Budget summary

Written By: - Date published: 7:54 am, May 17th, 2013 - 120 comments
Categories: budget 2013 - Tags:

Nothing on poverty. Nothing on affordable housing. House prices forecast to keep rising. Attacks on local democracy. More fear into the lives of the poor (reviewable tenancies). Stealth privatisation of state housing, sorry, ‘social housing’. A ‘surplus’ of 0.03% of GDP. Weak growth outlook. $200b national debt. And a promise of 171,000 more jobs that’s just as credible as the last one.

120 comments on “Budget summary”

  1. Tracey 1

    I am not an accountant and actually have numerical dyslexia, so numbers aren’t my thing, so please bear with me. Corrections welcomed.

    If we have a surplus in 2014/2015 of $79m and we have government borrowings at (say) $40b, then if we apply the surplus to the principle we will then owe $40b less $79m. Am I right so far?

    What is the interest on government borrowing by 2014/2015? Does anyone know?

    I am struggling to completely understand how reaching this surplus in 2014/2015 is worth being the number one, and seemingly only, major economic recovery target of the government?

    Is there anything to the idea that reaching that point in 2014/2015 is a great success for NZers and our economy or is it a partial smokescreen?

    • Lanthanide 1.1

      Yes Tracey you’re correct.

      I won’t answer your specific questions but I’ll just lay out how this government borrowing malarky works.

      So basically the government says “give us $100m today, and in 10 years time we’ll pay you back $110m”. These are government bonds, essentially a promissory note by the government to pay back the original money + some specified interest on a given date. After you’ve bought these bonds, imagine they’re like a piece of paper, you can sell this piece of paper to someone else on the bond market. So in my example here, there’s a 10% return after 10 years.

      Say there’s only 2 years left on the bond timeline and you have this piece of paper that says “in 2 years time, the government will pay you $110m”, which you ‘paid’ $100m for 8 years ago. Depending on what the interest rates are like now, and what they’re projected to be in the future, you might try and sell this note to someone else on the market, who might pay you $105m for it. This may not seem like a good deal for you: if you just hold onto the note for 2 more years, you’ll get an extra $5m vs selling it now. But it’s all about money: maybe you really need $105m today and can’t wait for another 2 years, or maybe you see some other investment you want to put your money in today that you think will give you a better return in that same time period. Similarly the person who buys the note off you might want to buy a government bond because they’re considered to be ‘safe’ investments, or a myriad of other reasons for buying it – maybe they think interest rates are about to plummet and this $5m return in 2 years for $105m purchase price seems like a good deal to them.

      Normally bonds are sold in much smaller units than this, like $10,000 or $50,000, the above is just a simple example. Also this idea of bond buying and selling is somewhat irrelevant to my point but I just wanted to throw it in there to give a better picture.

      So the real thing about government borrowing, is what happens at that 10 year mark when they have to pay $110m back to the bond holder? What if they don’t have $110m to give back, because there’s no surplus? Well, they issue another bond! So now the government says “if someone pays me $110m today, then in 10 years time I’ll pay you back $120m”. This “rolling over” of the debt continues for as long as the government needs it to. Maybe instead after 10 years the government actually has $50m that they can pay back towards the $110m, then they would only need to issue new bonds worth $60m into the market, and promise to pay back $66m in 10 years time.

      Basically the government borrows money and promises to pay it back in the future + interest. When that future finally arrives, they must pony up with the money: either they have the money and can hand it over (eg, they were running budget surpluses and weren’t spending the money on hospitals, schools, roads, etc), or they need to borrow more to pay back the first person. This gives rise to the interesting question of “what if you’re left carrying the can when the government doesn’t have the money and no one is willing to lend it to them anymore?” – the government defaults on the debt, which has been the type of worry that’s been going on in the Eurozone for the last several years.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1

        And then there’s this interesting correlation:
        Keith Rankin: The Global Debt Crisis

        These charts show, for every year from 2001 to 2010, private sector surpluses matched by public sector deficits. This means the private sector (firms and households together) are net savers (ie net lenders), meaning they attempt fewer goods and services than their incomes entitle them to. (These private surpluses accumulate to create a “global savings glut”.) For the private sector to succeed in its attempts to run large surpluses, the public sector must comply by running large deficits. By definition, the combined surpluses of the private sector must equal the combined deficits of the world’s governments. The reality is that, in most years, households and businesses lend to governments because there are limited “investment opportunities” in the private sector.

        The Zero Sum Game of the economy and the dead weight loss of profit.

        Why is this government running such massive deficits when it really doesn’t have to?

        IMO, to help boost profit in the private sector.

      • freedom 1.1.2

        which leads us all back to that age old question . . .why not just print what we need under the same criteria, and we could even pay the interest to ourselves? Of course I am ignoring that all important fact that Central Banks magically pull real bonafide 100% authentic legit NZ dollars out of thin air where as we, being NZ, would pull fake NZ dollars out of thin air?

        Money is Debt and Debt is a lie and nothing changes

    • bad12 1.2

      Actually you do not need a degree in accountancy to see the 2013 Budget as the Bullshit it actually is,

      English claims He is on track to have a small surplus in the years 2014/15, that’s an outright lie from the Minister when He at the same time claims the National Government will be borrowing $100 million weekly into 2016 where the Government debt will have reached 80 billion dollars…

      • Lanthanide 1.2.1

        “English claims He is on track to have a small surplus in the years 2014/15, that’s an outright lie from the Minister when He at the same time claims the National Government will be borrowing $100 million weekly into 2016 where the Government debt will have reached 80 billion dollars…”

        You’ve made that same claim elsewhere, but it doesn’t make any sense at all. Have you got anything to back up your claim?

        • DR 1.2.1.1

          He does make sense. How can one end up in surplus while borrowing along the way? Maybe the exact details are not true but he is just making a point, which is basically what Bill English plans to do.

