Daily Review 14/03/2017

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, March 14th, 2017 - 111 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

111 comments on “Daily Review 14/03/2017 ”

  1. adam 1

    Are the reporters being obtuse, or trying hard to push an anti-union agenda to keep funding. This is why I’ve stopped listening.

    https://twitter.com/nzmorningreport/status/841367660294094848

  2. RedLogix 2

    TOP release their UBI and Rental policy. Interesting and realistic. As a landlord I can happily live with the rental policy and I’d venture maybe some here might be intrigued at how they’ve worked through the UBI idea as well:

    http://www.top.org.nz/top7?utm_campaign=num7&utm_medium=email&utm_source=garethmorgan

    • Cricklewood 2.1

      The Rental policy is something i have advocated for a long time. Good to see TOP have made it policy. I well remember the property manager throwing her weight around when the the place I was renting went up for sale. Tune changed when I purchased it but the woman was revolting.

      I think it will have a secondary benefit in that it will make it more difficult casual investors to flip properties for quick profit potentially removing them from the market and reducing pressure on prices.

      • Carolyn_nth 2.1.1

        Like the non-eviction when rental properties are sold.

        But gifting HNZ properties to the voluntary sector?

        No way! We need more HNZ properties, not less.

        • RedLogix 2.1.1.1

          It’s not as simple as that. The voluntary sector has it’s place as well. There is also a place for housing associations, something entirely missing from the NZ scene. Many of these organisations work with people aiming to transition them from lifelong tenancy into eventual ownership.

          Gifting properties to this sector in this way can reduce HNZ’s stock of unsuitable units, and free up capital to increase it’s properties that are better matched to demand. There is no rule that says HNZ’s stock has to be fixed and static; It can build, maintain and turnover properties as fast as it likes so long as it meets it’s social mandate. It’s helpful to keep in mind that houses (and the locations they are in) exist in a social and economic context that changes over the lifetime of the structure,

          The issue you are really concerned about, as I am too, is not whether HNZ lets go or sells stock … but the exact shape of political mandate it is operating under. That would be a much more interesting question to ask TOP.

        • Bill 2.1.1.2

          I could be very supportive of housing being passed to bona fide collectives and co-operatives. But yeah – I suspect such set-ups are not the imagined or intended recipients.

    • weka 2.2

      I don’t get it. A UBI that’s not universal, that pays $200/wk to all families with young kids including wealthy families (but is that on top of DBP, dole etc?), addresses the work testing aspect of welfare for some adults, but leaves all other vulnerable adults in the hands of WINZ. It doesn’t address the supplementary benefits issue, except to say they will be less (doesn’t explain how). As far as I can see it doesn’t look at Accommodation Supplement in its concurrent housing policy either. To be really frank, it looks like it another middle class attempt to solve child poverty while not actually addressing the fucked up nature of WINZ and welfare culture in NZ. In other words, yet another round of restructuring that will solve some problems and create others and just make WINZ even more dysfunctional than it already is.

      Cutting Super, glad to hear about that, that should slash their vote a bit.

      • weka 2.2.1

        Policy is badly explained too 🙁

      • mauī 2.2.2

        I think that’s a bit harsh considering I think this is the only party that will implement a UBI (even a partial one) if elected? And a UBI is where I think we need to be heading. Targetting young families seems sensible as a starting point. I don’t like how they’ve taken away paid parental leave to put in a UBI though. It does seem like the policy is hamstrung by fiscal constraints, but we’ve got nothing from the other parties to see if that could be overcome.

        • weka 2.2.2.1

          If it’s not universal, why call it a UBI?

          Part of the reason I am harsh is that I read his original proposal and it basically throws beneficiaries under a bus because it fails to address the supplementary benefits issue. So some beneficiaries would end up being paid less than they are now. IMO, trading off one set of vulnerable people for another is very neoliberal and we should be resisting it with everything we’ve got.

          Can you tell if the $200/wk would be paid to beneficiaries on top of their benefit or instead of? i.e. people on dole, DPB, Supported Living.

          Sorry, but I am sick of middle class management types fucking over welfare. If they’d come out with some serious roll backs of the Bennett reforms I’d be kinder, but why would you address work ready requirements for some parents but not people who are ill? This shit is going to reinforce stigma, not decrease it. It’s about the deserving poor, and it will entrench those attitudes into the liberal parts of society who will get to feel better because there are less poor kid under 3 while still not having to stand up to anti-welfare advocates.

          Morgan has some good ideas but the more I see the detail behind them the less I trust him. His ideas are superficially attractive to the left, but the implementation is a tweak of neoliberalism (neoliberalism with a pseudo-progressive face if you like).

          The Greens have long had a pro-UBI policy. Labour are making moves towards this being favourable too (I would guess 2nd term). TOP have zero chance of getting their policy adopted without L/G, but they are going to frame the issue around centrist ideas not left wing ones.

          • weka 2.2.2.1.1

            Also, means and asset testing elderly people is a seriously bad idea unless it is done by a govt system that cares about people. We don’t have that. What I expect is an increasing number of distressed elderly people esp those on the borderline of poverty. This is what happens when you try and design social policy from an economics pov. It’s why Morgan’s original UBI proposal was also a fail. He simply doesn’t start from a place of wellbeing for all.

            • RedLogix 2.2.2.1.1.1

              So your precious Greens are pro-UBI but when I last asked one of their senior leaders up-front, admitted there was no research, no fiscal plan, no intention to campaign on the issue, and no expectation to ever implement it. Pure bullshit window-dressing.

              But somehow you see this as morally superior and more caring of the ‘well being for all’.

              • weka

                I make one very short sentence about the Greens in the context of multiple critiques of TOP’s UBI policy, and that’s what you respond with? Nothing about the actual critiques?

                Here’s the policy. Read the UBI bit in in the context of the whole policy and their other interrelated policies. Yes, I do think those policies make the Greens’ position better in terms of caring for the wellbeing of all. For a start they want to have a wide-ranging public debate about a UBI as part of its development, rather than presenting a ready-made policy developed by economists (and as I pointed out, economists have a different starting point). And they also base their UBI in an overall policy that says,


                Everyone deserves decent work, a living wage, and to be treated with respect.

                Work includes paid work, but also the vital, unpaid work of caring for children and family members, and volunteering in our communities.

                Everyone should have enough income to fully participate in their community, and to live safe, healthy lives. We support welfare policies that are sufficient to ensure this, simple to understand and access, and universal in their application.

                We are committed to moving New Zealand back to a state of full employment – in which there is enough work for everyone who needs it. We support welfare policies that help to achieve this.

                . Universal Basic Income (UBI)

                The Green Party supports a full and wide-ranging public debate on the nature of UBI and the details of a UBI system, and government funding for detailed studies of the impacts of UBI. The Green Party will:

                Investigate the implementation of a Universal Basic Income for every New Zealander.

                https://home.greens.org.nz/policy/income-support-policy

                By all means link to TOP’s welfare policy and we can compare them.

            • Draco T Bastard 2.2.2.1.1.2

              It’s why Morgan’s original UBI proposal was also a fail. He simply doesn’t start from a place of wellbeing for all.

              He starts from the position that things should be as they are now in the financial system. He doesn’t realise that’s where changes need to start first in stopping the private banks from creating money, having government be the only entity that can create money and that government spending is the prime mover of money in the economy.

              Until he addresses that hen he’s going to stuck on the affordability of a UBI and not realising that not being able to afford a UBI is proof that the economy isn’t working for the well being of the nation or the world or that we just have too many people in the country and the world.

          • mauī 2.2.2.1.2

            They intend to make it Universal, that’s why they’ve called it a UBI. This is their stage 1. I don’t think they’re being misleading.

            The best I could find out about the UBI affecting beneficiaries was this:
            https://garethsworld.com/kahuna/are-you-a-client-of-work-and-income/

            The one payment to fit all does seem to have a few problems, for instance a $11,000 UBI can’t match a $30,000 sole parent with 3 kids benefit. They talk about saving accommodation costs by encouraging sharing a house with others which isn’t exactly ideal for mum and the kids. And they look to be strongly encouraging people to cover their costs by topping up by having a job too, which may not be the best thing for mum either. I’m feeling a bit of a big brother slant to this… I’m having some doubts about how this would all work through, but would be fascinating to see it trialled.

            The intentions seem good enough, they say a UBI would mean “no requirement to attend employment workshops, for example, or live in a particular type of household, or get medical certificates”

            • weka 2.2.2.1.2.1

              I’m not convinced they do mean to make it universal. For instance, they want to means test the Super replacement. That’s not universal, and I can see them making similar compromises on other later aspects.

              re the DPB, that’s my understanding about some of the shortcomings of his model too. I’ve commented in the past on what would happen to women on the DPB. The irony is that he wants to remove the work ready bit for young mums, but not older mums, who would then either be poorer or *have to take on work (assuming it was even available) irrespective of whether that was suitable or not. This is the problem with the lack of universality. If we want a UBI, apply it across the board. Otherwise call it something else. What I see is the potential for setting up a piecemeal system that never gets established properly and is vulnerable to being monkey wrenched by the next National govt.

              (can’t remember if he removes the abatement on beneficiary earnings, but that’s another biggie).

              There are better versions of UBIs around than Morgan’s. Although admittedly few attempt to solve the supplementary benefit issue or the Accommodation Supplement as Landlord subsidy.

              The intentions seem good enough, they say a UBI would mean “no requirement to attend employment workshops, for example, or live in a particular type of household, or get medical certificates”

              So why not apply those things now across the board?

            • weka 2.2.2.1.2.2

              Thanks for that link btw. It’s a really good example of how seriously bad his policy would be for some beneficiaries, and sorry, but he is pig ignorant about disability and illness beneficiaries. He is suggesting that they lose substantial income and have that replaced with govt controlled services. I’m going to hazard a guess that he doesn’t know what that income gets used for, and didn’t bother doing the research to find out. How would the govt provide a replacement car or special foods or alternative medical costs or new washing machine or fridge or any of the *individual needs that people have, if it wasn’t being done by an income model?

              He fails to appreciate that the reason for the IB being higher than Sickness is that IB is a long term, sometimes permanent benefit with originally no work ready requirement. Sickness was meant to be short term. You need a higher rate if you are going to live on a benefit for a long time. That’s got nothing to do with health services. It’s about whether you can afford to have your house repaired or buy a new pair of shoes.

              Taking income off people with disabilities and trying to replace it with govt controlled services is discriminatory. What other sector of society would you think that would be acceptable for? It’s Bennett-esque, albeit unintentional.

              He also wants to remove hardship grants, and appears to believe that the dole is liveable on its own. Benefits have been set below liveable for a long time, which is *precisely why we have supplementary benefits, special needs grants etc. He is saying that people should have less income and take more responsibility for meeting their needs on that lower than liveable income. Presumably because everyone can get a job. That’s just not real.

              The thing that stands out for me is that he just didn’t bother researching this and I would guess he didn’t talk to experts in the field including beneficiaries or their advocates.

              The thing that really fucks me off about it is that there are lefties who will vote for TOP and possibly cost the left the election, and this policy is just shit compared to the Greens who if they had more MPs in parliament and were part of govt could make some real gains around social security. Red can be all snarky above about the precious Greens but the point is that they do actually want a real welfare safety net. Morgan doesn’t. It’s beyond belief that lefties would support him on this.

              • Antoine

                > there are lefties who will vote for TOP and possibly cost the left the election

                Probably not many. As we get towards the election and TOP is well below 5% in the polls, it will become clear that a TOP vote is a wasted vote, and the TOP vote share should drop still further.

                A.

                • Bill

                  Another way to look at it is that as far as UBI or/and climate goes, TOPS are (arguably) ahead of the pack. I’ve read the opinion that TOPS may ‘back’ a National government, meaning that they’ll fail to translate their proposals into policy.

