Is Labour Party seeking to sell policies on philosophical grounds than 'substance' in election year?
Is Labour Party trying to sell policies to voters in this election year more on philosophical grounds than on competence and sound economic judgement was the main theme of Indian Weekender’s interview with Phil Twyford – an integral part of Andrew Little’s refurbished team in the lead up to the elections.
Phil Twyford - the MP for Te Atatu and Labour's spokesman on housing and Auckland issues categorically denied the charge that their policies were more on rhetoric and less in substance.
Earlier over the weekend, Labour Party had held their annual congress in the election year with some passionate speeches on housing and immigration – the two key issues on which the party is primarily basing their election strategy.
Labour leader Andrew Little has promised a clamping down on property speculators, who the party believes are keeping the first home buyers away from the Kiwi dream of owning a house in New Zealand.
Similarly, the Party has sought to distance itself away from any racist overtones being seen implied within their immigration policy which calls for culling immigration numbers by “tens of thousands.”
“This is a debate about policy, not about immigrants,” said the senior Labour MP and party’s spokesperson Grant Robertson.
Indian Weekender’s conversation with Phil Twyford is about further demystifying Labour’s promises for the Kiwi-Indian community in this election year.
Pragmatism versus rhetoric
IWK: Experts believe that one of the key strengths of the Helen Clarke led last Labour government was its ability to resist from selling policy on philosophical grounds. The same cannot be said about the Andrew Little-led current team.
Phil Twyford (PT): I am not sure about that! There is no doubt that Helen Clark was one of the most successful Prime Ministers that New Zealand had. Helen Clark crafted a style of governance that under promised and over delivered and worked very hard to deliver economic benefits to the whole community.
IWK: Sure we understand that, but our question is about Andrew Little and his team selling their policies on philosophical grounds rather than substance?
PT: We have a philosophy, and the philosophy is to build a more prosperous New Zealand that is fairer and provides an opportunity to everyone to get ahead. And that’s old-fashioned Labour value. We are a party that stands against the privileged.
IWK: By privileged does it mean the business community?
PT: No not at all! Look Labour does a better job in managing capitalism than National Party. You ask any small business owner, and they do better in a Labour government, and the reason is that we put money in the pockets of ordinary people. They spend it, and the small businesses thrive. We are very pro-business, but we believe that the purpose of an economy is to help people and deliver benefits to people.
Why law and order is not an important issue?
IWK: We hear so many times from Labour leaders about housing and infrastructure. So are they main issues for the Labour Party in this election?
PT: Yes, they are the main issue in Auckland. Housing is definitely the number one political issue all over the New Zealand. There is a housing crisis! Even though National Party continues to deny about the crisis most New Zealanders believe there is a crisis. The Salvation Army tells us that we have the worst records of homelessness in living memory. Similarly, The Economist magazine declared the other day that New Zealand has unaffordable housing in the world. We have to fix this.
We have put forward some pretty bold policy reform like building 100,000 homes for first home buyers, cracking down on speculators, banning foreign buyers from buying existing homes and we are going to build thousands of state houses instead of selling them.
IWK: Why law and order is not one of the top election issues for your party?
PT: We think it is among the basket of issues that we believe are important for everyone. You will know that we have promised 1000 extra police officers and we acknowledge that there is nothing important that people feeling safe in streets and home. We think that there needs to be more emphasis on community policing
IWK: But we have not yet heard any passionate speeches from Labour’s top echelons on law and order as we hear on housing, immigration and other issues. Is it because it’s only the ethnic minorities are perceived to be mainly affected by the Law and Order and issue?
PT: I am aware that many of the new migrant communities particularly in Auckland who depends on small businesses and retail operation for their livelihood are facing a big issue around personal safety. It’s one of the reasons that we have promised extra 1000 cops on the beats.
I would agree that we do not talk about this as much we talk about the housing, [pauses] but we do not talk about many other things as much we talk about the housing.
Is Labour’s immigration policy like a “stop and go traffic lights”?
IWK: Most of the countries have to build their infrastructure – be it houses or public transport – after the migrants, and skilled workers have arrived on shore, and not in advance anticipating their arrival. So why Labour is putting so much fuss on this?
PT: Because we think that it is having a serious impact on the economy and the quality of life for people in the city. Your readers will know that it is very hard at the certain point of the day to drive from one part of Auckland to another part. Estimates are that traffic congestion in Auckland costs anything between $1.5 to 3 billion of lost productivity a year. There is no question that when you put together Auckland’s rapid population growth with the failure to tackle infrastructure, it is a recipe for an overheated housing market. We think that the responsible thing to do is to ease back on immigration level while infrastructure catches up.