          With all the tax cuts and frugal measures the National government has promised before, they just found out it is impossible not to borrow. Another one of their promises broken.

          • Lanthanide 1.2.1.1.1

            I’m saying what he is attributing to Bill English doesn’t make sense.

            Why would Bill say “we are in surplus” and then say “we are going to borrow 100m a week”? bad12 has claimed that Bill has said this, I’m asking for evidence that he’s said it because it is so obviously on the face of it wrong that I think perhaps bad12 misunderstood or incorrectly conflated separate things.

            Yes, Bill English is full of shit, but I just don’t believe he’d have said this, because the media would have picked it up.

            • freedom 1.2.1.1.1.1

              he said it in parliament yesterday didn’t he?
              Something along the lines of ‘will continue to borrow $300m a month ?’

        • bad12 1.2.1.2

          Sure i have, read or listen to English’s budget speech yesterday, one followed the other, firstly it was blah blah ”on track for Government surplus in 2013/14” two breaths later Bill was telling all who have not the ears to hear nor the eyes to read along with the comprehension and it would seem the attention span necessary that ”we will be borrowing $100 million a week into 2016 and that Government debt will rise to $80 billion dollars…

          • Lanthanide 1.2.1.2.1

            Here it is:
            http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/finance-minister-budget-speech

            Relevant quotes, I think:

            We are on track to get back to surplus by 2014/15.

            And we are on track to reduce government debt to 20 per cent of GDP by 2020.

            Budget forecasts show an operating surplus before gains and losses of $75 million in 2014/15.

            A few paragraphs later:

            But I would remind everyone that forecasts and projections are, by definition, about the future. While the fiscal outlook has improved markedly over the last few years, a lot of work is needed to make the forecasts a reality, particularly when it comes to reducing debt.

            Taking on more debt has been appropriate to support the economy and cushion New Zealanders and their families from a number of major shocks including the recession, the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes. And, as a percentage of New Zealand’s GDP, our level of debt is still well below most of the countries we typically compare ourselves with.

            But, in dollar terms, net government debt is still rising by around $130 million a week and is expected to reach $70 billion in 2016/17, which is the equivalent of around $15,000 for each and every New Zealander.

            So, I don’t think Bill is saying what you think he’s saying. I don’t think Bill is saying “we will be in surplus, and also borrowing $130m a week and debt will be $70 billion”.

            I think Bill is saying “we will be in surplus. At the moment we are borrowing $130m a week, and even with our surplus, we will still be at $70 billion deficit in 2016-2017”.

            I think he has phrased it very poorly and whoever edited/proof-read his speech should be shot for not picking up how poorly it comes across, but it does make sense if you look at it long enough.

            • freedom 1.2.1.2.1.1

              I don’t think Bill is saying “we will be in surplus, and also borrowing $130m a week and debt will be $70 billion”.

              If, any time soon, they were going to stop borrowing $130 million a week, then Blinglish and Shonkey would be running guided tours past thirty foot high flashing neon letters on parliament steps

              • bad12

                Off of the top of my head i think the Government debt at present is in the high 40’s, 47-48 billion,

                It seems that we are being Conned big time about this ‘grand financial management’ and this ‘surplus in 2014/15’, of course when the proverbial hits the fan down the track when the media wakes up to it, English will just point to the budget and say i told you so in 2013…

            • bad12 1.2.1.2.1.2

              You will have to ask English for an exact translation, i for one are not privy to what goes on in Bill’s head,

              However, in plain english the two points of discussion are an oxymoron, Bill cannot have a surplus occurring in 2014/15 while Government debt is rising by $130 million into 2016/17,

              That is just utter and total Bullshit…

              • Draco T Bastard

                +1

              • Lanthanide

                “However, in plain english the two points of discussion are an oxymoron, Bill cannot have a surplus occurring in 2014/15 while Government debt is rising by $130 million into 2016/17,”

                You’re correct. And that’s why he didn’t say that.

                • bad12

                  i disagree with your interpretation of what English said in His budget speech, the specifics are that Bill says the Government will have a balanced budget in 2014/15,

                  For such a situation to occur in 2014/15 i think you are agreeing that the Government would have ceased borrowing at the present rate of $130 million dollars a week,

                  However English is not saying that such borrowing will have ceased in 2014/15 when He claims that the Government will have a surplus,

                  English is saying that borrowing will continue at $130 million a week until 2016/17 where it will have reached $70 billion it’s there in plain view,

                  For the books to be balanced in any logical meaning of the phrase the borrowing of $130 million weekly would have to have ceased at 2014/15 where English is claiming that that situation will have been reached,

                  Why then are the budget figures of a $70 billion Government debt being shown as at 2016/17 and not at 2014/15 when this ‘magical surplus’ will have been said to have been attained,

                  The best con tricks are those that bedazzle us in plain sight and i would suggest that English is conning us all with this budget, and what Bill is really saying is that the Governments revenue from all sources in 2014/15 will match it’s expenditure BUT this will not be inclusive of the $130 million currently being borrowed weekly…

        • bad12 1.2.1.3

          I would suggest you look closely at the budget speech that is exactly what English said, the fact that the dead heads in the media haven’t picked up on it is par for the course but you will find that Bill made both the ”on track for small surplus in 2013/14” and the borrowing $100 million weekly into 2016 where government debt will be $80 billion” in that same budget speech,

          Nonsensical as it sounds, who am i kidding, it’s utter Bullshit from English and no wonder the Slippery little Shyster we have as Prime Minister is so smuggly pleased with English to slide such a sleight of hand into the budget…

    • Rhinocrates 1.3

      numerical dyslexia

      “Dyscalculia”, FWIW. Got it myself.

  2. Rich the other 2

    Election winner, watch the left squirm.

    When the left demonstrate genuine concern about social issues they may get some traction.
    The green/labour opposition are more interested in undermining real progress than committing to any genuine effort to improving social discrepancy’s.

    Their opposition to the motor way development north of Auckland is a prime example.
    It should be renamed, the road to prosperity .
    .