                  That opinion would seem to be based on the notion that Labour + Greens would fall short of a National + partners share of the vote. And that TOPS wouldn’t opt to give confidence and supply to the bloc most likely to execute aspects of their agenda. (A truly bizarre suggestion)

                  There’s also the proposal that TOPS will fall short of the 5%. Well, like you say, polls will give some indication of the likelihood of that and people can then vote accordingly or appropriately.

                  Assuming that TOPS break the 5% and sit on the cross benches, then they will push their policies and those policies will be amended or improved or fine-tuned or discarded out of hand by the government of the day. But here’s the thing. Things will be on the table, with TOPS in parliament, that so far haven’t seen the light of fucking day.

                  Maybe someone could enlighten me as to why that would be a bad thing?

                  • weka

                    “That opinion would seem to be based on the notion that Labour + Greens would fall short of a National + partners share of the vote. And that TOPS wouldn’t opt to give confidence and supply to the bloc most likely to execute aspects of their agenda. (A truly bizarre suggestion)”

                    One potential, likely scenario, is the the 2 or 3 or 4% that lefties give to TOP will come from L/G, stop them from forming govt outright, and means that National get first go at forming a govt. So there’s that, just an outright removal of L/G on the basis of one or 2 MPs.

                    In which case why would TOP not do what the Mp have done?

                    Your rationales around CC and voting TOP might be sound, but there is no doubt that lefties party voting TOP is a risk.

                    I asked Matthew about how govts can be formed, it’s not that clear cut. And we have yet to factor in that Peters usually negotiates with the party with the highest vote, and we don’t yet know if he will consider L/G a bloc. The only really safe outcome here is L/G governing on their own, including if we put CC at the top of the agenda.

                    • Bill

                      Neither Labour nor the Greens will put CC at the top of their respective agendas. I doubt that TOPS would give it primacy either.

                      But insofar as the TOPS CC policy/proposal is the only one that recognises the reality of the situation we face (though the actual prescription doesn’t cut the mustard), then it would at least get a discussion going that’s based on reality as against the unscientific bullshit about cutting emissions by given percentages by some given date while quietly investing hope in a crazy reliance on fairy tale technology and magical capabilities.

                      If polls show TOPS struggling to reach 5%, then people will make whatever decisions they make. But maybe more to the point – if Labour + Greens can’t absolutely trounce National on polling day, then there is something very wrong with the Labour and/or the Green parties.

          • The Chairman 2.2.2.1.3

            “So some beneficiaries would end up being paid less than they are now. IMO, trading off one set of vulnerable people for another is very neoliberal and we should be resisting it with everything we’ve got.”

            Indeed.
            +1, weka.

            • greywarshark 2.2.2.1.3.1

              TOP Party can be acknowledged for bringing UBI to the forefront where it is being discussed by thoughtful people like us instead of just being the hobby horse of committed people with vision.

              Careful consideration must be part of the policy in a practical way that includes how fair and balanced it is for all.

              Careful countries have better legislation, so let’s be as careful as the Netherlands which uses electronic devices in the counting of election votes but also, because of the possibility of cyber interference, has also hand counted the votes. Thorough, careful implementation of policy for good, reliable results. That is what we must have, with UBI, and all instead of fast and furious recipients.

              • The Chairman

                While Morgan can be acknowledged for bringing UBI to the forefront, his model is inferior.

                Moreover, what he’s proposing will also wreck our current UBI model (Super).

                Instead of looking at ways to improve and expand Super to the rest of society, he’s proposing to slash and means test it.

                We require a more balanced model that improves upon or is at least equal to our current Super. Therefore, not only will it acknowledge unpaid work, it will also better value it.

        • Calling a policy a “partial UBI” is like talking about being partially pregnant. The “U” stands for Universal, not “unconditional.” (although “unconditional” is an important part of a UBI scheme, it’s implied in the universality of the basic income) It’s not a “partial UBI,” it’s a cut to super (A HUGE cut, from $25k p/a to $10k p/a!) packaged together with removing work-testing from WFF and implementing a new child benefit. While some families might be struggling, they’re not the only priority in welfare reform.

          Overall, this reinforces my perception that Gareth doesn’t understand why a UBI is benificial, and why genuine left-wing parties who advocate one want a higher benefit rate and higher income taxes to achieve one.

          Even Labour’s future of work commission proposed a higher benefit rate than TOP does- they wanted $12.5k p/a.

          I worked off $20k p/a because I think it’s livable for people long-term, but it also presents a benefit level that’s affordable in the context of taking new revenue measures such as taking wealth.

          There is so much misunderstanding of what a “UBI” already is that TOP shouldn’t be contributing to it with a “UBI policy” that’s essentially a “benefit reform policy” that cuts and then means-tests Super.

        • The Chairman 2.2.2.3

          @ mauī

          “I think that’s a bit harsh considering I think this is the only party that will implement a UBI (even a partial one) if elected?”

          What’s harsh, disappointing, but expected is Morgan is wrecking Super (our current universal income) to replace it with an inferior model.

          Instead of building upon and improving on Super, he wants to slash and means test it.

          Moreover, as Morgan considers the family home to be income generating (and plans to tax us on it) no doubt that so-called income will also be counted in a means test.

          • bwaghorn 2.2.2.3.1

            like he has said though why give super to people who are wealthy,

            • The Chairman 2.2.2.3.1.1

              The problem is, a number of pensioners own their own home but it doesn’t necessarily make them wealthy.

              Moreover, owning their own home is what is currently helping keep a number of pensioners above the poverty line.

            • Matthew Whitehead 2.2.2.3.1.2

              Why not tax their wealth and then let them have Super anyway if they really want it?

              Effectively you’ve means-tested it by making them pay for the Super out of wealth taxes, but you wouldn’t have to change who qualifies or how, preserving it as a relatively easy to get transfer. It ticks all the boxes and oh look it’s essentially what the Green Party want to do anyway.

              • The Chairman

                “Why not tax their wealth and then let them have Super anyway if they really want it?”

                Morgan wants to tax their wealth (the family home) but also wants to means test them and slash their Super.

                As for why not tax them? First off the goal (fairer redistribution) is to transfer wealth from the top end down, not rob pensioners that are nowhere near the top one percent.

                Secondly, Morgan wants to tax homes on some form of calculated annual gain, not an actual gain. Therefore, there is no real money being made, thus forcing those with little actual income to mortgage their family home to pay the tax. Taking away what they worked hard to attain, while robbing family members (who could also be struggling) of their inheritance.

                • Oh, I agree Morgan’s proposals are wrongly tuned and a bunch of right-wing rubbish, especially his “expected capital gain” nonsense, I’m saying the reason we shouldn’t means-test Super is because we should just tax actual wealth enough that wealthy people “getting super” still doesn’t make up for the extra taxes, thus, we’ve effectively “means tested” them without ever having to pay anyone to check if they’re too wealthy to get super. Much more efficient.

                  I’m saying let’s give them a proper CGT on dividends, property sales, share sales, etc, and align it with the highest level of income tax, and maybe add an inheritance tax on estates past a certain threshold to that, too. That would more than fund Super. The VUW CGT model would give you an extra $300million-$5billion (depending on where you set the rate) or so after fully funding the current Super to pay down debt and/or save against paying for boomers without any age raises or cuts being necessary, and that would also free up income tax and GST to go to other priorities too, because that’s $12billion you were currently spending on Super that can go to increasing benefits, alleviating poverty, improving health and education, climate change research, or whatever your priorities are.

          • greywarshark 2.2.2.3.2

            The Chairman
            Housing, unearned income because you actually live in it as your home and get taxed on foregone rental? Eek don’t like that. It seems counter productive if one is trying to cut down our rentier class activity.

      • b waghorn 2.2.3

        Unconditional not universal is what he’s calling it

        • weka 2.2.3.1

          Thanks, if missed that. Makes sense as it’s not universal. I wonder what he means by unconditional.

          • Andre 2.2.3.1.1

            He means that if you meet the conditions, you don’t have to meet conditions.

            • weka 2.2.3.1.1.1

              Lol

            • Matthew Whitehead 2.2.3.1.1.2

              Nice one. 😉 I had assumed they opted for “unconditional” to justify calling their interim measures a “UBI” policy, because they’re clearly not universal benefits. Of course all this does is confuse people about what a UBI is.

      • Bill 2.2.4

        Cutting Super, glad to hear about that, that should slash their vote a bit.

        Is it? Seriously, I don’t know what current levels are, but from the policy doc it proposes a $10K sum topped up through means testing by up to $7.5K.

        And why keep stomping on the potential prospects of a party that would at the very least get some stuff on the table that’s just not there at the moment?

        You’d rather we settle for Greens/Labour talking about talking about Universal or Unconditional Basic Income as against their arms being twisted and the conversation actually taking place?

        Can’t say I understand that approach.

        • weka 2.2.4.1

          “And why keep stomping on the potential prospects of a party that would at the very least get some stuff on the table that’s just not there at the moment?”

          If they weren’t a risk to the left forming govt I’d be very happy that they are running, but for the raising issues value. Their policy detail is often really lacking, and they are *not left wing.

          “You’d rather we settle for Greens/Labour talking about talking about Universal or Unconditional Basic Income as against their arms being twisted and the conversation actually taking place?”

          You mean Labour who basically asked NZ last year to help them develop a UBI policy? Or the Greens that have taking the debate to NZ as part of their core welfare policy. The Greens who have an actual welfare policy.

          So my question for you in return then is why you are so supportive of a wealthy person who supports economic tinkering with neoliberalism but doesn’t support many left wing policies or values?

          • Bill 2.2.4.1.1

            If the Greens have a welfare policy (as opposed to a UBI policy) and if Labour are muttering about talking about it (a UBI)….then what’s the loss in TOPS + Greens formulating a higher common denominator through discussion and Labour being forced out of their “lets-consult-about-a-consultation-process -never-never-land” comfort zone?

            As for potentially voting for a political party wedded to or accommodating of liberalism – that’s the basic Hobsons choice we’ve got before us, innit?

            • weka 2.2.4.1.1.1

              Because, and honestly I don’t know how many times I have to say this, TOP getting MPs instead of L/G may mean that Labour can’t form govt. That’s how MMP works.

              It’s not an ‘if’ the Greens have a welfare policy, they do. I linked to it above.

              The Greens aren’t wedded to neoliberalism, they’re shacked up for a while out of expediency and because NZ has been too chickenshit to vote them more power when they were more left. TOP are avid supporters of neoliberalism. There is a difference.

            • Matthew Whitehead 2.2.4.1.1.2

              The Greens are, by philosophy, the most socialist party we currently have in Parliament, they’re just aware that they’re not in a position to entirely set the agenda just yet and need to focus on changes they can work with Labour or National to get through parliament, which means being a little neoliberal because both the biggest parties are. Trust me when I say that they’re not a particularly neoliberal party. You can tell by the lack of traditional economists.

              The Greens actually have a better welfare (they call it “Income Support”) policy than TOP does, they have better ideas on Super, (they want to look to the revenue side of the equation and keep or expand access to Super, which is eminently practical as the Greens support wealth taxes) and they are just as willing to look toward a Universal Basic Income, and they actually commit to the “universal” part, unlike TOP. Most notable is that they’re the only party with a policy to end starvation-level benefits by proposing indexing them to realistic living costs.

