Labour has been quick to criticise Earthquake Minister Gerry Brownlee’s back-down over quake payouts, but can offer no solution of its own for whether improvements made to Christchurch properties since 2007 should increase government offers to purchase those properties from respective red-zone home owners.
Yesterday on TV1’s Q&A programme, Brownlee said he had been wrong to earlier suggest that red-zone homeowners being offered a payout from the government at their 2007 property valuation could have that payout increased if they had renovated their homes since then, raising the valuation of their home.
Instead, Brownlee said that could only be the case if the footprint of the home had increased, meaning homeowners who had made improvements inside without increasing the floor-space of their home would only be eligible for the 2007 valuation if they chose to accept the government’s offer.
“I was wrong. Yeah, I shouldn't have made that statement, because it's too hard in the end to live up to it,” Brownlee said on Q&A.
“The point is I'm not spending my money; I'm spending the money that's paid for by the rest of New Zealand. And when you look at the way the 2007 valuation has held up against what has been market valuation in subsequent years, it's a very, very fair offer,” Brownlee said.
“You've got to be quite harsh about this and say that as of the day the house was damaged, there was a huge loss to those people, and we're trying to preserve that on a very, very broad scale. And, you know, I'm sorry that in the heat of the moment, pressured, I said something that was not able to be delivered,” he said.
'They were wrong...'
Labour Party Earthquake spokesman Clayton Cosgrove, and party leader Phil Goff jumped on Brownlee’s comments on Monday, saying they confirmed Labour's worries.
“It was pleasing that finally, after weeks of prevarication, excuses and denials, Gerry Brownlee admitted he misled people and got it wrong by promising that home improvements - such as kitchen and bathroom renovations - would be included in the Government deal,” Cosgrove said in a media statement released on Monday morning.
“We now know this promise was false and the Government will only recognise improvements that increased a house’s footprint,” Cosgrove said.
Goff followed up on Cosgrove’s statement on Monday afternoon.
“People were led to believe that they would have their equity protected – that as the Prime Minister said, no one would be worse off,” Goff said at his regular Monday afternoon press conference.
“Increasingly people understand that that is not the fact – there are people there that will be considerably worse off,” Goff said.
“Before the government makes promises like that, they should be promises that they know that they’re able to keep. Otherwise you unfairly raise people’s expectations, only to dash them,” he said.
'...but we can't say what's right'
However, when asked what Labour’s position on whether payouts should be increased for homeowners who had made improvements was, Goff told media Labour was still working on its earthquake policy, to be released sometime before the election on November 26.
“The key point that I’ve made is that if you weren’t able to do something, you should never have promised it in the first place,” Goff said.
“That was the unforgivable sin – of promising to do something that subsequently the Minister decided that he couldn’t do at all,” he said.
“Labour will come out with its policy, but it won’t be off the hoof. It will be a carefully thought-out policy that’s both fair to the people, and obviously affordable.”
26 Comments
.. I have a solution , get all the NZ Labour MP's of 3 parliamentary terms or longer to clear off after the next election ...... and let the newbies rise up , with some fresh ideas and a new energy ....
Goofy , Cunny and Co. are the most gormified & clueless gumbies in opposition since .....
... Jolly Kid & Wild Bill .. !
Absolutely Roger - why are societies allow so many politicians, the power seekers – to roam their countries to bankruptcy ? Why not have just a handful or two - philosophers like us, the moon man, economists like Hickey’s, Gareth’s, Wolly’s and a few professionals - running the country energetically fresh ?
For a start – people over 60 of age, 95kg+, ½ + bald with a drinking problem should not be allowed to run for it – more half of our politicians - incl. the PM would not be in the house then.
Walter : Goofy & his cronies are telling us what they'll do to the country if we trust them enough , to give them another 9 years in office !
..... say what ! ... the first 9 years were just a practise run then ?
Nope ! .... feck off , clowns . Give someone else a chance , clear the decks of the deadwood , bring in some youngsters with zip & vim .
.. .. Out with the tired old BB failures ; all of you , Labour , National , ACT , Greens .. get the new blood in .
I noted the word was Wolly....it's more a rite of passage than a career destination..
For Iain........www.thepowerindex.com.au/political-fixers/laboring-to-defeat
A little snippet worthy of note to suggest Little is no contender......
You get there because you're really good at saying 'yes' to the person above you," says one ex NSW Labor official. ...
Maybe this time Iain.........http://www.thepowerindex.com.au/political-fixers/laboring-to-defeat
Yes, interesting link and commentary, Iain. I've never been in a union - so have no understanding of inside workings, political opinions etc. But, the small amount of Andrew Little that I've seen in TV coverage where he has commented - does impress me. There's none of the presidential style smiley/wavey from him. No doubt - were he leading a party this election - he'd get my vote.