IWK: So you mean to say Labour want to run this country like a “stop and go traffic light system” Do you think it is a right thing to do?
PT: No, I would not describe it as a traffic light system. It's more about finding the right balance and the right level.
IWK: Have you got your numbers on immigration now or is it still “tens of thousands”?
PT: We are working on our numbers now and will release a comprehensive policy within next several weeks.
IWK: This takes us back to our starting point that Andrew Little’s team is trying to sell policies more on rhetoric and less on substance?
PT: No, not all! We have to talk about the numbers as the debate around immigration is around the levels of immigration about what is the right level of immigration for New Zealand. We will put flesh on the bones when we announce our immigration policy.
But it’s also a question of philosophy as well. So immigration system should add value for the people who live here now. We don’t want to see a situation such as some employers are abusing the immigration system or allowed to abuse the immigration system by bringing in a number of workers who are prepared to work on low wages effectively lower than lower minimum wages in a way that depresses the local wages.
IWK: Do we have not any other right way to regulate those employers rather than just cutting down the immigration numbers?
PT: There are some industries in New Zealand that have become dependent on high turnover churn of minimum wages workers. So instead of training local staff or paying decent wages so that they can attract local staff, they keep on hiring migrant workers.
We don’t want low wage economy. We want to grow wages and prosper the economy, and we can't do that if people are paid absolute minimum wages.
Has Labour given up on international students?
IWK: Is it fair to say that Labours have given up on international students?
PT: No we see international student industry as very important for New Zealand. But as Andrew Little said that there are part of the industry that are delivering low-value courses that are not in the business of delivering education they are essentially a backdoor pathway to residency, and that’s not good for New Zealand
IWK: Sure that’s not good for international students as well. Why is the Labour Party choosing not to regulate those private education providers than acting out against the international students who bring revenue to the country?
PT: It's no good for students, migrants and New Zealand’s reputation for having an education industry that is in part delivering sub-standard courses. We need to fix that.
Why should Kiwi-Indians vote for Labour?
IWK: Why should kiwi-Indians vote for the Labour Party in this election?
PT: Because the migrant dream is the same as the Labour dream in this country. A Labour-led government will ensure that everyone can get ahead under your hard work.
Is Labour Party trying to sell policies to voters in this election year more on philosophical grounds than on competence and sound economic judgement was the main theme of Indian Weekender’s interview with Phil Twyford – an integral part of Andrew Little’s refurbished team in the lead up to the...
Is Labour Party trying to sell policies to voters in this election year more on philosophical grounds than on competence and sound economic judgement was the main theme of Indian Weekender’s interview with Phil Twyford – an integral part of Andrew Little’s refurbished team in the lead up to the elections.
Phil Twyford - the MP for Te Atatu and Labour's spokesman on housing and Auckland issues categorically denied the charge that their policies were more on rhetoric and less in substance.
Earlier over the weekend, Labour Party had held their annual congress in the election year with some passionate speeches on housing and immigration – the two key issues on which the party is primarily basing their election strategy.
Labour leader Andrew Little has promised a clamping down on property speculators, who the party believes are keeping the first home buyers away from the Kiwi dream of owning a house in New Zealand.
Similarly, the Party has sought to distance itself away from any racist overtones being seen implied within their immigration policy which calls for culling immigration numbers by “tens of thousands.”
“This is a debate about policy, not about immigrants,” said the senior Labour MP and party’s spokesperson Grant Robertson.
Indian Weekender’s conversation with Phil Twyford is about further demystifying Labour’s promises for the Kiwi-Indian community in this election year.
Pragmatism versus rhetoric
IWK: Experts believe that one of the key strengths of the Helen Clarke led last Labour government was its ability to resist from selling policy on philosophical grounds. The same cannot be said about the Andrew Little-led current team.
Phil Twyford (PT): I am not sure about that! There is no doubt that Helen Clark was one of the most successful Prime Ministers that New Zealand had. Helen Clark crafted a style of governance that under promised and over delivered and worked very hard to deliver economic benefits to the whole community.
IWK: Sure we understand that, but our question is about Andrew Little and his team selling their policies on philosophical grounds rather than substance?
PT: We have a philosophy, and the philosophy is to build a more prosperous New Zealand that is fairer and provides an opportunity to everyone to get ahead. And that’s old-fashioned Labour value. We are a party that stands against the privileged.
IWK: By privileged does it mean the business community?
PT: No not at all! Look Labour does a better job in managing capitalism than National Party. You ask any small business owner, and they do better in a Labour government, and the reason is that we put money in the pockets of ordinary people. They spend it, and the small businesses thrive. We are very pro-business, but we believe that the purpose of an economy is to help people and deliver benefits to people.