    But NO the greens oppose this and countless other developments around the country.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.1

      The road to prosperity 😆 comedy gold.

      Yes, it’s true, The Greens are coming for your developments! Scary bogeymen eeeekkkk!

      Reality check. Oops.

    • fender 2.2

      Hi Steven Joyce……you need some new lines.

      • prism 2.2.1

        Joyce’ll be able to perform Putting on the Ritz at the new casino and conference opening. (Goes together like coffee and cream doesn’t it.) Oh darling what shall I spend my millions on – ooh I know a Casino and Conference centre. So trendy.

        • fender 2.2.1.1

          Word on the streets is that ‘Putting on the Ritz’ will be renamed ‘Legging up the Rich’.

    • Tracey 2.3

      LOL @ motorway to wellsville = development of north auckland.

      Deepening the harbour at Marsden Point might have been money much better spent

      • Colonial Viper 2.3.1

        Someone should ask RTO what the point of roads is as more and more NZers give up their cars.

        • James 2.3.1.1

          yeah – they are giving them up in droves. not.

          • Colonial Viper 2.3.1.1.1

            Yes they are James, and that trend is going to accelerate over the next 10 years.

            • felix 2.3.1.1.1.1

              Worth remembering that James has a slightly different viewpoint, observing the situation from the inside of his colon.

              • James

                sigh … pitty that it almost impossible to have a reasoned conversation on here. Any differing view is met with childish crap like that.

                • freedom

                  you yourself could have presented some evidence to back up your claim of sustained numbers but instead chose to basically poke out your tongue in a churlish manner

                  so maybe the high horse is not for you
                  “Any differing view is met with childish crap like that.” complete rubbish IMHO

                  maybe you just need to front up with real dialogue or meander back to the blubber or wherever you normally dwell

                  BTW owning a car and using a car are very different things. I own a car but it has not been on the road for over two years, I am not the only one in this situation.

            • James 2.3.1.1.1.2

              I honestly doubt you are correct. Even people I know that use a bus (Northern Link) – still have cars.

              NZ as a whole is not suited to not having a car.

              • karol

                It’s not so much that cars will become extinct, but that fewer people will own them, and of those that own them, fewer will use them. Car-sharing may become more prominent.

                And for transport systems suited to NZ: bring back the waka, I say!

                • ghostrider888

                  They are not really that reliable it appears karol; and what with increasingly low river flows…

              • Lanthanide

                Kms driven has been flat for several years now. It’s only a matter of time until that shows up in flat car usage/ownership and eventual decline. Petrol isn’t going to get any cheaper.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.3.1.1.2

            http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/8574458/Greens-query-need-for-new-highways-as-car-use-falls
            http://transportblog.co.nz/2013/02/11/you-know-youre-winning-when/

            That’s just two. If I was feeling more charitable in educating you I’d find more (Google is your friend). The trend in developed countries worldwide is the same – use of private vehicles is declining.

            I Honestly doubt…

            You can honestly doubt as much as you like, the facts say that you’re wrong.

            NZ as a whole is not suited to not having a car.

            And there’s a reason for that – stupid governments have made it that way. They’ve built cities dependent upon having a car rather than building up the far more efficient public transport.

        • cricklewood 2.3.1.2

          To fit all the buses that we will take, transport woes solved

      • KJT 2.3.2

        Don’t need to deepen Marsden Point. Already deep enough.

        Which is why spending on improving road, AND rail/coastal shipping, links to Marsden Point makes good sense.

        And just improving them to Wellsford, does not!

    • Rogue Trooper 2.4

      Bernard Hickey on “have we turned the corner?”
      -1/2 of economic upturn due to Act of God (Christchurch)
      -structural problems not fixed
      -speculative investment, pre-occupation with housing
      -pre-occupation with consumption
      -overseas borrowing remains in a holding pattern

      -Superfund contributions delayed for another two years; not planning for the future.

      Need new dick-jockeys!

    • DR 2.5

      It’s an election winner to fools like you who don’t understand economics and finance. And in fact, it is the Nats who are increasingly contributing to social discrepancy, widening the divide between the rich and the poor.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.6

      Private cars are the most inefficient form of transport known to man. They are a complete waste of space.

      Trains are more efficient than trucks and can easily be electric thus saving on importing fuel. We can also make them here – we have the technology, we have the skills and we have the resources.

      Your “road to prosperity” is, as a matter of fact, a road to poverty as it uses up all the limited resources we have indiscriminately resulting in us being poor.

      • dumrse 2.6.1

        The private car may very well be inefficient but, it is not influenced by any overarching UNION activity.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.6.1.1

          No, it’s influenced by the oil cartel that want us to use more fuel.

        • Murray Olsen 2.6.1.2

          The wood between your ears is controlled by Fletchers and you don’t seem to have a problem with that.

  3. Johnny 3

    Standard and Poors assessment – negative

    ‘Standard & Poor’s has revised its outlook on eight New Zealand banks from stable to negative, citing rising economic risks. “We believe New Zealand’s economic vulnerabilities, including a material dependence on external borrowings, persistent current account deficits, and recent strong growth in house prices, could escalate,” it said. “In our view, this increases the risk of a deterioration in New Zealand banks’ credit qualities.”‘

  4. Johnny 4

    Australian Treasurer’s assessment – negative

    “New Zealand Budget
    Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:48): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the New Zealand budget released a few hours ago that forecasts faster economic growth, falling unemployment and a budget surplus one year earlier than Australia. How can the Treasurer insist that the government’s budget of deficits, higher unemployment and slower economic growth is unavoidable when New Zealand has been able to deliver an earlier surplus without a major resources industry and with a strong New Zealand dollar?

    Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:48): I really do thank him for this question—I really do. The fact that he could somehow say that the performance of the New Zealand economy is a better performance than the performance of the Australian economy leaves me completely dumbfounded. The fact is our economy is 13 per cent larger than it was prior to the global financial crisis.