              Basically, if you want a UBI, or just any system that’s better for people who need income support from the government, your choice is between the Greens, the Greens, or the Greens right now. Labour has been unwilling to move on starvation-level benefits for so long that National beat them to giving beneficiaries a raise. TOP have made it perfectly clear with this policy that their pro-UBI noises are just noise and they don’t actually get that part of the opportunity in a UBI is to reform the benefit system into something that works for everyone, both those who are hard at work on low incomes and those who for whatever reason cannot do paid work, whether it’s because they can’t find it, have kids to look after, or because of illness. And the other parties in Parliament either don’t care or are too small-change to do anything about it.

              And Weka is correct. TOP is competing with Labour and the Greens largely for votes, not with National, and they have committed to sitting on the cross-benches, meaning they will make it harder for a left-wing government to form. If you care about unseating National, you shouldn’t vote for TOP, not just because your vote is unlikely to clear the threshold based on current polling, but also because they’ll be a waste of space if they do get into Parliament, because they’re not willing to work with like-minded parties to support a government.

              • Bill

                So if the Green’s welfare policy is better, what’s the problem? Like I said above, there is nothing preventing discussion that results in highest common denominators. If there are aspects of TOPS proposal that could be incorporated into the Green’s welfare policy in such a way that their welfare policy is improved, then good. If the Greens welfare policy covers all the bases, then good. If Labour get it coming at them from both sides, then good.

                Formation of government.

                TOPS have said they’d offer ‘confidence and supply’ to a government – so no barrier to a Lab/Green configuration – and then sit on the cross benches. Not seeing the problem with that. In fact, it kind of appeals because it means they’d deal with matters on a case by case basis and not be bound by strings and hooks.

                Beyond welfare, the question is do they have positive contributions to make in terms of housing, tax, environment etc? I guess people can make a judgement call on that and decide whether it’s worth giving some or any of those ideas (in part or in whole) any space in the policy and legislative space of parliament.

                • weka

                  The problem is that the % of vote that TOP might get could stop Labour from being able to form govt. I’ll just keep saying it.

                  “TOPS have said they’d offer ‘confidence and supply’ to a government – so no barrier to a Lab/Green configuration – and then sit on the cross benches.”

                  Citation for that. The only thing I’ve seen is a vague statement on their website that doesn’t way what they will do post-election. If they are now saying they will provide C and S, that would be good to see.

                  I get what you are aiming at here and if the numbers and election politics were playing out differently and if CC weren’t at stake, I’d probably support the strategy. I just think the risk is far too high and you are advocating gambling with the election.

                  Best case scenario is a L/G govt with maximum Green MPs and no NZF. Every vote that goes away from that scenario has big risks e.g Labour having to choose NZF over the Greens. Or not being able to form govt at all.

                  • Bill

                    Confidence and Supply – http://www.top.org.nz/whose_corner

                    “Despite not having announced any policies, and saying that I would work in a supply and confidence agreement with any governing party or coalition,…”

                    Not vague at all to my way of reading, but hey.

                    And then we’re back to would he go with National if TOPS could ensure a Lab/Green coalition? Given that there is far more chance that aspects of TOPS policy get adopted (in part or in whole) by a Labour/Green government…

                    But sure. TOPS are in parliament and the numbers just won’t stack up for a Lab/Green led coalition, then I guess they somewhat follow the example of the Green Party previously and work with National where they can…and that wouldn’t entail offering them confidence and supply. If it did, then we’re back to TOPS being in a position where they could ensure a Lab/Green coalition. And why wouldn’t they?

                    • weka

                      You are still missing the point. Votes going to TOP could literally prevent Labour from forming govt. Not TOP getting MPs and being likely to support a L/G coalition on C and S, but TOP getting left wing votes so that a L/G coalition with or without anyone else is impossible.

                      As for C and S, given NZ’s MMP history, largely due to NZF fucking over its voters, I think it’s reasonable to expect parties to be explicit about their post-election intentions. A passing comment in reference to how the media have treated him is far from a clear statement. They’re a political party, they need to do way better than this to be trusted.

                      “And why wouldn’t they?”

                      National might offer them a better deal. The Mt Albert TOP candidate seems to favour National.

                      What we need at this point is a really good write up on how governments in NZ form and what the potential scenarios are.

                    • Bill

                      You are still missing the point.

                      Nope. I get the whole ‘failing to achieve the 5% threshold’ angle.

                    • weka

                      I’m not talking about failing to reach 5% (although there is that too).

                    • Bill

                      If you’re accepting the scenario where TOPS are in parliament, then how is it that they prevent a Lab/Green government forming? The notion they go with National when a Lab/Green option exists makes somewhere between zero and zilch sense – it doesn’t stack up.

                    • weka

                      Afaik, in order to form govt parties need credibility around stability as well as numbers. So if the L/G bloc is too low compared to National then National will get first crack at the Governor General. Plus the issue of NZF. The risk is when either side could form govt depending on who did deals with who.

                      There does seem to be a convention of the largest party getting to form govt. So technically, L/G bloc bigger than National could go to the GG and say we can do it, here’s how. But if National have a substantially larger number and L/G need TOP, Mp, Mana, NZF or some combination of those to outweigh National’s numbers, then L/G will be perceived as the less stable option (I think this has happened in a previous election) and thus not get to form govt.

                      (it’s not good, and isn’t how MMP should be IMO, and I’d pin a large amount of there responsibility on Peters for monkey wrenching MMP in various ways, but stability, or perceptions of, seems to play a big role. Think all the wake jumping stuff that’s happened in the past).

                      Matthew might want to comment on this, but here’s from a convo recently.

                      OK, first, the actual rules. There are none, we never wrote them down. 😉 Not the answer you wanted? OK, we have something, it’s just not a solid rule. The constitutional convention is “secure the support of a majority of MPs in the House so you can demonstrate to the Governor General your coalition leader needs to be appointed Prime Minister.”

                      Have a look at Matthew’s full comment here (including bits about stability),

                      https://thestandard.org.nz/coalition-building-deft-politics-from-little/#comment-1306352

                      I have a feeling that there is some good writing on this in Pundit too, I might see if I can find it. My concern is that in a tight election National will trump L/G, which is why L/G need all the MPs they can get. If L/G were actively working with TOP pre-election it might be different, but even then TOP have never been in parliament before and I’m not sure how much they would be trusted to be stable.

                    • Bill

                      And your theoretical government falls at the first vote of confidence.

                    • weka

                      What theoretical govt???

                    • Bill

                      Your minority National Party led one.

                    • weka

                      Why would it fall at the first vote of confidence?

                    • Bill

                      Because any government that can’t secure 50%+ in a confidence vote can’t govern (eg – can’t pass a budget) and an election is called…not that they’d even get that far. They’d be gone before they even got up and running.

                    • weka

                      But National have coalition partners, that’s the whole point of C and S.

                    • Bill

                      How many ways you trying to cut this?

                      Sure. If National can form a majority, they get to form government. And if Labour and Greens can form a majority, then they get to form government.

                      And TOP doesn’t somehow automatically stop the formation of a Lab/Green government or make it impossible (which is what you were arguing at some point up thread)

                    • weka

                      No, what I am arguing is that numbers alone aren’t sufficient, that a senior party also needs to convince the GG that the coalition they propose is stable and viable.

                      My understanding is that NZ tends to favour large senior parties with small add on parties, rather than a handful of medium sized parties.

                      As we’ve both said, parties are reluctant to form unstable govts. NZ also has a history of the mainstream perceiving multi-party govts as unstable.

                      This is part of why the L/G MoU is important, because by the time the election is over they have demonstrated that they can work together well. Imagine on the other hand a situation where Labour and a much bigger Mp were trying to kill each other all year and then after the election were then saying, no, it’s ok, we really do like each other and can work together. I’m not suggesting that is TOP and Labour, just using an extreme example to illustrate the point (and it’s part of why I keep asking lefties what’s going to happen if Labour need the Mp to form govt).

                      I don’t know where TOP fit into that, but the questions I am asking are reasonable enough.

                      “How many ways you trying to cut this?”

                      Well only one above I think, but I would say that this is easily the most complex election I’ve seen in terms of possible scenarios. TOP add to that complexity, even more so because they are a big unknown. Again, it seems entirely reasonable to be looking at these issues.

                    • Bill

                      If National can garner over 50% of parliamentarians to grant them confidence and supply, then they form a government. If Labour can do that, then they form a government.

                      If one or the other cannot do that but goes to the GG to seek the permission to form a government, then they won’t last two seconds. They will fall at the first vote of confidence…which is on day one.

                      The confidence and supply is the signal of stability.

                      If you’re suggesting for one second that the GG can force the majority of parliament to accept a government they have no confidence in…yeah, nah.

                    • weka

                      So basically you are saying it’s all down to a numbers game and nothing to do with perception of stability?

                • The problem is that people are incorrectly perceiving TOP as radical practical policy reformers or geniuses of welfare and tax policy, when the best you can say about them is that they’re derivative of a few Green Party ideas where they’ve got things right, and dangerously perverting good ideas when they’ve got things badly wrong, such as on welfare reform. Until I actually saw what they were doing and the reception they were receiving among their fans, I regarded it as a bit of a harmless vanity party, which to be honest, it kind of is, except minus the “harmless” bit.

                  TOP are diluting the meaning of what a UBI is in a political debate where people are already confused, because it’s actually a radically socialist idea in many ways when it’s implemented universally, it’s just that TOP are so caught up on how to afford to do it they’re not crafting the policy around having its best effect, but rather around fitting it into a preconceived fraction of the budget. If you’re going to be bold and go for a UBI, you have to ask: “what do we need to do to fund it effectively?” not “how can we fit it into our existing revenue?”

                  I don’t mind new parties existing when they’re going to add genuinely new perspectives to the debate, or better represent under-served constituencies. But TOP doesn’t add anything significantly new. It’s largely rehashing Green Party policies, but doing them worse. It’s borrowing the party mechanics of an Internet Party, but without its interesting and modern values, or its more radical approach. It’s about as productive as United Future, except they’re talking about pragmatism and policy rather than common sense and community values. What is there to like?

                  Especially when its lacking electoral strategy looks set to throw Party Votes directly down the drain. They’re people’s to waste, of course, if that’s what they really believe in, but you have a responsibility as a Party if you’re making a serious pitch for their vote to try to have a serious electoral strategy, ie. aim for an electorate win if you don’t have the numbers yet to try for 5%. It’s not even clear at this stage whether their nationwide support would be enough to win an electorate if all of them moved to the same area, and yet here they are confusing the public as to what a UBI, an idea that we will need to implement in the upcoming era of automation, actually means.

                  As for confidence and supply- I had heard they planned to abstain or vote no for everyone, was that incorrect? Honestly, any consistently non-partisan approach is basically just as bad. If they get in and vote “no” for everyone, it hurts Labour and the Greens. If they get in and vote “yes” for everyone, it helps National and ACT. If they get in and abstain for everyone, that’s essentially a little bit of both. Given that they’re not representing an under-voiced constituency like say, the MP are, (and they therefore have something of an argument that it’s important to bring their perspective to governments of both stripes) they should get some guts and pick a side, because it matters who wins.

                  • weka

                    If TOP get 4.5% and no electorate, what happens to those votes?

                    • Andre

                      Same thing that happened to the Conservatives 4%. They get ignored in allocating seats. So the parties that do get in get slightly more seats than their vote share.

                      So in 2014, Nats got 50% of the allocated seats with 47% of the vote, Labour got 27% of the seats with 25% of the vote, Greens got 12% of the seats with 11% of the votes. (Dunne was an overhang, so his seat wasn’t one of the 120 allocated seats based on vote share)

                    • weka

                      In other words the ‘lost’ votes are redistributed proportionally? And from memory, that can mean an extra MP or two in the wrong place from a left perspective right?

