The current Finance Minister, Nicola Willis, has challenged the former Finance Minister, Ruth Richardson, to a debate. Now, that is misguided in my view, but to be fair, she was grievously provoked. Ruth Richardson is the chair of the Taxpayers' Union. The Taxpayers' Union is a pressure group, a ginger group, founded in 2013 to scrutinise government spending, publicise government waste, and promote an efficient tax system.
Its basis is its membership is mainly conservative, centre-right, right-wing figures, and it's regarded as a right-wing pressure group. Normally you would think they'd be scrutinising Labour and Labour's spending. Last week, the Taxpayers' Union sent out a provocative pamphlet and an accompanying box of fudge, accusing Nicola Willis of not delivering on her election promises to rein in reckless spending, unsustainable borrowing, and the hiring of endless bureaucrats. The Union accused Willis of failing to deliver the goods and fudging it, hence the fudge that arrived with the press release.
Provoked and incensed beyond reason, Nicola Willis swiped back. She said, "My message for Ruth Richardson is a very clear one: come and debate me face-to-face, come out of the shadows. I will argue toe-to-toe on the prescription that our government is following. I reject your approach, and instead of lurking in the shadows with secretly funded ads in the paper, come and debate me right here in Parliament. 'm ready anytime, anywhere, I will debate her." So you can see she was a little bit brassed off.
Willis said she stood by her decisions in government and wanted Richardson to defend her legacy, having introduced the infamous Mother of All Budgets in 1991, when her government under Bolger came in and were left with, I would argue, an even worse fiscal mess than this government inherited.
It's all got very personal. I don't think there's anything wrong in critiquing decisions made by government ministers, looking at how they're going, giving updates, having a reckon, especially when the ministers came in on a campaign of fixing the economy and reining in irresponsible spending, it's fair enough to say, "Okay, have you?" The Coalition Government possibly hasn't done enough, been innovative enough to suit the Taxpayers' Union agenda. They wanted more. They wanted cuts in spending, they wanted slashing of and wholesale firing of bureaucrats. That's what they wanted, but the Government's in the tricky position of having to be responsible stewards of the public purse and get re-elected.
And that's a tricky one. The Taxpayers' Union doesn't have to worry about getting elected. It's a stand-alone lobby group. The Taxpayers' Union has criticised Nicola Willis for a measly 1% reduction in public servants, but as David Farrar from Kiwiblog points out, this may well be the first government in history to actually reduce the number of public servants. They're the first ones to have done it.
It was never going to be easy inheriting the situation left by the previous government, and it never is. The Labour governments spend, that's what they do. But there's also nothing wrong with critiquing the performance of the government. The Taxpayers' Union shouldn't have made it so personal. Nicola Willis should have showed superhuman restraint and not lashed back.
The debate is a pointless waste of time in my view. I know that we're all political tragics here and we take far more interest than the average person does and if I thought there was any merit whatsoever, and if lessons could be learned or if as a country we would benefit from having these two Finance Ministers thrashing out points of economic order, fine. I just don't see it. I think it's egos have been wounded and it is the equivalent of challenging somebody to 50 press-ups – a pointless exercise. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
Provoked and incensed beyond reason, Nicola Willis swiped back. She said, "My message for Ruth Richardson is a very clear one: come and debate me face-to-face, come out of the shadows. I will argue toe-to-toe on the prescription that our government is following. I reject your approach, and instead of lurking in the shadows with secretly funded ads in the paper, come and debate me right here in Parliament. 'm ready anytime, anywhere, I will debate her." So you can see she was a little bit brassed off.
Willis said she stood by her decisions in government and wanted Richardson to defend her legacy, having introduced the infamous Mother of All Budgets in 1991, when her government under Bolger came in and were left with, I would argue, an even worse fiscal mess than this government inherited.
It's all got very personal. I don't think there's anything wrong in critiquing decisions made by government ministers, looking at how they're going, giving updates, having a reckon, especially when the ministers came in on a campaign of fixing the economy and reining in irresponsible spending, it's fair enough to say, "Okay, have you?" The Coalition Government possibly hasn't done enough, been innovative enough to suit the Taxpayers' Union agenda. They wanted more. They wanted cuts in spending, they wanted slashing of and wholesale firing of bureaucrats. That's what they wanted, but the Government's in the tricky position of having to be responsible stewards of the public purse and get re-elected.