Why law and order is not an important issue?
IWK: We hear so many times from Labour leaders about housing and infrastructure. So are they main issues for the Labour Party in this election?
PT: Yes, they are the main issue in Auckland. Housing is definitely the number one political issue all over the New Zealand. There is a housing crisis! Even though National Party continues to deny about the crisis most New Zealanders believe there is a crisis. The Salvation Army tells us that we have the worst records of homelessness in living memory. Similarly, The Economist magazine declared the other day that New Zealand has unaffordable housing in the world. We have to fix this.
We have put forward some pretty bold policy reform like building 100,000 homes for first home buyers, cracking down on speculators, banning foreign buyers from buying existing homes and we are going to build thousands of state houses instead of selling them.
IWK: Why law and order is not one of the top election issues for your party?
PT: We think it is among the basket of issues that we believe are important for everyone. You will know that we have promised 1000 extra police officers and we acknowledge that there is nothing important that people feeling safe in streets and home. We think that there needs to be more emphasis on community policing
IWK: But we have not yet heard any passionate speeches from Labour’s top echelons on law and order as we hear on housing, immigration and other issues. Is it because it’s only the ethnic minorities are perceived to be mainly affected by the Law and Order and issue?
PT: I am aware that many of the new migrant communities particularly in Auckland who depends on small businesses and retail operation for their livelihood are facing a big issue around personal safety. It’s one of the reasons that we have promised extra 1000 cops on the beats.
I would agree that we do not talk about this as much we talk about the housing, [pauses] but we do not talk about many other things as much we talk about the housing.
Is Labour’s immigration policy like a “stop and go traffic lights”?
IWK: Most of the countries have to build their infrastructure – be it houses or public transport – after the migrants, and skilled workers have arrived on shore, and not in advance anticipating their arrival. So why Labour is putting so much fuss on this?
PT: Because we think that it is having a serious impact on the economy and the quality of life for people in the city. Your readers will know that it is very hard at the certain point of the day to drive from one part of Auckland to another part. Estimates are that traffic congestion in Auckland costs anything between $1.5 to 3 billion of lost productivity a year. There is no question that when you put together Auckland’s rapid population growth with the failure to tackle infrastructure, it is a recipe for an overheated housing market. We think that the responsible thing to do is to ease back on immigration level while infrastructure catches up.
IWK: So you mean to say Labour want to run this country like a “stop and go traffic light system” Do you think it is a right thing to do?
PT: No, I would not describe it as a traffic light system. It's more about finding the right balance and the right level.
IWK: Have you got your numbers on immigration now or is it still “tens of thousands”?
PT: We are working on our numbers now and will release a comprehensive policy within next several weeks.
IWK: This takes us back to our starting point that Andrew Little’s team is trying to sell policies more on rhetoric and less on substance?
PT: No, not all! We have to talk about the numbers as the debate around immigration is around the levels of immigration about what is the right level of immigration for New Zealand. We will put flesh on the bones when we announce our immigration policy.
But it’s also a question of philosophy as well. So immigration system should add value for the people who live here now. We don’t want to see a situation such as some employers are abusing the immigration system or allowed to abuse the immigration system by bringing in a number of workers who are prepared to work on low wages effectively lower than lower minimum wages in a way that depresses the local wages.
IWK: Do we have not any other right way to regulate those employers rather than just cutting down the immigration numbers?
PT: There are some industries in New Zealand that have become dependent on high turnover churn of minimum wages workers. So instead of training local staff or paying decent wages so that they can attract local staff, they keep on hiring migrant workers.
We don’t want low wage economy. We want to grow wages and prosper the economy, and we can't do that if people are paid absolute minimum wages.
Has Labour given up on international students?
IWK: Is it fair to say that Labours have given up on international students?
PT: No we see international student industry as very important for New Zealand. But as Andrew Little said that there are part of the industry that are delivering low-value courses that are not in the business of delivering education they are essentially a backdoor pathway to residency, and that’s not good for New Zealand
IWK: Sure that’s not good for international students as well. Why is the Labour Party choosing not to regulate those private education providers than acting out against the international students who bring revenue to the country?
PT: It's no good for students, migrants and New Zealand’s reputation for having an education industry that is in part delivering sub-standard courses. We need to fix that.
Why should Kiwi-Indians vote for Labour?
IWK: Why should kiwi-Indians vote for the Labour Party in this election?
PT: Because the migrant dream is the same as the Labour dream in this country. A Labour-led government will ensure that everyone can get ahead under your hard work.
Leave a Comment