    Mr SWAN: Thank you, Speaker. Unlike the shadow Treasurer I am proud of what our country has achieved over the past 5½ years: 960,000 jobs. How have we done that? Because we have got a responsible level of debt, we have got a good fiscal policy which has been given the tick by the major ratings agencies and we are making major investments in our future—major investments in economic infrastructure, major investments in schooling—and, of course, making our country fairer. We can do all of these things if we have got a detailed plan.

    In our budget we have put out a detailed plan about how we are going to grow our economy, how we are going to be a smarter economy to take advantage of the Asian century and how we can make our society fairer. We have done that within a responsible fiscal policy. Our performance across any range of indicators is far better than New Zealand’s. So I feel very sorry for the shadow Treasurer, who wants to keep running our country down. He does not get the basis of our economic strength. He does not understand what we need to do to keep our economy strong. Of course, they will invent any reason to avoid laying out a detailed plan for the future.

    Mr SWAN: Well, they will invent any reason, Speaker, for refusing to put out a detailed plan. That is why we have had the fiscal fearmongering in here today. They want to use the excuse of debt—which is low by any standard and far lower than New Zealand’s—so they are not going to tell the Australian people what they would do if they were elected after September. We know they have got a secret plan for savage cuts. We know that, and all of their economic questions asked in this House go to the very core proposition I have just put. When they come in here and say it is a big-spending government—which it is not—that is just code for saying that if they were in power they would slash and burn when it comes to health, education and jobs. That is why you will not see a detailed plan from the Leader of the Opposition tonight.”

    • Murray Olsen 4.1

      Hockey lies about the Australian economy too. It’s no wonder he can’t tell when English is lying.

  5. Poission 5

    “A ‘surplus’ of 0.03% of GDP”

    An order of magnitude smaller then the standard error in a 3 sigma system. or to put it another way, the predicted budget surplus has no statistical ( or scientific ) significance .

    • Johnny 5.1

      Cullen ran $1 billion contingencies, the Nats $300 mil so it’s all smoke and mirrors anyway

  6. Johnny 6

    New Zealanders assessment – negative

    50,000 move to Australia and 26% of kiwis change cities and towns in five years. Yes. Five years of National budgets have made NZ the world’s most mobile population with 26% of people moving city in the last 5 years, on a par with developing warn torn countries like Syria, but well above rich developed stable countries. Looking for jobs and houses that are hard to find.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325396/New-Zealanders-mobile-nation-quarter-swapped-cities-past-years.html

    • James 6.1

      and you dont think that something like the Chch earchquake had something to do with people moving?

  7. burt 7

    The other budget options….

    This could be us NZ … All we need to do is let the gummit own and run everything using monopoly and regulation – because it always fails is the Green/Labour way.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.1

      We need better wingnuts, or they need better lines are something. Take this cretin, for example: his comment is so bad it’s not even wrong; it bears no relationship, none, to Labour or Green policy.

      Poor Burt is only parroting Matthew Hooten, so I suppose we should feel sorry for him, but wouldn’t it be great if once, just one time, a wingnut could produce a reality-based challenge in a policy debate?

      • felix 7.1.1

        Trouble is no-one votes for them when they honestly express their philosophy and policy ideas.

      • prism 7.1.2

        The trouble with Burt and his ilk is that they want to be bulls but are at the bottom of a bear pit and can only see a small piece of sky to orient themselves to and they can’t climb out. They have been so long trapped, they now know no other outlook.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.1.2.1

          I mean, I don’t support the National Party, but at least I know what their policies are.

      • Rhinocrates 7.1.3

        We need better wingnuts… only parroting Matthew Hooten

        There’s your problem right there.

        Hoots, because he himself has the “Ooh, shiny shiny money!” reflex, assumes that everyone else does too, so as I found, in the space of a quarter of an hour his racism becomes “some of my best friends are blah blah waffle”. People like that assume that we’re all idiots like them.

        As you said, we need better wingnuts.

        However, the far right don’t care in the least about debate – they don’t want debate at all, so they try to forestall it with slogans. They think it’s all about getting the memes out there.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.1.3.1

          I watched Hooten yell and interrupt incessantly on Citizen A this morning, and I wondered why Bomber let him get away with it. I mean what’s the point of having a chair if you’re just going to let one side get away with a Gish gallop? Keith Locke pointed out that Hooten repeated lies at high volume, so Bomber sat their and made faces at the camera while Hooten gave a repeat performance.

          Slack. A perfect opportunity to attack Hooten where he is weakest: on his integrity, gone begging like the opportunity to reframe the debate for a change.

          Stephen Sackur set a benchmark by demolishing Key on Hardtalk, demonstrating what happens when you do a live reality check on a liar. How hard is it to treat Hooten the same way?

          • Murray Olsen 7.1.3.1.1

            To be fair, Bomber can’t quite seem to get his head around the idea that a non baby boomer could be part of the problem. Keith would be too old to be seen as an ally.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.1.4

        …but wouldn’t it be great if once, just one time, a wingnut could produce a reality-based challenge in a policy debate?

        It would but, as reality always proves them wrong, don’t hold your breath.

    • karol 7.2

      Read Gordon Campbell’s analysis of the budget and learn – this is what a well-founded left wing view looks like – unlike the diversionary, bad faith spin that is the government’s approach.

      This point is important for the long term:

      As mentioned, the Budget signalled that the rationale for cost cutting and austerity will shift over the next couple of years from producing a (virtually meaningless) surplus to attaining an (equally meaningless) reduction in the Crown debt ratio. Both goals are excuses for the National/Act pursuit of small government, and a reduction in the quality and range of public services that the public can expect governments to deliver. …

      Worldwide, the arguments in favour of continued austerity are looking more and more threadbare. The prevailing myth that the governments of Spain, Ireland and Italy spent themselves into their current situation simply doesn’t stack up, as this article shows.

      ie the days of (the contradictory sham of) “neoliberalism” are coming to an end.