                    • Andre

                      Absolutely strictly speaking, they are discarded. But it gives the same result as if they were redistributed.

                      edit: yes, it does mean seats can go to the “wrong” parties. If we assume the 4% (which would have given them 5 seats) who voted Conservative would have otherwise voted National, 3 of those seats went to Nats and 2 went to Labour (the “wrong party” from a Cons voter perspective)

                    • weka

                      Ah ok, that’s not what I meant but that is important too. I was meaning that when I’ve played around with the election calculator putting various small players in or out, it can have surprising results, something to do with when the % tips over into another MP?

                    • It’s mathematically the same thing if they’re discarded or redistributed proportionately, as Saint-Lague is a divisor formula based on iterative allocation of list seats. So yes, effectively, they go to National in proportion to their share of the vote, just as to Labour and the Greens or whoever. If you want your Party Vote to count, it needs to be going to a Party that gets List seats, or that you think will get List seats this time. There’s only five options that look realistic at this point for that, and that’s Labour, the Greens, NZF, National, or maybe the Māori Party.

                      That said, TOP aren’t even registering significantly in opinion polling, and New Zealand First managed to fall behind the threshold when they were polling above it, so it’s unlikely to be as big a deal as 4.5%.

                      In my opinion the real danger from TOP is that they’re confusing the debate without offering anything significant to make up for the dilution of important policy ideas.

                      It’s not even clear they could pull 16,000 votes nationwide at this point, which is a pretty average amount to win an electorate contest with.

                    • Andre

                      NZ uses the pure StLague method for allocating the seats (after threshold considerations are applied to discard the party votes for parties that don’t get in). So if there were no threshold and no complications like wasted votes, a party that got just over 1/240 of the vote would get one seat, a party with 3/240 would get two seats, 5/240 gets 3 seats.

                      So it gives the weirdness that UFs 0.22% of the vote was used in allocating seats, even though it’s way below what would give it a seat under any reasonable allocation method. But ALCPs 0.46%, IMPs 1.42%, and Cons 3.97% were all discarded.

                      http://archive.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/e9/html/e9_part2.html

                    • It doesn’t give any weirdness at all, Andre. They chuck everyone into the formula that wins an electorate seat or clears the threshold just in case, so no errors are made and people can see that they failed to get any seats.

                      Remember, it’s as much about seeing that the system is fair as it is about actually being fair.

                  • Bill

                    A UBI had some very right wing proponents back in the day (Mises, Hayek types) . It’s not intrinsically socialist at all.

                    Stepping back a tad.

                    Lets say the Green Party form a coalition with Labour and bring up their welfare policy. As you acknowledge, Labour have been utter bastards on welfare and there’s been no sign of a shift in their position or attitude. So they’d likely shut the Greens down on the welfare front by citing fiscal constraints or whatever and that would be that.

                    But if TOPS are there and they and the Greens enter into public discussion or debate, then any ‘shutting down’ of the Greens by Labour will be…well, let’s just say “less than wholly successful”….they can’t stop the conversation from happening and with the conversation happening, they’d hopefully not be able to keep their feet away from the fire.

                    Just to add as an aside. Their take on CC really is streets ahead of the Greens or Labour insofar as they name it and don’t hide behind nonsense.

                    Throw in their “re-hashed Green” policies and arguably what we have is a commonality and a ‘pushing of the envelope’.

                    (I’ll come back to this much later – but must away to the grimbly city for now)

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    If you’re going to be bold and go for a UBI, you have to ask: “what do we need to do to fund it effectively?” not “how can we fit it into our existing revenue?”

                    And even that’s the wrong question. The question must be: What if we funded the entire economy through the UBI?

                    Then there would be no question about being to afford it as it instantly becomes affordable. In fact, you couldn’t afford not to have it.

                    This is the major problem we have – everyone thinks that taxes are there to fund the government but it’s actually the government that funds our entire economy. This lie has been propagated for decades, centuries even, to sell the lie that rich actually pay for everything when the reality is that the rich don’t pay for a thing and, in fact, steal from the rest of us.

                    • No, I’m actually already with you on this. But you need to think about “how we get the money to pay for it in the short term” even if you think in the long term it’ll just end up being “how our economy works.” 🙂 I believe in the long term the economic benefits of a genuine left-wing approach to the UBI will be huge as well as the social benefits, but nobody’s done a large-scale trial so you really have to sell it as “the benefits are likely to be huge, and hey look, we can totes afford it with a new tax or two.”

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      We need to challenge the lie, make it common knowledge.

              • Macro

                Couldn’t have said it better Matthew.
                Totally agree.

        • weka 2.2.4.2

          “Is it? Seriously, I don’t know what current levels are, but from the policy doc it proposes a $10K sum topped up through means testing by up to $7.5K.”

          Yes, it is a cut. It’s turning Super from a UBI, into a means tested benefit. Even if we agree that people who earn more than $50,000/yr don’t deserve Super (or we can’t afford to give it to them), do you really want to put elderly people through the shit that you and I go through with WINZ?

          When you start scratching at the surface of Morgan’s policies, they often have no real world solutions for these issues. He’s an economist and he is trying to solve welfare economically rather than from a base of wellbeing.

          • Bill 2.2.4.2.1

            What’s the current $ value of super?

            • weka 2.2.4.2.1.1

              It depends, but I think the single rate is the $17,500. The cut is that the top up wouldn’t be paid to people on $50,000 or more. So the base rate of $10,000 (the dole) would be paid to everyone, and then if you wanted more you would have to hoop jump. (I think that’s right, but it’s from memory)

              Edit, see Matthew’s comment below for the correct rates.

            • Matthew Whitehead 2.2.4.2.1.2

              It’s about $20k p/a for the unmarried last I checked. Morgan is proposing $10k p/a with a $7.5k topup, ie. a cut of $2.5k p/a for people who do get the top-up.

              This is likely because he’s way too focused on fitting it into the current revenue structure and not focused enough on actually looking at the settings that make an actual UBI (as opposed to his dumb welfare reform proposal) really work as advertised, which is normally a reasonably generous level for the basic income that people will be able to live off.

              • weka

                Plus, those people on low incomes that own homes would be expected to take out mortgages to pay the yearly asset tax he wants on the family home. So double whammy for those people.

                • Yeah, this is why his approach to wealth taxes is a little problematic. I don’t mind taxing actual capital gains as they eventuate, so that owning a home doesn’t actually hit you with the CGT, but renting it or selling it does. (which is a little bit of tough love for homeowners who have to move and therefore need to sell and rebuy, but hey, it might be worth it in reduced prices of their new house anyway, and if you’ve already got a home odds are you’re better off than average)

                  But taxing capital at an expected rate of capital gain isn’t actually going to discourage bad behaviour, rather, it’s going to burn both people who don’t make sufficiently smart investments and those who aren’t sufficiently ruthless in business. (ie. it will incentivise predatory corporate behaviour even moreso than our current economic settings)

                  We shouldn’t have to set the Super levels while worrying about capital taxes forcing retirees out of their homes. That’s creating problems you don’t need. If I want to tax people for having homes that are too flash, we can do it when they sell them, or if they want someone else to inherit them. (because seriously, if you’re passing on a multi-million dollar inheritance, it deserves to be taxed)

                • Bill

                  Plus, those people on low incomes that own homes would be expected to take out mortgages to pay the yearly asset tax…

                  So low earning home owners are among the 20% of the population who (TOPS claims) would be adversely affected by the gradual introduction of the tax proposals once all aspects of the proposal and their interplay are taken into account?

                  • weka

                    I’ve have no idea what you are talking about there.

                    • Bill

                      TOPS tax policy with all the re-distributive bits and pieces included. Are you including those bits when you assert that low income people who own houses would be expected to take out mortgages to pay an asset tax?

                    • weka

                      Every time I’ve looked at the detail of their policies they’ve come up wanting. Haven’t looked at the CC one yet, looking forward to that. Morgan’s original UBI is anti-welfare and would make many beneficiaries worse off. The updated one skirts around those issues, and is a problem for all the reasons that Matthew and I have been pointing out. The tax on homes will hit small numbers of poor people, and impoverish some people who are just above the poverty line. I don’t see anything in their overall package that mitigates those things, but please point them out if I am missing them.

                      As I keep saying, Morgan designs from an economics pov not a wellbeing one. It shows by the people he is willing to throw under the bus. Matthew is also saying that Morgan designs from a let’s squeeze this into a tight budget perspective instead of rearranging the budget entirely (which is what the Greens are proposing).

                    • Bill

                      The tax on homes will hit small numbers of poor people, and impoverish some people who are just above the poverty line. I don’t see anything in their overall package that mitigates those things, but please point them out if I am missing them.

                      Not a home owner and not paying attention to all the details. But you claimed that those on low incomes who own their homes will be forced to take out mortgages. Meanwhile, TOPS have said 20% of people would take a financial hit (the wealthiest). I mentioned that there’s other aspects of the policy that impact on that asset tax.

                      A very quick look at the FAQs throws out this…which may or may not show that poor people who own homes get hit. I’m posting the link because there’s too much text….and maybe more relevant questions and answers through the link.

                      http://www.top.org.nz/26_how_do_i_calculate_how_i_m_effected

                    • Bill

                      Meant to add – we’re talking about tax, which is a fairly economic kind of a thing…and all governments govern with economics at the top of their agenda. But anyway.

                      How is completely changing the focus for tax merely “squeezing this into a tight budget”? The claim is that it’s revenue neutral. A government could implement the ideas in a non-neutral fashion, but as it stands they can’t reject it out of hand on the grounds that it’s fiscally irresponsible (I think that’s their favourite line, yes?)

                    • weka

                      If you are 50, own your own home (freehold), and are on invalids benefit, here’s what would happen if Morgan had his way.

                      1. your base benefit would be cut to the rate of the dole.
                      2. you would lose any supplementary benefits you have (disability allowance, TAS, not sure about accommodation supplement).
                      3. you would be expected to make up that income by supporting yourself and budgeting (yes, he does frame it that way). You can do this by getting a job.
                      4. if you are unable to work, the govt will meet the health costs you have that it deems valid by providing services directly to you. Morgan hasn’t said what that means in reality but it is clear that instead of having income, you will now be expected to be assessed by a different part of govt who will decide whether you are entitled to those services (at the moment it’s generally between a beneficiary and their GP what goes on disability allowance). You want to know what a MoH assessment looks like, look at Rosemary’s accounts of dealing with that system.
                      5. there will be no SNGs or hardship grants, just the dole.
                      6. if you need extra assistance for firewood or buying a new fridge or special foods, you won’t be getting that from the govt.
                      7. you will be expected to pay tax on the perceived increase in assets from your home. If the rate is 1% and you own a home worth $300,000, that’s $3,000/yr out of an income of $10,000/yr. You won’t be forced to take out a mortgage, you can choose to sell your home instead. Morgan just suggests that you take out a mortgage. I don’t actually know how that works tbh, because you still have to pay the mortgage and interest weekly (maybe he has some deferred payment thing in mind).
                      8. According to your link, Morgan’s solution to all of that is to do it ‘properly’ and thus enable a tax cut of 30%. I’ll leave it to you to figure out how much a 30% tax cut is for someone on the dole and what difference that will make in the above scenario.

                      “Meanwhile, TOPS have said 20% of people would take a financial hit (the wealthiest).”

                      If by that they mean that only 20% would take a hit and those people are all wealthy, then they’re lying. I have no idea why you believe them.

                      edit, I will try and fact check all that later. The original UBI proposal seems to be setting the rate at $10,000 with the expectation of no income top ups from the govt. Yet he confirmed by tweet today that the $200 he is proposing in the announcement yesterday is on top of benefits for those people that are eligible. Tbh, it’s a big bloody mess. I’m reasonably up with how various UBIs work and I can’t see a good explanation for what they’ve announced.

