt faster than National by 2021.”

But despite Goff’s lack of polish on the figures, his party is running a policy-driven campaign centred on asset sales. Goff will be touring SOEs in the last week of the election trying to push his point home – that his figures show a capital gains tax will see a return to surplus without selling assets.

There is tax relief for the poor too. If elected into Government, Labour will introduce a $5,000 Tax Free Zone. In comparison, if elected for a further three years the National Government will implement an economic package which looks to bring the economy back into surplus and provide for 170,000 jobs. Under the National government, around 43,000 jobs have been provided for but the unemployment rate for Pasifika and Maori is a problem yet to be solved.

Whether either of the two major parties will realistically go about solving this post-election is something which remains to be seen.

Labour’s planned removal of GST from all fresh fruit and vegetables is another tax break aimed at the poor. This is an imperative policy crucial to the cost of living of most families in New Zealand particularly with parents in low-waged jobs. Labour says this will give the average household an additional $160 a year.

Labour will increase the minimum wage from $13 to $15 an hour which will act as an incentive for young people to find jobs and will also raise earnings for the quarter of a million workers who currently earn less than $15.

The increase in the minimum wage will also contribute to the prosperity of businesses. High earners have a greater capacity to save pay rises, whereas someone living on the minimum wage would be more than likely to spend their pay increase at the supermarket or at other retail businesses.

This would lift demand throughout as businesses prosper when people spend. On the backhand however, if you reduce the minimum wage, people will be less inclined to spend at the supermarket and shops hence, the possibility of job losses.

Parties aren’t all about policy though, three Labour MPs who are on the cusp of losing their seat should Labour continue with their current poll ratings, are the three of whom I rate highly. Kelvin Davis, Carmel Sepuloni and Carol Beaumont may not be the best known Labour MPs but in my view they have a strong future.

Kelvin Davis is an up and coming MP who has a particular interest in education and advocating for better outcomes for Maori achievement.

Carol Beaumont is an MP who worked tremendously hard to see through her Loan Sharks bill, which was played down by National MP’s come vote time. She is campaigning in Maungakiekie and her determination to fight aggressive money lenders has given her a credible reputation within the Auckland community.

Carmel Sepuloni is another MP who is young, fresh in terms of ideas and efficient. She is working exceptionally hard to win back Auckland Waitakere from Paula Bennett after her predecessor Lynne Pillay lost out in the 2008 election. Ms Sepuloni is a strong advocate for Youth Pasifika involvement in politics and with a child of her own, she is an advocate for improved Early Childhood Education for all New Zealanders, especially Pacific Island families and parents in low-waged jobs who struggle.

“I want to see more Pacific children in quality Early Childhood Education. We need to make sure they’ve got quality access to culturally appropriate child education,” she says.

Ms Sepuloni supports MMP and credits it for the diversity that exists in Parliament.

“I want to stress how imperative the referendum is… through MMP we have seen more diversity in Parliament, an increasing number of women and a fairer representation.”

Heading into this election, the Labour Party’s leadership team comprise of Phil Goff, Annette King, with David Cunliffe and David Parker rounding out the top four, whom I label as the caucus’ ‘dynamic duo.’

Ms King has been the mastermind behind the party’s policies, while Mr Cunliffe and Mr Parker have been the duo working their economic package.

Meanwhile, look out for Charles Chauvel, Grant Robertson and Jacinda Ardern as rising MP’s, as well as Deborah Mahuta-Coyle and Jerome Mika who enter the list at places 35 and 36 respectively. All of whom offer a wealth of skills and abilities.

I predict this election to be much closer than people anticipate, win or lose it’s there for the taking.

Labour’s policies are strong enough for me to suggest a vote for them is a vote in the right direction – they have the team but question marks within the public domain remain as to whether they have the leadership. In a presidential over policy style campaign, Mr Key’s popularity could prove the ultimate winner. In saying so, let the David and Goliath battle begin!

Kieran Meredith is working with UNICEF as part of the 3Youth project, an upcoming section of the 3 News websitefocusing on social issues and written by young people.
Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

24 Nov 2011 11:24p.m.

Miramar02 wrote:

Kieran you are amazing. For someone your age to be pushing our people to vote for Labour is such an inspiration. Keep up the good work cause I will defs be taking my extended family out to VOTE FOR LABOUR! every vote counts :) shot Kieran

24 Nov 2011 10:19p.m.

National suppporter wrote:

If Labour were to get into Government, hundreds, possibly thousands of people would lose their jobs. Think about it like this. For a small-medium size business with around 40 employees such as a large cafe , you would expect at least 1 in 5 of those people to be on the minimum wage of $13 an hour. To raise this by $2 for 8 people a week and for the sake of the argument, they work 40 hours a week, that would equate to roughly $80 an extra per work meaning an extra $33280 to the business. However, this would not be the only change as those people that are already on $15 on a hour will also need to be raised as you can't be paying the oaf on minimum wage the exact same as the guy who deserves more, therefore, assuming that another 8 employees need to be raised by $2 to get them up to $17 an hour than you are therefore doubling the cost to the business to $66560. This is assuming, however, that only 4 people would need to be raised when the majority of wages in small to medium business' fall in the $13-$20 an hour bracket so the likely cost would be even more, this is not taking into account increased kiwisaver contributions forced to be made by the business. Even if it were to be around $66560 that equates to OVER two full time employee on the minimum wage and in reality this is a very conservative estimate so it could be even more jobs lost. Raised wages would cost jobs meaning increased welfare obligations to the Government which they can simply not afford. If jobs weren't to be lost, than hours would have to be cut back resulting in an annual salary of even less than the benefit, wage increases simply do not make sense and would end up costing the country even more. What Labour fails to grasp is the fact that without small-medium businesses AS WELL AS larger businesses there are no jobs and without jobs the country cannot function. Business needs to be looked after to ensure a healthy economy, something that Labour just will not do through it's policies.