      I also am with Campbell on his analysis of the symbolism of the budget day ritual, which is really a PR event staged for politicians and the media. I would add, it’s a ritual bowing down to the alleged “superior knowledge” of the accountants and economists on how to manage a country, and at odds with a democracy of, by and for the people.

      • Colonial Viper 7.2.1

        We must bend and break the people of the nation in order to bring confidence to the big banks, financial capitalists and other investors. Bringing confidence to beneficiaries, the working poor, struggling small businesses and contractors – nah.

        • johnm 7.2.1.1

          Hi CV
          100% right! Eventually this attitude leads to social disaster as is now happening in the U$K and N$Z is doing the same. Ultimately a country is about people not profit.

          • Tim 7.2.1.1.1

            Why is it that those shire volk SEEM incapable of learning from history? (scuse the term – I’m NOT necessariyl a fan on Bomber Bradley, but at least he speaks more sense than most supporting the current junta)

            It just seems to me – from whatever perspective your ‘bent’ is, that the further the oppression applied to that newly-invented Precariat class (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRNhtGtO9pg – what’s the bet the so-called wingnuts won’t bother), plus the growing number beneath them (described as the Under), the more violent the rev will be.

            And what so much frikken worse, is that there is actually a ‘tune=tie’ tah eknowledge, think about, and make an attempt to fix. It’s just that its not within the capability of a man driven by ideology, a coward (as in He – labelled’ the Smoilin Essessen’ that never did any of the dirty work Homself, but rather reloid on the esprayshnul peons beneath)!

            The only thing I can come up with (as to a WHY), is that there are too many in the political class that aren’t actually that bright.

            There’s a Pulla Bent (who quite obviously worships the Ruthenasia). Satisfoid that she’s cum iv age, nodding for the captured 4th Estate cameras that bring us parliamentary proceedings, cutting out a true Public Service broadcaster dedicated to the principles of a 4th Estate – the telling grimaces, those peculiar little reactions, the images that might embarass are regularly ignored! (might have to blame Labour for that).

            Then there’s a Gubbamint whip – seen seated behoin the ‘men thet matta’ – NODDING in agreement at times she thinks she’s being noticed – regularly clad in politically correct rainbow fashion.
            Then the white-haired git to her left that I once knew in a former life who’s as shallow as a used-car salesman trying to sell us a lemon.
            A really fik-as-shit foinence Minsta – completely and utterly ideologically driven – if only because its all he knows. Knowledge in his case consists of an education half a century ago, augmented by spin doctor and media ‘specialist’ training.

            The list goes on.

            I often wonder why those that ekshly have a bit of nouse persist in their allegiance and blind fucking faith (The Finlaysons for example), alongside their realisation that – though they may have the intelligence to question the merits of their colleagues – they realsise their longevity is nearing an end, and challenging the preset settings on the National Party amplifier will only result in their being labelled as a bitter old queen by their compatriots.

            Christ we need a recolution!

            I’ll probably be long gone when it happens, but loik the Pantene lady says – if we stick to the present coordinates: “It WILL happen”

        • Tim 7.2.1.2

          but yeah… but nah!

      • Draco T Bastard 7.2.2

        I also am with Campbell on his analysis of the symbolism of the budget day ritual, which is really a PR event staged for politicians and the media. I would add, it’s a ritual bowing down to the alleged “superior knowledge” of the accountants and economists on how to manage a country, and at odds with a democracy of, by and for the people.

        QFT

        Ensure that everyone knows what resources we have available to us and I’m we’d end up with a better budget and economy than what we get listening to the people at the top of the present hierarchy.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.3

      Yeah, it failed so badly last time that we had working trains, a good road system, a telecommunications system that didn’t need government funding, power generation and reticulation, an excellent health service…

      Oh, wait…

      • UpandComer 7.3.1

        Oh god. What are you on about now.

        Reading this blog is terrific. I read Kiwiblog for information, and this blog for entertainment.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.3.1.1

          Really, your powers of logic are so mediocre that you can’t even follow the numbers from 7 to 7.3?

  8. The need for ‘affordable housing’ in Auckland.

    Where is the ‘National’ growth strategy?

    Why does all this ‘growth’ have to come to Auckland?

    Who benefits from all this Auckland ‘growth’ apart from property developers, speculators and overseas investors?

    Where did the Auckland ‘million people in 30 years’ mantra come from, upon which this Auckland DAFT LUNATIC plan is purportedly based?

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation’ campaigner

    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate

    http://www.occupyaaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz

    • James 8.1

      I personally blame the bludgers who dont pay their rates.

      • felix 8.1.1

        Good of you to put your contempt for political protest on the record, James.

        Now we know exactly how seriously to take any political protestations from you.

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 8.1.1.1

          I think James was expressing his contempt for people who don’t pay their taxes. Not for those who protest.

          How do you feel about people who don’t pay their taxes, Felix?

          • Rogue Trooper 8.1.1.1.1

            I observe that you never challenge the objective economic commentary on the New Zealand economy yourself; too taxing?

          • Rhinocrates 8.1.1.1.2

            How do you feel about millionaires who “avoid” tax?

            • TheContrarian 8.1.1.1.2.1

              Millionaires should pay their due taxes, as Penny Bright fucking should too

          • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1.3

            How do you feel about people who don’t pay their taxes, Felix?

            How do you feel about the top 5% who could pay significantly higher taxes, but instead get generous tax cuts for the rich?

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 8.1.1.1.3.1

              Well, Felix? So many questions for you to answer.

              • ghostrider888

                the questions are in your court, slippery one.

              • Rhinocrates

                Missing the point, I see. The title of “Gormless” certainly fits.

                So Gormless, how do you feel about the rich and their tax cuts and their “avoidance”, or trickle-up facilitated by their accountants?

                • James

                  You guys crack me up.

                  Blight dosnt pay taxes she legally has to pay.