                    • RedLogix

                      As Bill says, it seems reasonable to ask that if some is going to design tax and welfare policy that they have some economic skills to do so.

                      weka slagging Morgan because he’s an ‘economist’ is a bit like saying that because someone is a trained architect they shouldn’t be designing houses. Of course an architect who has a bad brief will design a bad house, but equally with the same skill set they might produce an absolute gem given the right intent and opportunity.

                      The argument that Morgan cannot design a humane and equitable tax system that respects and enhances human dignity, just because he has skills as an economist is plain silly.

                      And in terms of researching, actively promoting and putting the UBI concept into the NZ political spotlight, Morgan and TOP have done far more than the Greens have done in decades. More importantly they are doing it in the context of wider tax and fiscal reform, AND achievable within a political framework that demands a model of fiscal neutrality before we can even talk about it.

                      TOP are quite plain about it; in order to make progress they plan of pushing for transitional, interim steps that are less than perfect. Of course this means their policy is less than ideologically pure. weka loves playing them all up … and then points to nice but waffley Green policy they themselves rarely mention and have never actively campaigned on.

                      Demanding perfection and then using this as an excuse for inaction is a very conservative mind-set, a covert convoluted strategy to tell us to shut up until we have a fool-proof plan that resolves or names every complexity. Such a demand is stifling, a paralysis by over-analysis that ensures nothing ever changes.

                    • weka

                      “The argument that Morgan cannot design a humane and equitable tax system that respects and enhances human dignity, just because he has skills as an economist is plain silly.”

                      I’m not saying he can’t, I’m saying he hasn’t. Economics and social justice intelligence are two different skill sets. There’s not reason why someone can’t have both, it’s just that the balance is way off in Morgan. IMO, we want the design to be done by people who understand social justice who then bring in economists to do that part of the design. That way we don’t have architects designing social services but of course they can design the buildings for those social services to sit within.

                      “And in terms of researching, actively promoting and putting the UBI concept into the NZ political spotlight, Morgan and TOP have done far more than the Greens have done in decades. More importantly they are doing it in the context of wider tax and fiscal reform, AND achievable within a political framework that demands a model of fiscal neutrality before we can even talk about it.”

                      Sure, sounds good, until you look at the details and who gets affected how. As I’ve been saying, Morgan has good ideas, but because of his positioning he doesn’t draw on the right expertise to get it right at the details level.

                      Morgan is talking about a tax policy. The Greens are talking about social security. I’d prefer to see those things brought together.

                      “TOP are quite plain about it; in order to make progress they plan of pushing for transitional, interim steps that are less than perfect. Of course this means their policy is less than ideologically pure. weka loves playing them all up … and then points to nice but waffley Green policy they themselves rarely mention and have never actively campaigned on.”

                      Nice bit of marginalising there Red. It’s not about ideological purity, it’s about baseline values systems. Those are different things.

                      “Demanding perfection…”

                      I’m not demanding perfection, you just made that up.

                      “…and then using this as an excuse for inaction…”

                      I’m not arguing for inaction, you just made that up.

                      “…is a very conservative mind-set, a covert convoluted strategy to tell us to shut up until we have a fool-proof plan that resolves or names every complexity.”

                      I haven’t told you to shut up, you just made the up.

                      “Such a demand is stifling, a paralysis by over-analysis that ensures nothing ever changes.”

                      In the link that mauī gives above Morgan devotes maybe two paragraphs to what to do with ill and disabled people. It’s his woeful underanalysis that is a problem there. I’ve seen very few people willing to meaningfully address what happens to beneficiaries who can’t work. I don’t get it, because it’s a reasonable expectation and it there will be good solutions. But to write those people off is just bizarre.

                      Anyway, I’ll just note that you haven’t addressed any of the points I have been raising, and instead appear to be saying stop being mean about Morgan’s ideas, they’re good (with a fair amount of ad hom thrown in). I don’t think they are good (although some have potential), and what we do here is pull things apart and critique them.

                      I’m also puzzled about the aggression from you on this. Your work on a UBI, based on Morgan’s, is a good grounding, it’s one of the things I draw on, and I had hoped that if we do the focus on UBI on TS that you would be involved in that.

                    • RedLogix

                      All I’m reading from you on the UBI topic lately is total negativity. I’m reflecting back what I’m hearing from you. Nonetheless In the interests of brevity I’ll focus on the issue which affects you personally and you always come back to .. disability.

                      There is no need to overthink this. Nor does TOP. They make it plain here in my original link:

                      It is unlikely that a UBI will ever totally replace targeted social assistance but it certainly will markedly reduce our reliance on targeting, with its stigma-laden selection criteria and its perverse impact on behaviour.

                      Make that what you will, but it clearly anticipates that there will be people who will continue to need targeted assistance above and beyond the UBI levels they see as politically achievable in the current context.

                    • weka

                      All I’m reading from you on the UBI topic lately is total negativity. I’m reflecting back what I’m hearing from you.

                      Yes, I am highly critical of what they are doing, for very good reasons. You don’t have to like it, but the points are there to argue with.

                      Nonetheless In the interests of brevity I’ll focus on the issue which affects you personally and you always come back to .. disability.

                      There is no need to overthink this. Nor does TOP. They make it plain here in my original link:

                      “It is unlikely that a UBI will ever totally replace targeted social assistance but it certainly will markedly reduce our reliance on targeting, with its stigma-laden selection criteria and its perverse impact on behaviour.”

                      Make that what you will, but it clearly anticipates that there will be people who will continue to need targeted assistance above and beyond the UBI levels they see as politically achievable in the current context.

                      From mauī’s link,

                      For people with disabilities, the UBI would provide less than the Invalids Benefit does currently (but something on par with the Sickness Benefit). The Invalids Benefit is currently higher than the Unemployment Benefit for example, because there are added costs associated with disability – such as ongoing medication and doctor’s visits. The additional needs of invalids could continue to be supported within the context of the UBI by policies which directly supply essential services to them and/or by addressing the charging policy associated with services supplied to those with on-going medical needs.

                      https://garethsworld.com/kahuna/are-you-a-client-of-work-and-income/

                      They clearly intend that ill and disabled people would have less income. And they think that that taken income can be made up for by providing services. I’ve given a number of examples of costs that need income not service provision.

                      It’s also clear from Morgan’s UBI documentation that other beneficiaries like those on the DPB would have less income.

                      At the very least their policy is unclear and possibly contradictory. I am not willing to support a party that is so cavalier with vulnerable people’s lives. I’m not overthinking it, I’m pointing to some glaring problems that not only don’t have solutions in his policy but would be actively harmful. There are far better ways to do this.

                    • Bill

                      That’s reading like a list of unsubstantiated assertions.

                      Can you provide the link within the policy where it’s stated that a person on disability would have their income cut to the level of the dole with no compensatory checks or balances coming into play?

                      If there is no simple cut and slash being applied, then your points number 2 and 3 fall over.

                      Points number 4, 5 and 6 are also predicated on a kind of fear-mongering about on a slash and burn approach being adopted with no countervailing systems being developed or applied.

                      And you’ve offered no evidence through links to anything actually written in policy that would suggest that’s the idea or plan.

                      Point 7 completely ignores that a ‘tax free’ amount (could be $100 000 or $200 000 or whatever a government agrees) would apply to assets.

                      So yes, it would be good if , as you say in your comment, you fact checked the assertions you’re making. I very much doubt there’s a glaring hole missed by those drawing up the policies that would mean poorer people getting hammered. And I very much doubt that there’s a flat out lie being told with regards the 20% and what income bracket those people occupy.

                    • weka

                      I’m not making wild assumptions, I’m drawing conclusions from having read the relevant bits on Morgan’s original UBI proposal (that he still considers to be the structure of the current policy), and the current policy. I’ve been linking or referring to links and quoting throughout this conversation (don’t know if you have read all of it).

                      Can you provide the link within the policy where it’s stated that a person on disability would have their income cut to the level of the dole with no compensatory checks or balances coming into play?

                      Pretty sure I’ve already covered this, but here it is again. This is from this link, but it also matches in depth conversations on TS that were based on looking at his overall UBI proposal a year or so ago (which I was involved in),

                      https://garethsworld.com/kahuna/are-you-a-client-of-work-and-income/

                      Every adult aged 21 and over would get $11,000 a year

                      That’s a decrease for SLP of $2,624.

                      If you had to rely on that income alone, you could (it’s close to what a single unemployed person gets at the moment).

                      So my reading of that is that Morgan thinks that all people are equivalent to people on the dole, and that the dole is liveable. He probably doesn’t literally think that, but that’s what the UBI proposal is based on. However we know that the dole is intentionally set at a level that is not liveable on, and the whole WINZ system is based upon top-ups to make it (theoretically) liveable for people that can’t get work.

                      However, you would no longer be able to get Work and Income to pay your phone bill or power bill, for example. “Top up” payments like Hardship Grants would no longer be available. So with the freedom to live your life as you choose, comes the responsibility to handle any financial obligations yourself (but with the help of budget advisers, family and community groups).

                      I hope that is self-explanatory and very clear. No additional support above the $11,000.

                      In the document there is then a bit about the DPB, which seems to be saying that sole parents should work and then get topped up via various mechanisms, some of which seem an improvement, but I’ve largely ignored it because I don’t understand how WFF etc works and it’s too much work to go learn all that stuff. I’d feel more confident about that part of the proposal if I thought he had worked through the solutions with people who are actually affected.

                      At the bottom is this,

                      For people with disabilities, the UBI would provide less than the Invalids Benefit does currently (but something on par with the Sickness Benefit). The Invalids Benefit is currently higher than the Unemployment Benefit for example, because there are added costs associated with disability – such as ongoing medication and doctor’s visits. The additional needs of invalids could continue to be supported within the context of the UBI by policies which directly supply essential services to them and/or by addressing the charging policy associated with services supplied to those with on-going medical needs.

                      This is the one that tells me he is basically clueless about how welfare actually works. Unless one thinks that the govt should become service providers of things like firewood or new fridges, that paragraph is alarming. He fails to understand that long term beneficiaries need actual income, not just services.

                      And as I have argued repeatedly on this issue for years, removing income and then having the state do needs assessments is hugely problematic because the state is already fucking that model up via the MoH models being used. If people think that WINZ is evil and Health is lovely and helpful then they’re going to be in for one hell of a shock. Again, listen to the people who are already at the coal face on this one. I’m willing to bet that Morgan and co didn’t.

                      Personally, I think the top-ups issues is solvable including for disability and in the past have worked with Morgan’s model to see how it could be adapted. But Morgan’s proposal hasn’t solved those issues and now he is running for parliament with some seriously dangerous ideas. That’s part of why I am so critical of TOP’s policy and positioning.

                      Plus, have a look at Matthew’s points on why we need a left wing govt to implement a UBI not a RW economist.

                      Now, I’m happy to be proved wrong about the topups/worse off benes issue. I tweeted Morgan the other day and asked if the TOP policy this week of $200/wk was on top of benefits. He said on top of. So that’s very different to everything I’ve just outlined. But I have also seen him reference the Big Kahuna as the baseline for their overall UBI policy ie. the one they want to roll out over time. I then followed up with another tweet asking if that $200 on top of other benefits would eventually be applied to all beneficiaries. He didn’t reply.

                      So at the very least, even if I am wrong in my reading of their overall intent, TOP and Morgan are pretty unclear on what they would do re the total UBI and tax reform, and that is unacceptable for someone wanting to be in parliament and who could end up holding the balance of power.

                      edit, here’s the twitter convo,

                      https://twitter.com/garethmorgannz/status/841501008723353600

                    • Bill

                      Absolutely none of that is in TOPS policy.. is 2011 figures and neglects to mention a fairly salient point or two.