As it stands, in terms of party leaders - Russell Norman is the likely recipient.
I know I shouldn't focus on who leads a party, given the way Pariamentary democracy works in terms of leadership determination, but at the end of the day what NZ needs more than anything is someone with the potential to get the country enthused again. Lange had that sort of principles-based, positivism/charisma, but I don't think we've had that kind of intelligent, statesman-like figure in NZ politics since. If only Andrew Little had a higher profile we might get a better idea of whether he is that sort.
A thoughtful response Iain ...and you are right about the bad old days..I recall them well myself....that said, even then those who controlled the media had the most impact on our decision making as far as good and evil go.
My doubts are based more on human behavioral response ......Andrew Little is at this stage a low to no profiler occupying a difficult space that forces him to be compliant to a party that is disfuntional and sytemically floored.
Before we can discuss the rise of Andrew Little..(I believe) we would first have to discuss the demise of Phill Goff.
How that will take shape......wait untill a no contest in an election for justification to move on the problem..?
Attempt a coup this close to an election would be political suicide for a successor should they not win...or at least reduce the margin by a substantial level.
I will accept your endorsement of his integrity..... but that will gleen him little endorsement from the punters in the party at large let alone a potential caucus, who I believe will be looking for someone with a few battle scars ...ambition...thick skinned.....ready to return to the dogfight style if required...
And as I said over on another post Cunliffe will eventually be seen as the one carrying the most attributes into a challenge.......... his personality could take a loss and recover...I'm not sure I could say the same about Mr.Little
Cunliffe has never seemed much of a dogfighter. Hasn't got the wit/projection of Lange in the debating chamber, or even that of Cullen who could be very clever and cutting. Shane Jones looked a bit promising in that regard - even Annette King has more presense/projection than DC.
No, I think Goff will lose the election and then things will get very interesting in the caucus. And I think they would be best to become serious reformists as opposed to dogfighters on past dogmas. They really need to reinvent themselves ... as National certainly aren't/won't - not while JK's in charge - rather it will be charge ahead even more ruthlessly with the neoliberal agenda behind a smiling and waving centrist disguise.
I agree Kate. Cunliffe is in the box-seat to get the Goff's job once he's been strung up, but personally I would be waaaay more inclined to vote for a seriously reform-minded version of Labour with a scrapper like Little in charge, rather than the perennial troughers in charge now.
The Greens are probably looking like getting my vote this time ,for the first time, as they have more of a grip on the challenges facing us than lab/nat.
Kate you are right in that Cunliffe seems not to be a lot of things......but I have watched many interviews of his and remain convinced ...this is someone who has it corked....this is someone playing a long game... this is someone who demonstrates a great deal of deliberation and tactic even when side stepping issues......this is an ambitious man.
Don't misunderstand my input here ...I have no doubt as to Iain's assessment of the more desireable candidate in terms of reform and modern direction......however , historically the political animals tend to prevail at trench level.......
Clarke was always just one such example ...her ambition backed by patience and the ability to wage and engage in tactical skirmishes seeking a new authority base through each encounter....
If Cunliffe needs to lose a tag on the inside it's one of being a smart alec...find a little humility (not too much).....or be doomed to Shadow Finance Minister...for as long as he cares to remain.
P.S. Iain .....I posted the link on the union involment in the ALP's structural base as an interesting insight ......not necessarily to be scorned or scoffed at...but to be viewed in context as to what it takes sometimes to get the job done.
I do hope you and others took the time to read it ....it wasn't the Friday Funny.
also thanks for the good link ......
Cheers Iain.
Iain I think you have nailed it....... yet he has sat there in the parliamentary branch for a longtime now and challenged nothing officially and is now prepared to risk the ruin of the country by gifting National the next election without highlighting the real issues to wait for a better time to make a run at the leadership.
That is exactly what our political system has come to...self serving agendas ahead of ideology......that has been the connecting tissue for successive administrations.....but sadly just for the reason you have outlined above ...He Cunliffe will be seen as the the true political animal..the stayer...the one with the savy........what a sad ,sad place we find ourselves languishing in........apathy gives the ambitious a platform on which to campaign.
once again your thoughtful response appreciated.
Thanks Ian for you comments, actually an interesting thread for a change with some additional insights!!! I am fortunate to work across both private and public sectors and internationally. My view point generally is right of the general point of view here on this forum...
Don't always like the outcomes however some of the more promising new leadership potential I see currently in NZ is in unions. Yes I'm serious. I think Andrew would bring that into labour and at least we would develop an effective opposition.
WE really need an effective opposition.
Load of old flannel....once the economic hole opened up and peasants got a good gork at where socialism took them...they decided there and then to push Labour into the hole and leave them there. That's where they will stay until memories of 9 wasted Labour years become so distant as to be fear in the old foks grey matter.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.