                  Do you find that acceptable?

                  Its a simple yes / no answer.

                  Tax minimization is a completely different matter – and given that 1/2 of the labour caucus do it with trust etc perhaps – slack should be given – after all its legal.

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead

                    Its (sic) a simple yes no answer.

                    I’m sure you’d love that to be true: these stupid false dichotomies are the stock-in-trade of idiots who can’t form an argument.

                    Newsflash Einstein: no-one is obliged to dumb their comments down to your level. Felix already gave you a better answer than you deserve.

                  • ghostrider888

                    btw, think of cracking up as Nut Gacking

                  • Tim

                    If its within her means – YES – i.e. as long as she’s first able to adequately feed herself, put a decent roof over her head, have the freedom of movement, support any of her dependents (if she has any), and express her political views – ALL in the same manner that those she protests about EXPECT as of their right.

                    IF she hasn’t paid taxes as I think you’re suggesting, then fear not James – there’ll be mechanisms of a democratic state apparatus (not yet completely dismantled by your friends) that will no doubt catch up with her, and allow you to feel better.

    • ratesarerevolting 8.2

      Len brown is a fucking cunt !

      • Rhinocrates 8.2.1

        Has anyone seen Brown and Shearer in the same room at the same time? Admittedly, Brown seems able to construct a sentence instead of turning a phrase into a fractal of incomprehensibility, but that could be a disguise…

        • tinfoilhat 8.2.1.1

          They do bear striking similarities in their levels of oblivion to their own incompetence.

          • Rhinocrates 8.2.1.1.1

            Gilmore has illustrated the awfulness of the Tories, but it has been pointed out often that politics, in being”depoliticised” has driven away those who might actually contribute. Politics now is seen as a gravy train for potential candidates, not an opportunity to serve. Both Shearer and Gilmore demonstrate this, as do the arselickers and careerists like “Chippy”.

            The biggest threat to democracy, I believe, is mediocrity combined with careerism. These scum cease being “representatives” and instead want only a cushy seat and the prospect of positions on corporate boards (look at Key -all he wants is a knighthood and position as CEO in a company, be it a maker of dishwashing liquid or nerve gas). If they have a tiny smidgen of self awareness, they try to cling on to their parliamentary seats and meal tickets at Bellamy’s at all costs to their constituents and their integrity.

            Look at Shearer or Key – what do they want for anyone other than themselves? Look at their “colleagues”, who want to usurp them, Robertson or Collins? What do they want except glitter and baubles for themselves? What do they want for anyone else apart from themselves?

            • ghostrider888 8.2.1.1.1.1

              warming to the Greens myself; saw Julie-Anne on U. last night; a bit dry, yet genuine.

            • tinfoilhat 8.2.1.1.1.2

              I agree with you, being a Green activist myself I’m sad to say that I see some of the same tendencies in Russell.

            • UpandComer 8.2.1.1.1.3

              I agree with you actually re Collins and Robertson, both awful people, overrated and as conniving as each other.

              But Key? Why should he care to be a CEO? As for Shearer, he actually similarly won’t need money given his millions of untaxed US dollars just lying around courtesy of the UN.

  9. Tracey 9

    Burt, I suspect you genuinely hold the views you do but ask you this, are you int he group below the 1% aspiring to what they have achieved and/or believing you can get there too? If you are you may be the victim of the 20th and 21st centuries biggest con.

    There is no evidence you are better off today than ten years ago, but heaps of evidence that those telling you, you are or will, are.

    • burt 9.1

      are you int he group below the 1% aspiring to what they have achieved and/or believing you can get there too?

      Nope.

  10. Poission 10

    One of the foremost problems in the budget is a that it is a WAG.

    As it is a ubiquitous problem for all budgets we can use Broadbent of the BOE to reduce the problem from the pseudo scientific fallacies spread by the media commentators (aka spin)

    The introductory paragraph is a post on its own.

    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/speeches/2013/speech653.pdf

    • Rogue Trooper 10.1

      I heard one commentary that another “Novopay” -like debacle will blow this surplus forecast out of the water;
      anyway, in a related vein;

      Larry Murhpy, HOD, Property Studies, AU;
      -rental WOFs need to be extended to the private sector
      Recent research into Landlord MO (rentier behaviour) found, generally,
      -only seeking return
      -followed by capital gain
      therefore, generally
      -low maintenance expenditure.

      The 270,000 children living in relative poverty projects to a $6-8B cost to the economy

      Child Poverty Action Group- budget full of “hype”
      Hone- “they are full of sh*t”
      Gower- “ain’t much in it” (wait ti’ next year).

      but wait, the DPS got an increase to the budget (typical photo of no-balls Key in The Dominion Post).

  11. ghostrider888 11

    The other side of me will comment on the State Housing moves;
    -53,200 on notice; 1000 dumped 15/16, 2000 16/15
    -Accommodation “subsidizing” of the private “rentier” landlord
    -only a WOF being proposed for HNZ properties, not private rentals.

    “A big response was needed, and hasn’t happened”-Major Campbell Roberts.

    Larry Murphy, HOD, Property Studies, AU
    -moving sectors for these state tenants is disruptive for communities
    -less security of tenure
    -education disruptions
    -weaker health networks
    -higher rents
    -MSD discretion on rental offers.

    but thats OK, New Zealand is receiving an epidemic of synthetic drugs passed off as ecstasy.

  12. Press Release Sue Henry Spokesperson Housing Lobby:

    “Charity treachery sells out State Housing tenants.”

    17 May 2013

    “The relentless budgetary attacks on State housing tenants and their families, clearly highlights the treacherous role private sector charities have played in the housing policy-making process,”
    says Housing Lobby Spokesperson Sue Henry.

    (April 2010 Housing Shareholders Advisory Group Report )

    http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Sector/pdf/vision-for-social-housing-nz.pdf

    http://www.dbh.govt.nz/social-housing-nz

    “Government have successfully used the private social housing sector as the mechanism to privatise the State housing stock and land these homes sit on.”