                      1. The whole scheme is designed with a high degree of elasticity
                      2. In a parliamentary context it would not be TOPS who determined the final policy or legislative expression of the various ideas proposed by them. (Cross benches = not in cabinet)

                      The general overview UBI proposal is that…(emphasis added in bold)

                      The first 2 groups to enter the UBI regime will be

                      1. all families with very young children (under 3, or under 6 if adopted or fostered) – $200 per family per week. This replaces paid parental leave

                      2. elders – all those citizens over 65 years of age – $200 each per week. In addition elders who satisfy a means test will be able to top up to the current NZ Superannuation level by a further $7,500 pa. We will index the top-up to elders’ costs not to average incomes.

                      The UBI for families with young children provides a substantial (up to $10,000 pa) lift to those families and is the most potent boost to their ability to nurture their children in their most vulnerable years. This change starts to honour the millions of hours of unpaid work associated with child rearing, without which our economy would collapse. For low-income families we intend to make additional changes to step them back from the arduous work-testing that is proving so debilitating for these vulnerable families.

                      Low-income families with children (under 17) – an additional $72 pw ($3,744 pa) instead of in-work tax credit, no hours test required. Of course they remain eligible for the other current welfare payments (unemployment, disability, sole parent, illness etc).
                      low income families will get free full-time childcare (for children between 1 and 3) if they are in paid work. The work test will have no minimum hours.

                    • weka

                      Yes, thanks, I read the policy the other day and as I said I tried to clarify this with Morgan directly.

                      Are you saying that you think that The Big Kahuna proposal will be dropped and won’t be used as the basis for a full UBI in the future? Or that you want now to look at just the policy on its own and not as part of their bigger plan for a UBI?

                      Either way, it’s actually very unclear what they intend for welfare/UBI in the future. If Morgan is now saying that The Big Kahuna UBI is wrong and they’re doing something else that doesn’t hit those at the bottom, fantastic. But I haven’t seen that, and again I’m really curious why you trust the RW economist on this.

                      (I’m willing to not trust them simply for the degree of confusion and lack of clarity. They’re running for parliament ffs).

                      Morgan himself recently referred to The Big Kahuna as the guiding document for how to understand the current policy. I think that was in the FB thread about the policy.

                      EDIT, Here’s Morgan,

                      “In the first sentence of the landing page the book “The Big Kahuna” is mentioned. Have a read for a long term view of where we see things ending up. It’s fully costed, and the most recent iteration has been audited by NZIER, but like I said this stuff is expensive and we need to start somewhere”

                      https://www.facebook.com/garethmorgannz/posts/1433644913344009?comment_id=1433652383343262&reply_comment_id=1433675593340941&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D

                      Perhaps you can explain to me how the Policy this week is a UBI despite being selectedly targeted and then how it will fit into The Big Kahuna costings and plan? Because I just don’t get it.

                    • Bill

                      I’m interested in their actual policies…wealth tax, Unconditional Basic Income, Climate Change, Environment etc – and how they work off or impact on one another.

                      If it was the 1920s and a Labour Party was putting out policy, I’d be interested in their actual policies rather than Das Capital or how the policies announced stacked up in relation to arguments and analysis contained in Das Capital…

                      You tweeted a question that was answered and then followed up with a question that isn’t related to any stated policy and that wasn’t answered. I’d say that’s fair enough.

                      TOPS do not intend to form government. That means that their ideas and suggestions will inevitably be subject to alteration or modification by those parties that do form government.

                      And that means that we get to have a conversation on those ideas and suggestions. And an informed/engaged electorate….

                      So you can call or smear Morgan for being a RW economist or whatever. I really couldn’t give a fuck where he sits on the spectrum of economists (I’ll just note that he doesn’t appear to sit with liberal schools of thought).

                      Meanwhile, the policies. As stated. They interest me. And discussion of those stated policies interests me.

                    • weka

                      Ok, so just so we are clear, you are taking TOP’s policies at face value with no reference to The Big Kahuna? And in fact are explicitly excluding The Big Kahuna from the analysis?

                      I still think there is plenty to critique about the policy on its own.

                      You tweeted a question that was answered and then followed up with a question that isn’t related to any stated policy and that wasn’t answered. I’d say that’s fair enough.

                      Anyone is entitled to not tweet back, but the question *is relevant when Morgan himself is both referring back The Big Kahuna, and placing the policy itself in the context of the bigger picture of what they want to have happen.

                      “Meanwhile, the policies. As stated. They interest me. And discussion of those stated policies interests me.”

                      Yep, and some of us are critiquing them and I’m not seeing a lot of critique back tbh.

    • Colour me unimpressed. This shows even further that Morgan doesn’t get how a UBI is supposed to work that he’s painting a couple new benefits and cutting and de-universalising Super as a “first step to a UBI.”

      If you want a real first step to a UBI, start phasing out unnecessary conditions on certain benefits, especially Jobseeker Support, over time, and see how it works out.

  3. Tory 4

    Labour and Willie Jaskson handed their arse in The House today by the Maori Party, great job 🙂

    [You are going to have to do better than this. Quote chapter and verse and phrases and words. If you do not I will have to conclude you are trolling – MS]

    • Muttonbird 4.1

      If anyone wants evidence the Maori Party are with National and against Labour, it’s when a rwnj crows about perceived Maori Party victories over Labour in the house.

      • A RWNJ crows over anything they think looks like disunity in the Left. That’s not evidence that the Māori Party is Forever For National. 😉

        • Muttonbird 4.1.1.1

          Perhaps they are not forever with National but they certainly are now under the current leadership.

          I’d love to know what National Party money and even what public money is involved in coaching the Maori Party to damage Labour in the Maori seats this election.

          As for the Maori Party being Left, well I strongly disagree with you there. They are a second NZ First Party and Tuku Morgan’s celebrity presidency is proof of that.

          They are for elite Maori in the same way National is for the elite in general, and they don’t mind dividing Maori in order to protect that position.

          • Antoine 4.1.1.1.1

            There’s no need to get all worked up about it. Just don’t vote MP if you want to change the Government

          • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.1.1.2

            I think we can’t yet trust them to swing left when they’re the critical vote in determining the government, or even on key issues after their time with National. They’ve certainly had the effect of promoting the interests of Māori elites ahead of ordinary Māori under a National government, but that may be because those are the only concessions National would give them. It’s also likely that they may be working a bit closer with Hone after the election, which might get their priorities straight.

            However, that doesn’t mean I don’t think they’ll prefer a Labour-Green government over a National one, given that the MP generally aligns reasonably closely with the Greens on policy.

            In short: I wouldn’t trust them yet, but I wouldn’t write them off as being irredeemable either. It’s very possible that they would actually choose the Left if given a choice, and that they could mitigate the influence of Peters and his lot when the government changes.

            • weka 4.1.1.1.2.1

              I came across something the other day, probably the wikipedia on the relevant election, that said that post-election the Mp went back to their people and asked who they should work with and were told Labour. But Labour and the Mp were unable to come to an arrangement (presumably because of Clark and Turia and the Foreshore and Seabed). I’m guessing that was the first election after the Mp was formed. And the last Labour govt. So basically since then there has been no choice to choose Labour because National has been able to form govt anyway.

              In that sense I see the Mp as potentially going either way, depending on what they see as to their best advantage. What I’d really like to know is if they still go back to their people post-election, what that means, do they do that in a real way, and would they do what they are told this time round?

              I’m not sure if they consult their communities or their members. If it’s the former I would guess we’d see the Mp choosing Labour. If it’s the latter, maybe choosing National if other Māori are already aligned with Labour, the Greens or Mana.

  4. https://www.maoritelevision.com/news/national/maori-singled-out-child-welfare-agencies

    What can be said about this – swearing? Yelling? Crying?

    So fucken sad this, just so sad.

    Luckily good people out there who care and are trying to help

    https://www.maoritelevision.com/news/national/new-resources-fight-maori-male-suicide