And that's a tricky one. The Taxpayers' Union doesn't have to worry about getting elected. It's a stand-alone lobby group. The Taxpayers' Union has criticised Nicola Willis for a measly 1% reduction in public servants, but as David Farrar from Kiwiblog points out, this may well be the first government in history to actually reduce the number of public servants. They're the first ones to have done it.
It was never going to be easy inheriting the situation left by the previous government, and it never is. The Labour governments spend, that's what they do. But there's also nothing wrong with critiquing the performance of the government. The Taxpayers' Union shouldn't have made it so personal. Nicola Willis should have showed superhuman restraint and not lashed back.
The debate is a pointless waste of time in my view. I know that we're all political tragics here and we take far more interest than the average person does and if I thought there was any merit whatsoever, and if lessons could be learned or if as a country we would benefit from having these two Finance Ministers thrashing out points of economic order, fine. I just don't see it. I think it's egos have been wounded and it is the equivalent of challenging somebody to 50 press-ups – a pointless exercise. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
7 comments:
The Taxpayers’ Union loves to act like heroes saving New Zealanders from waste, but all they’ve really done is help starve the country of investment. Roads crumble, pipes burst, hospitals buckle under pressure, and they’re still screaming about “bloated spending.” That’s not watchdog behaviour, that’s vandalism disguised as virtue. When the bridge you drive over is held together by rust and good luck, you can thank years of political cowardice fuelled by their cheap populism. They’ve turned the word “taxpayer” into a weapon against the very people it’s meant to protect.
They tell us we can’t afford infrastructure, but what we really can’t afford is their short-sighted spin. Every decent road, school, and hospital was built because someone was brave enough to look past next quarter’s outrage. But these guys treat every dollar spent on the future as an enemy to be crushed. It’s easy to hold a press conference about waste. It’s harder to face the reality that “low tax” politics has left this country creaking. The Taxpayers’ Union doesn’t guard our money. They guard decay.
Good on you, Kerre. Damn right you are. Willis was asked straight up whether she'd debate me on The Platform & said "no". Because she hates the welfare (but not her own career) enhancing alternative folks like me represent. Namely a rapid build up of health-care & investment in much needed infrastructure, with super savings accounts for all. Achieved with lower taxes for low & middle earners. Only losers are corporates on subsidies & wealthy families getting subsidized tertiary fees.
Willis admitted to never reading nor understanding how it works. Quietly she's been taking advice from Ruth Richardson. Ruth wrote to me, telling me so. Its deceptive of the two pretending publicly they're policy enemies when they're policy friends. They're misleading the nation. A Nat debating a Nat, secretly in bed together, done for comms reasons to elevate the Taxpayers Union, getting it more free publicity & donations. Meanwhile for Willis it gives her the PR sound-bite pretence of being moderate, when in fact she just doesn't have any ideas. Her other advisers, aside from Ruth, are 84 year old semi retired Graham Scott, the semi retired Initiative Chair & semi retired Bill English. Thats why NZ is living in the past.
Nic only cares about Nic, not the welfare of all New Zealanders. She already gave her chum Ruth a New Years Honours last year. This is a mutually self aggrandizing pointless show debate Stalin would've been proud of. Inbred Wellington Village people at their worst.
Would someone please wake me up if, and when the debate actually happens.
To another brave soul identifying as "Anonymous" @7:57 a.m. Clearly, you have absolutely no idea (or are being deliberately mis-leading) with respect to the Taxpayer's Union. I wonder to what "Union" YOU belong.
I’m a taxpayer and I’m sure as anything not a member of the taxpayers union, which isn’t a union, but has the name union in it, which makes no sense to anyone.
And don’t go bleating to me about anonymous comments in this site, the editor wants them, if you don’t like it, either stop complaining or take it up with someone willing to do something about it. Stop being a crybaby, it isn’t masculine behaviour.
Quite a few readers have commented, mostly disparagingly, on the popularity of "Anonymous" and "Unknown" to sign off. Some have suggested that we do not accept comments with the writer hiding behind these labels. However, there are good reasons for some people to do just that given the risks they would expose themselves to particularly at work, where Political Correctness appears to be written into many a job description. There is also the observation that should these non-names be prohibited, people will simply substitute fictitious names.
Perhaps a points system? Bonus points for staying on topic, points off for complaining and name calling?
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.