    “It was a sad day when people like Major Campbell Roberts from the Salvation Army, were on the same Board sitting beside property developers to form policies for temporary tenancy agreements, which, if implemented, will invariably create transcience and homelessness.
    ( #1 EVIDENCE)”

    “* Promoting submerging the housing subsidy into into the Ministry of Social Development did not work in the 1990’s due to the widening gap between the accommodation supplement and the ‘market’ rents – with a cap on subsidies, combined with over-inflated property values, this will have huge negative impacts on State housing tenants.”

    “* As will retrospectively extending the assessments on long-term existing tenants.
    This effectively equates to a sophisticated form of elder abuse and bullying , impacting on elderly pensioners, widows of Returned Servicemen, the disabled, and the vulnerable, who are legitimately in these homes.”

    “SOLUTIONS:

    * Tenure protection must be immediately reinstated for these State housing tenants.

    * State housing must be provided by central government, not privatised by stealth, by hanging the portfolio over to non-accountable, non-transparent, duplicated ‘social’ housing providers,” concluded Sue Henry.

    #1 EVIDENCE

    (April 2010 Housing Shareholders Advisory Group Report )

    http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Sector/pdf/vision-for-social-housing-nz.pdf

    “Appendix 2: Housing Shareholders Advisory Group

    Members

    Alan Jackson (chair) is former senior vice president in the Auckland office of The Boston Consulting Group. He is also a director of Fletcher Building and a trustee of The Icehouse business growth centre in Auckland. Dr Jackson has significant experience in change management with expertise in resources, diversified industrials, building products and construction sectors.

    Major Campbell Roberts is the director of the New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga
    Territory Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit of the Salvation Army. He is also a trustee of the New Zealand Housing Foundation, a director of the Centre for Housing Research Aotearoa New Zealand and the Auckland Housing Trust. Major Roberts is a media spokesperson, writer and speaker and has experience on issues of poverty and social housing.

    Andrew Body is a director of Crown Fibre Holdings and various private sector companies. He has 20 years experience as an investment banker, focussing on strategic and transactional advice to owners and managers of businesses. Mr Body has experience across a wide range of sectors in the New Zealand economy including the property sector.

    Martin Udale is an independent consultant with more than 30 years experience in the New Zealand, UK and Australian property markets, including developing some of the first office parks in Sydney and Brisbane. He was most recently the chief executive of McConnell Property, and has also been director of corporate advisory with CRI, an Australian property development and services group, specialising in partnering with asset owners to create value from underused assets.

    Diane Robertson is head of the Auckland City Mission and is the first non-clergy female City Missioner. She previously had roles on the Committee for Auckland, the Auckland University Community Advisory Board, Springboard Trust, Robin Hood Foundation, Child Poverty Action Group and the New Zealand Institute. Ms Robertson’s experience is in social and emergency housing issues.

    Brian Donnelly is executive director of the New Zealand Housing Foundation. He is also a director of the Centre for Housing Research Aotearoa New Zealand (CHRANZ), a trustee of the Queenstown Lakes District Community Housing Trust, a member of the Social Entrepreneur Fellowship and chair of the Wilson Home Trust. He has experience in social housing issues, including operating and managing a social housing organisation.

    Paul White is the Principal of Torea Tai Consultants, specialising in consultancy on Maori development, housing and strategic planning. He is also the chair of Te Waka Pupuri Putea (an Iwi asset holding company) and a council member of FITEC, the forestry sector training organisation. Mr White has previously been chief executive of Ngai Tahu Development Corporation and a member of the Housing New Zealand Board. He has experience in the operation and management of housing. ”
    _________________________________________________________

    Sue Henry
    Spokesperson
    Housing Lobby

  13. hoom 13

    Did they really try to pull the 170,000 new jobs line again?

  14. karol 14

    I was pretty disturbed by the indications of where the government is going with their food in schools on Campbell Live tonight.

    It’s all about business, and maybe a little about involving charities like KidsCan. But if business were generally paying higher wages, and doing less profiteering, there’d be less people struggling to make ends meet.

    And as for the “post budget breakfast”. I’m not so familiar with it. But the indications were that the breakfast was about English giving a speech to “business” people.

    As many here have said: government should be for the people, and not for what is acceptable to the business elites.

    Harawira has already put up a bill for feeding the kids. Why doesn’t Key just get on board with that? Harawira is more in touch with the people most affected than Key’s business cronies.

  15. ak 15

    “So I put up fuckin totally nothing and got someone else paying off my house for me ha”

    “Nah I got good tenants they’re maoris, bloody good people tho”

    “Not really, no maoris, that’s the first thing she said, but yinno, never say it out loud ha ha”

    “Course they’ll keep going up in value, always have havent they, better than a bank, fucksake”

    “Nah nah not really, what can they do? They usually just pay up or fuck off, and I keep the bond ha ha”

    “Ha ha fuck off, you sound just like me ex ha ha

  16. ak 16

    Nah yeh yeah yeah yeah nah there’s something fuckin wrong yeah nah fuck you’re right yeah nah

  17. Yes 17

    Labour fudge every budget and falsified numbers eg like ACC funds. National has sorted that mess out. Labour policy put so many on dependancy that when the money runs out like an world wide recession labour to give so many people a back bone.

    Answer me this..if labour was so dam good why did they not insulate NZ from economic shocks like the credit crunch.

    • xtasy 17.1

      Yes: Hah, are you for real? I came back to New Zealand after a few years in Europe in 2005. The media was full of reports about economic growth Nirwana style, “experts” like economists of the leading banks, Treasury officials, journalists writing on economic and business matters were all praising Labour and their near full employment record for the country.

      The only worry that “some” had was the housing bubble.

      Otherwise it was all about concerns about not enough skilled workers being available, to keep feeding the then believed endless growth to be expected in the Asia Pacific region, of which New Zealand was benefiting.