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Bernard’s Saturday Soliloquy for the week to July 20
    Climate Change Minister Simon Watts being questioned by The Kākā’s Bernard Hickey.TL;DR: My top six things to note around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the week to July 20 were:1. A strategy that fails Zero Carbon Act & Paris targetsThe National-ACT-NZ First Coalition Government finally unveiled ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    2 hours ago
  • Pharmac Director, Climate Change Commissioner, Health NZ Directors – The latest to quit this m...
    Summary:As New Zealand loses at least 12 leaders in the public service space of health, climate, and pharmaceuticals, this month alone, directly in response to the Government’s policies and budget choices, what lies ahead may be darker than it appears. Tui examines some of those departures and draws a long ...
    Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tui
    15 hours ago
  • Flooding Housing Policy
    The Minister of Housing’s ambition is to reduce markedly the ratio of house prices to household incomes. If his strategy works it would transform the housing market, dramatically changing the prospects of housing as an investment.Leaving aside the Minister’s metaphor of ‘flooding the market’ I do not see how the ...
    PunditBy Brian Easton
    16 hours ago
  • A Voyage Among the Vandals: Accepted (Again!)
    As previously noted, my historical fantasy piece, set in the fifth-century Mediterranean, was accepted for a Pirate Horror anthology, only for the anthology to later fall through. But in a good bit of news, it turned out that the story could indeed be re-marketed as sword and sorcery. As of ...
    19 hours ago
  • The Kākā's Chorus for Friday, July 19
    An employee of tobacco company Philip Morris International demonstrates a heated tobacco device. Photo: Getty ImagesTL;DR: The top six things I’ve noted around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy on Friday, July 19 are:At a time when the Coalition Government is cutting spending on health, infrastructure, education, housing ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    22 hours ago
  • The Kākā’s Pick 'n' Mix for Friday, July 19
    TL;DR: My pick of the top six links elsewhere around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day or so to 8:30 am on Friday, July 19 are:Scoop: NZ First Minister Casey Costello orders 50% cut to excise tax on heated tobacco products. The minister has ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    1 day ago
  • Weekly Roundup 19-July-2024
    Kia ora, it’s time for another Friday roundup, in which we pull together some of the links and stories that caught our eye this week. Feel free to add more in the comments! Our header image this week shows a foggy day in Auckland town, captured by Patrick Reynolds. ...
    Greater AucklandBy Greater Auckland
    1 day ago
  • Weekly Climate Wrap: A market-led plan for failure
    TL;DR : Here’s the top six items climate news for Aotearoa this week, as selected by Bernard Hickey and The Kākā’s climate correspondent Cathrine Dyer. A discussion recorded yesterday is in the video above and the audio of that sent onto the podcast feed.The Government released its draft Emissions Reduction ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    1 day ago
  • Tobacco First
    Save some money, get rich and old, bring it back to Tobacco Road.Bring that dynamite and a crane, blow it up, start all over again.Roll up. Roll up. Or tailor made, if you prefer...Whether you’re selling ciggies, digging for gold, catching dolphins in your nets, or encouraging folks to flutter ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    1 day ago
  • Trump’s Adopted Son.
    Waiting In The Wings: For truly, if Trump is America’s un-assassinated Caesar, then J.D. Vance is America’s Octavian, the Republic’s youthful undertaker – and its first Emperor.DONALD TRUMP’S SELECTION of James D. Vance as his running-mate bodes ill for the American republic. A fervent supporter of Viktor Orban, the “illiberal” prime ...
    1 day ago
  • The Kākā’s Journal of Record for Friday, July 19
    TL;DR: As of 6:00 am on Friday, July 19, the top six announcements, speeches, reports and research around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day are:The PSA announced the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) had ruled in the PSA’s favour in its case against the Ministry ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    1 day ago
  • The Hoon around the week to July 19
    TL;DR: The podcast above of the weekly ‘hoon’ webinar for paying subscribers last night features co-hosts and talking with:The Kākā’s climate correspondent talking about the National-ACT-NZ First Government’s release of its first Emissions Reduction Plan;University of Otago Foreign Relations Professor and special guest Dr Karin von ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    1 day ago
  • Skeptical Science New Research for Week #29 2024
    Open access notables Improving global temperature datasets to better account for non-uniform warming, Calvert, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society: To better account for spatial non-uniform trends in warming, a new GITD [global instrumental temperature dataset] was created that used maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) to combine the land surface ...
    2 days ago
  • We're back again! Join us for the weekly Hoon on YouTube Live
    Photo by Gabriel Crismariu on UnsplashWe’re back again after our mid-winter break. We’re still with the ‘new’ day of the week (Thursday rather than Friday) when we have our ‘hoon’ webinar with paying subscribers to The Kākā for an hour at 5 pm.Jump on this link on YouTube Livestream for ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    2 days ago
  • Gut Reactions.
    Trump Writes His Own Story: Would the “mainstream” media even try to reflect the horrified reaction of the MAGA crowd to the pop-pop-pop of the would-be assassin’s rifle, and Trump going down? Could it even grasp the sheer elation of the rally-goers seeing their champion rise up and punch the air, still alive, ...
    2 days ago
  • Dodging Bullets.
    Fight! Fight! Fight! Had the assassin’s bullet found its mark and killed Donald Trump, America’s descent into widespread and murderous violence – possibly spiralling-down into civil war – would have been immediate and quite possibly irreparable. The American Republic, upon whose survival liberty and democracy continue to depend, is certainly not ...
    2 days ago
  • 'Corruption First' Strikes Again
    There comes a point in all our lives when we must stop to say, “Enough is enough. We know what’s happening. We are not as stupid or as ignorant as you believe us to be. And making policies that kill or harm our people is not acceptable, Ministers.”Plausible deniability has ...
    Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tui
    2 days ago
  • The Kākā's Chorus for Thursday, July 18
    TL;DR: The top six things I’ve noted around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy today are:The inside stories of KiwiRail’s iRex debacle, Westport’s perma-delayed flood scheme and Christchurch’s post-quake sewer rebuild, which assumed no population growth, show just how deeply sceptical senior officials in Treasury, the Ministry of ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    2 days ago
  • What's that Jack Black?
    Ah-rah, deeSoo-guh-goo-gee-goo-geeGoo-guh fli-goo gee-gooGuh fli-goo, ga-goo-buh-deeOoh, guh-goo-beeOoh-guh-guh-bee-guh-guh-beeFli-goo gee-gooA-fliguh woo-wa mama Lucifer!I’m about ready to move on, how about you?Not from the shooting, that’s bad and we definitely shouldn’t have that. But the rehabilitation of Donald J Trump? The deification of Saint Donald? As the Great Unifier?Gimme a bucket.https://yellowscene.com/2024/04/07/trump-as-jesus/Just to re-iterate, ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    2 days ago
  • June 2024: Earth’s 13th-consecutive warmest month on record
    This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Jeff Masters and Bob Henson June 2024 was Earth’s warmest June since global record-keeping began in 1850 and was the planet’s 13th consecutive warmest month on record, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, or NCEI, reported July 12. As opposed to being focused in ...
    2 days ago
  • Connecting the dots and filling the gaps in our bike network
    This is a guest post by Shaun Baker on the importance of filling the gaps in our cycling networks. It originally appeared on his blog Multimodal Adventures, and is re-posted here with kind permission. In our towns and cities in Aotearoa New Zealand, there are areas in our cycling networks ...
    Greater AucklandBy Guest Post
    2 days ago
  • Webworm Down Under Photos!
    Hi,I wanted to share a few thoughts and photos from the Webworm popup and Tickled screening we held in Auckland, New Zealand last weekend.In short — it was a blast. I mean, I had a blast and I hope any of you that came also had a blast.An old friend ...
    David FarrierBy David Farrier
    2 days ago
  • The Kākā’s Pick 'n' Mix for Thursday, July 18
    TL;DR: My pick of the top six links elsewhere around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day or so to 6:30 am on Thursday, July 18 are:News: Christchurch's sewer systems block further housing developments RNZ’s Niva ChittockAnalysis: Interislander: Treasury, MoT officials' mistrust of KiwiRail led ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    2 days ago
  • The Kākā’s Journal of Record for Thursday, July 18
    TL;DR: As of 6:00 am on Thursday, July 18, the top six announcements, speeches, reports and research around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day are:Verbatim: Climate Change Minister Simon Watts held a news conference in Auckland to release the Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan, including ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    2 days ago
  • The politics of managed retreat
    Climate change deniers are now challenging the Government over a key climate change adaptation policy. That begs the question of whether New Zealand First will then support Government moves to implement processes to deal with a managed retreat for properties in danger of flooding because of sea level rise and ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    2 days ago
  • Some changes are coming
    Warm welcome again to those who are here. The Mountain Tui substack was officially started on the 2nd of July. I wrote about what led me here on this post. Since then, it’s been a learning to navigate the platform, get to meet those in the community, and basically be ...
    Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tui
    3 days ago
  • About fucking time
    The US Supreme Court has been rogue for years, with openly corrupt judges making the law up as they go to suit themselves, their billionaire buyers, and the Republican Party. But now, in the wake of them granting a licence for tyranny, President Biden is actually going to try and ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    3 days ago
  • Climate Change: False accounting and wishful thinking
    National released their draft 2026-2030 Emissions Reduction Plan today. The plan is required under the Zero Carbon Act, and must set out policies and strategies to meet the relevant emissions budget. Having cancelled all Labour's actually effective climate change policies and crashed the carbon price, National was always going to ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    3 days ago
  • The Enemies Of Sunshine And Space.
    Our Houses? The Urban Density debate is a horrible combination of intergenerational avarice and envy, fuelled by the grim certainty that none of the generations coming up after them will ever have it as good as the Boomers. To say that this situation rankles among those born after 1965 is to ...
    3 days ago
  • Still the 5 Eyes Achilles Heel?
    The National Cyber Security Centre (NZSC), a unit in the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) dedicated to cyber-security, has released a Review of its response to the 2021 email hacking of NZ members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC, … Continue reading ...
    KiwipoliticoBy Pablo
    3 days ago
  • Britain's Devastating Electoral Slip.
    Slip-Sliding Away: Labour may now enjoy a dominant position in Britain’s political landscape, but only by virtue of not being swallowed by it.THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY’S “landslide victory” is nothing of the sort. As most people understand the term, a landslide election victory is one in which the incumbent government, or ...
    3 days ago
  • Gordon Campbell on why right wingers think all governments (including their own) are incompetent
    Since open denial of climate change is no longer a viable political option, denial now comes in disguise. The release this week of the coalition government’s ‘draft emissions reductions plan” shows that the Luxon government is refusing to see the need to cut emissions at source. Instead, it proposes to ...
    WerewolfBy lyndon
    3 days ago
  • The Kākā's Chorus for Wednesday, July 17
    TL;DR: The top six things I’ve noted around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy this morning are:Chris Penk is set to roll back building standards for insulation that had only just been put in place, and which had been estimated to save 40% from power costs, after builders ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    3 days ago
  • Open Letter to Pharmac
    All this talk of getting oldIt's getting me down, my loveLike a cat in a bag, waiting to drownThis time I'm coming downAnd I hope you're thinking of meAs you lay down on your sideNow the drugs don't workThey just make you worse but I know I'll see your face ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    3 days ago
  • A blanket of misinformation
    Two old sayings have been on my mind lately. The first is: “The pen is mightier than the sword”, describing the power of language and communication to help or to harm. The other, which captures the speed with which falsehoods can become ingrained and hard to undo, is: “A lie can ...
    Greater AucklandBy Connor Sharp
    3 days ago
  • The Kākā’s Pick 'n' Mix for Wednesday, July 17
    TL;DR: My pick of the top six links elsewhere around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day to 7:00 am on Wednesday, July 17 are:Scoop: Government considers rolling back home insulation standards RNZ’s Eloise GibsonNews: Government plans tree-planting frenzy as report shows NZ no longer ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    3 days ago
  • The Kākā’s Journal of Record for Wednesday, July 17
    TL;DR: As of 6:00 am on Wednesday, July 17 , the top six announcements, speeches, reports and research around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day were:Simon Watts released the Government’s draft Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP), which included proposed changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    3 days ago
  • “Shhhh” – National's 3 Waters is loaded with higher costs and lays a path to ...
    This is a long, possibly technical, but very, very important read. I encourage you to take the time and spread your awareness.IntroductionIn 2022, then Labour Party Prime Minister Jacinda Adern expended significant political capital to protect New Zealand’s water assets from privatisation. She lost that battle, and Labour and the ...
    Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tui
    3 days ago
  • Plugging a video channel: Dr Gilbz
    Dr. Ella Gilbert is a climate scientist and presenter with a PhD in Antarctic climate change, working at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS). Her background is in atmospheric sciences and she's especially interested in the physical mechanisms of climate change, clouds, and almost anything polar. She is passionate about communicating climate ...
    4 days ago
  • Some “scrutiny” again
    Back in 2022, in its Open Government Partnership National Action Plan, the government promised to strengthen scrutiny of Official Information Act exemption clauses in legislation. Since then they've run a secret "consultation" on how to do that, with their preferred outcome being that agencies will consult the Ministry of Justice ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    4 days ago
  • Crashing New Zealand's health system is not the way to prosperity, Prime Minister
    Another day, and yet another piece of bad news for New Zealand’s health system. Reports have come out that General Practitioners (GP) may have to close doors, or increase patient fees to survive. The so-called ‘capitation’ funding review, which supports GP practices to survive, is under way, and primary care ...
    Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tui
    4 days ago
  • Closer Than You Think: Ageing Boomers, Laurie & Les, Talk Politics.
    Redefining Our Terms: “When an angry majority is demanding change, defending the status-quo is an extremist position.”“WHAT’S THIS?”, asked Laurie, eyeing suspiciously the two glasses of red wine deposited in front of him.“A nice drop of red. I thought you’d be keen to celebrate the French Far-Right’s victory with the ...
    4 days ago
  • Come on Darleen.
    Good morning all, time for a return to things domestic. After elections in the UK and France, Luxon gatecrashing Nato, and the attempted shooting of Trump, it’s probably about time we re-focus on local politics.Unless of course you’re Christopher Luxon and you’re so exhausted from all your schmoozing in Washington ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    4 days ago
  • How the Northwest was lost and may be won
    This is a guest post by Darren Davis. It originally appeared on his excellent blog, Adventures in Transitland, which we encourage you to check out. It is shared by kind permission. The Northwest has always been Auckland’s public transport Cinderella, rarely invited to the public funding ball. How did ...
    Greater AucklandBy Guest Post
    4 days ago
  • The Kākā's Chorus for Tuesday July 16
    Luxon has told a Financial Times’ correspondent he would openly call out China’s spying in future and does not fear economic retaliation from Aotearoa’s largest trading partner.File Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The top six things I’ve noted around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy on Tuesday, ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    4 days ago
  • The Kākā’s Pick 'n' Mix for Tuesday, July 16
    TL;DR: My pick of the top six links elsewhere around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day or so to 6:00 am on Tuesday, July 16 are:PM Christopher Luxon has given a very hawkish interview to the Financial Times-$$$ correspondent in Washington, Demetri Sevastopulu, saying ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    4 days ago
  • The Kākā’s Journal of Record for Tuesday, July 16
    Photo by Ryunosuke Kikuno on UnsplashTL;DR: The top six announcements, speeches, reports and research around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last day to 6:00 am are:BNZ released its Performance of Services Index for June, finding that services sector is at its lowest level of activity ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    4 days ago
  • The second crisis; assumption was the mother
    Late on the night of July 16, 1984, while four National Cabinet Ministers were meeting in the Beehive office of Deputy Prime Minister Jim McLay, plotting the ultimate downfall of outgoing Prime Minister Sir Robert Muldoon, another crisis was building up in another part of the capital. The United States ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    4 days ago
  • Can we air condition our way out of extreme heat?
    This is a re-post from The Climate Brink by Andrew Dessler Air conditioning was initially a symbol of comfort and wealth, enjoyed by the wealthy in theaters and upscale homes. Over time, as technology advanced and costs decreased, air conditioning became more accessible to the general public. With global warming, though, ...
    5 days ago
  • Review: The Zimiamvian Trilogy, by E.R. Eddison (1935-1958)
    I have reviewed some fairly obscure stuff on this blog. Nineteenth century New Zealand speculative fiction. Forgotten Tolkien adaptations. George MacDonald and William Morris. Last month I took a look at The Worm Ouroboros (1922), by E.R. Eddison, which while not strictly obscure, is also not overly inviting to many ...
    5 days ago
  • Media Link: AVFA on the Trump assassination attempt.
    In this episode of “A View from Afar” Selwyn Manning and I discuss the attempt on Donald Trump’s life and its implications for the US elections. The political darkness grows. ...
    KiwipoliticoBy Pablo
    5 days ago
  • Law & Order: National Party 1, Police 0, Public -1
    What happened?Media is reporting that police have lost in their pay dispute with the Coalition Government.Some of you might remember that the police rejected Labour’s previous offer in September, 2023, possibly looking forward to be taken care of by the self-touted ‘Party of Law and Order’ - National.If you look ...
    Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tui
    5 days ago
  • Gordon Campbell on the Trump shooting and a potential hike in fees for visiting the doctor
    Having watched Donald Trump systematically exploit social grievances, urge people not to accept his election loss and incite his followers to violent insurrection… it is a bit hard to swallow the media descriptions over the past 24 hours of Trump being a “victim” of violence. More like a case of ...
    WerewolfBy lyndon
    5 days ago
  • The Kākā's Chorus for Monday July 15
    The exploitation of workers on the national fibre broadband rollout highlights once again the dark underbelly of our ‘churn and burn’ economy. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The top six things I’ve noted around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy today are:An extraordinary Steve Kilgallon investigation into ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    5 days ago
  • The Kākā’s Pick 'n' Mix for Monday, July 15
    Photo by Jessica Loaiza on UnsplashTL;DR: My pick of the top six links elsewhere around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the last three days to 9:00 am on Monday, July 15 are:Investigation: Immigration NZ refused to prosecute an alleged exploiter despite a mountain of evidence - ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    5 days ago
  • City Centre Rebuild: How Soon Is Now?
    Patrick Reynolds is deputy chair of the City Centre Advisory Panel and a director of Greater Auckland There is ongoing angst about construction disruption in the city centre. And fair enough: it’s very tough, CRL and other construction has been going on for a very long time. Like the pandemic, ...
    Greater AucklandBy Patrick Reynolds
    5 days ago
  • Peril, dismay, resolution
    This afternoon we rolled into Budapest to bring to a close our ride across Europe. We did 144 km yesterday, severe heat messages coming in from the weather app as we bounced along unformed Hungarian back roads and a road strip strewn with fallen trees from an overnight tornado. Somewhere ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    5 days ago
  • Bullet the Blue Sky
    In the locust windComes a rattle and humJacob wrestled the angelAnd the angel was overcomeYou plant a demon seedYou raise a flower of fireWe see them burnin' crossesSee the flames, higher and higherBullet the blue skyBullet the blue skyThe indelible images, the soundtrack of America. Guns, assassinations, where-were-you-when moments attached ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    5 days ago
  • The Kākā’s Journal of Record for Monday, July 15
    TL;DR: The top six announcements, rulings, reports, surveys, statistics and research around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the three days to 6:00 am on Monday, July 23 are:University of Auckland researcher Ryan Greenaway-McGrevy published an analysis of the impact of Auckland's 2016 zoning reforms.BNZ's latest Performance ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    5 days ago
  • The Kākā’s diary for the week to July 23 and beyond
    TL;DR: The six key events to watch in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy in the week to July 23 include:PM Christopher Luxon has returned from a trip to the United States and may hold a post-Cabinet news conference at 4:00 pm today.The BusinessNZ-BNZ PSI survey results for June will be released this ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    5 days ago
  • Was The Assassination Attempt Fake?
    Hi,It’s in incredible photo, and we’re going to be talking about it for a long time:Trump, triumphantly raising his hand in the air after being shot. Photo credit: Evan VucciYou can watch what happened on YouTube in real time, as a 20-year-old from Pennsylvania lets off a series of gunshots ...
    David FarrierBy David Farrier
    5 days ago
  • 40 years ago, inside the crisis that made modern NZ
    It had rained all day in Auckland, and the Metro Theatre in Mangere was steamed up inside as more and more people arrived to celebrate what had once seemed impossible. Sir Robert Muldoon had lost the 1984 election. “Piggy” Muldoon was no more. Such was the desire to get rid ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    5 days ago
  • 2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
    A listing of 34 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, July 7, 2024 thru Sat, July 13, 2024. Story of the week It's still early summer in the Northern Hemisphere. The season comes as our first year of 1.5°C warming ...
    6 days ago
  • Unsurprising, but Trump shooting creates opportunity for a surprising response
    I can’t say I’m shocked. As the US news networks offer rolling coverage dissecting the detail of today’s shooting at a Donald Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and we hear eye-witnesses trying to make sense of their trauma, the most common word being used is shock. And shocking it is. ...
    PunditBy Tim Watkin
    6 days ago
  • Escalation in the States as Trump is shot and his allies capitalize on the moment
    Snapshot summary of the shooting in the States belowAnd a time to remember what Abraham Lincoln once said of the United States of America:We find ourselves in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We ...
    Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tui
    6 days ago
  • Bernie Sanders: Joe Biden for President
    I will do all that I can to see that President Biden is re-elected. Why? Despite my disagreements with him on particular issues, he has been the most effective president in the modern history of our country and is the strongest candidate to defeat Donald Trump — a demagogue and ...
    Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tui
    6 days ago
  • Questions from God
    Have you invited God into your online life? Do you have answers for his questions? Did I just assume God’s pronouns?Before this goes any further, or gets too blasphemous, a word of explanation. When I say “God”, I don’t meant your god(s), if you have one/them. The God I speak ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    6 days ago
  • The politics of money and influence
    Did you know: Four days ago, the CEO of Warner Bros Discovery (WBD), David Zaslav, opined that he didn’t really care who won the US Presidential election, so long as they were M&A and business friendly. Please share my Substack so I can continue my work. Thank you and happy ...
    Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tui
    6 days ago
  • Auckland & Transport Minister Simeon Brown's insanity
    Excuse me, but I just don’t feel like being polite today. What is going on with Simeon Brown? I mean, really? After spending valuable Ministerial time, focus, and government resources to overturn tailored speed limits in school and high fatality zones that *checks notes* reduces the risk of deaths and ...
    Mountain TuiBy Mountain Tui
    7 days ago
  • Were scientists caught falsifying data in the hacked emails incident dubbed 'climategate'?
    Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. This fact brief was written by John Mason in collaboration with members from the Gigafact team. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline. Were scientists caught falsifying data in the ...
    7 days ago
  • What Happened to David D'Amato's Millions?
    Today’s podcast episode is for paying Webworm members — and is a conversation seven years in the making. Let me explain.Hi,As I hit “send” on this newsletter, I’m about to play my 2016 documentary Tickled to a theatre full of about 400 Webworm readers in Auckland, New Zealand.And with Tickled ...
    David FarrierBy David Farrier
    7 days ago
  • Voting as a multi-order process of choice.
    Recent elections around the world got me to thinking about voting. At a broad level, voting involves processes and choices. Embedded in both are the logics that go into “sincere” versus “tactical” voting. “Sincere” voting is usually a matter of preferred … Continue reading ...
    KiwipoliticoBy Pablo
    7 days ago
  • Women in Space.
    Count downThree twoI wonderIf I'll ever see you againI'm 'bout to take offI'm leaving youBut maybeI'll see you around somewhere some placeI just need some spaceA brief reminder that if you’re a Gold Card holder you can subscribe to Nick’s Kōrero for 20% off. You’re also welcome to use this ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    7 days ago
  • Bernard’s Saturday Soliloquy for the week to July 13
    Auckland waterfront, July. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: My top six things to note around housing, climate and poverty in Aotearoa’s political economy in the week to July 13 are:The National-ACT-NZ First Coalition Government watered down vehicle emissions standards this week, compounding the climate emissions damage from an increasingly ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    7 days ago
  • Dems need to ask the right question about Biden as his age now defines the campaign
    Midway through the news conference that many American political commentators had built up as critical to Joe Biden’s re-election chances, the US president said European leaders are not asking him not to run for a second term, “they’re saying you gotta win”.The problem for Biden and his advisors is that ...
    PunditBy Tim Watkin
    7 days ago