      There were very few, if any, voices showing concern about giant housing and other bubbles developing, and that was more or less so worldwide.

      National only tried to get traction with voters by playing the race card (Brash’s Orewa speech), by ridiculing supposed “nanny state” policies and by demanding tax cuts for workers and business people.

      I do not remember anyone in National raising concerns about budgets not being balanced or in surplus under Labour, or about a possible end to the growth period that most felt would continue for many, many years.

      So what “mess” are you on about, but the one invented by Key, English and Ryall, to tell voters after they got into government, to use as propaganda to introduce cutting and slashing of state jobs, of state services, of so much else.

      As much as I am highly critical of Labour’s caucus at present, about their not convincing leader, I must stay on factual records, that Labour did quite well economically, when they ran the country. And that recession only started a few months before the GFC, because every boom cycle must come to an end at some stage. Pull the wool over other people’s eyes, dear friend, you are not fooling most readers here!

      Labour left a sound set of accounts for NatACT to take advantage of, when crisis struck!

      • pollywog 17.1.1

        UpandComer (414) Says:
        May 19th, 2013 at 5:51 am
        http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/05/real_fiscal_restraint.html#comments

        …pen a letter of thanks to Bill English.

        Thank Mr English for his foresight, prudence and work through almost every sector of government in his career. Perhaps you have a relative like myself who is mentally ill.

        Thank Bill for being the guy who pushed through the communities initiatives that got those people out of their prison-like institutions and into healthy full lives, and who took the crap when a few of these ppl did bad things.

        Thank Bill for the massive decreases in the criminal increase in cost of living, inflation, interest rates and power prices that characterised Labour’s tenure.

        Thank Bill for his intellectual prowess in the areas of welfare, housing, education, health, tax policy, local government, and Maori policy.

        Thank Bill for getting the country through it’s toughest years in a very, very long time, and in particular for being the guy who has taken the arrows and set the agenda that got us away from the abyss that was the 2008 report on the state of the NZ economy.

        Your’s sincerely, a high information voter exasperated at your ignorance and baaing. “WHERE”S THE JOBS” Polly blurts like an idiot.

        Well, there are a hell of a lot more of them here, then elsewhere in the world, thanks to Bill.

        Anyone know a sincere Chinese ghost writer willing to write me a thank you note to Bill English ?…I’ll have a whiparound at the local shelter to pay for it !

    • KJT 17.2

      They did!

      Even Bill English admitted it.

      “Labour left NZ in a good position”.

      In fact NZ has only weathered the GFC so far due to Cullens refusal to spend the money, on the tax cuts national advocated and later carried out, by the way, and Paul Keating’s regulation of the Australian banks, which prevented them going the same way as New Zealand’s finance companies.

      • pollywog 17.2.1

        UpandComer (414) Says:
        http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/05/real_fiscal_restraint.html#comment-1144111

        Cullen paid down most of his debt right at the very end. He’d been figuring out as many ways as he could to spend money and had been pretty successful, but most of the debt decreases as a % had occurred because the economy had grown, not because he’d paid much of it off.

        His debt pay-off wasn’t principled, it was, like the trainset purchase that is costing hundreds of unnecessary millions that might have gone into, I don’t know, food in schools, a way to clean out the books to the greatest extent possible to go with the rest of Labour’s blessings in 2008.

        So before you cast aspersions on Bill English, please go and educate yourself, and maybe go to finishing school as well, because your awful blurts, whimsical grasp of history and current affairs, and pseudo-aggression is sth(sic).

        Mr Cullen himself despised about some of his own colleagues and constituents.

        Just ask some of your friends, it’s very easy to be in charge of money when there’s ‘heaps’ it’s a bit harder for guys like Bill when there isn’t any.

        /sarc QFT 🙂

  18. xtasy 18

    The lies in the NZ media never cease to amaze me:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8686417/Key-talks-up-Asian-opportunities

    Key glorifies the Asian opportunities of exporting yet more milk powder, baby formula, raw logs and fish to China, while NZ meat is held at the border for an abject failure by export administrators, not informing Chinese authorities that there is now a Primary Industries ministry, replacing MAF in responsibilities.

    Yeah, failure again, and lies galore, where Key’s speech at Vector Arena last Friday is commented on with mention of “multiple” arrests of protestors. Hey, I was there, there were no multiple arrests at all, only one person was finally forced to the ground by three cops, and handcuffed and arrested under dubious reasons.

    So why do NZ media get away with lying to us. It is because so many in the public tend to give them “credit” they do not deserve. NZ is still considered an honest and integre society, but is this really so? My personal experience and that of many others is very different to that.

    There were also not just two dozen people outside Vector Arena in late morning and lunchtime on Friday, there were at least three to four dozen, and many others watching and supporting a vocal protest against a useless budget that delivers none to poor and needy, but gives more rights, benefits and powers to those already in power, in business and this rotten state we have now.

    See some links about what happened, but these are just glimpses, not showing the true scale of what went on there. The MSM do not want the truth to be reported on, as they are all in majority corporate owned and servants to the business and present government circles. Expect no truth from them, they ar e misleading and lying:

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Police-restrain-anti-poverty-protesters/tabid/370/articleID/298153/Default.aspx

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/multimedia/tv/national/79409.html

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/budget-2013/135392/anti-poverty-protesters-clash-with-police

    http://www.radiolive.co.nz/VIDEO-Protests-at-PMs-post-Budget-speech/tabid/504/articleID/35448/Default.aspx

    There was much more to what happened, but even Radio NZ put out a dismal report, not representing the truth. So we know, the National Party have their new bosses running Radio NZ.

    • xtasy 18.1

      Further to my comment: That one person that was initially arrested with brute force was later released without any charge laid. Well, it seems that the police realised they had no reason to arrest the young person from the start. So you damned MSM get your records straight and do not misinform the public, thanks!

Recent Comments

Recent Posts