  • Update on global IT outage
    Acting Prime Minister David Seymour has been in contact throughout the evening with senior officials who have coordinated a whole of government response to the global IT outage and can provide an update. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has designated the National Emergency Management Agency as the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    10 hours ago
  • New Zealand, Japan renew Pacific partnership
    New Zealand and Japan will continue to step up their shared engagement with the Pacific, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.    “New Zealand and Japan have a strong, shared interest in a free, open and stable Pacific Islands region,” Mr Peters says.    “We are pleased to be finding more ways ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    15 hours ago
  • New infrastructure energises BOP forestry towns
    New developments in the heart of North Island forestry country will reinvigorate their communities and boost economic development, Regional Development Minister Shane Jones says. Mr Jones visited Kaingaroa and Kawerau in Bay of Plenty today to open a landmark community centre in the former and a new connecting road in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    17 hours ago
  • 'Pacific Futures'
    President Adeang, fellow Ministers, honourable Diet Member Horii, Ambassadors, distinguished guests.    Minasama, konnichiwa, and good afternoon, everyone.    Distinguished guests, it’s a pleasure to be here with you today to talk about New Zealand’s foreign policy reset, the reasons for it, the values that underpin it, and how it ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    18 hours ago
  • Delivering 24 hour pothole repairs
    Kiwis and freight operators will benefit from the Coalition Government delivering on its commitment to introduce targets that will ensure a greater number of potholes on our state highways are identified and fixed within 24 hours, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.  “Increasing productivity to help rebuild our economy is a key ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    21 hours ago
  • Peer Support Specialists rolled out in hospitals
    Five hospitals have been selected to trial a new mental health and addiction peer support service in their emergency departments as part of the Government’s commitment to increase access to mental health and addiction support for New Zealanders, says Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey.  “Peer Support Specialists in EDs will ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Consultation opens for the Emissions Reduction Plan
    The Government’s draft Emissions Reduction Plan shows we can stay within the limits of the first two emissions budgets while growing the economy, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says. “This draft Emissions Reduction Plan shows that with effective climate change policies we can both grow the economy and deliver our ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Benefit stats highlight need for welfare reset
    The coalition Government is providing extra support for job seekers to ensure as many Kiwis as possible are in work or preparing for work, Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston says. “While today’s quarterly data showing a rise in the number of people on Jobseeker benefits has been long ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • School attendance continues to increase
    Provisional school attendance data for Term 2 2024 released today has shown more students are back in class compared to last year, with 53.1 per cent of students regularly attending, compared with 47 per cent in Term 2 2023, Associate Education Minister David Seymour says. “The Government has prioritised student ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • $22.7m of West Coast resilience projects underway
    Transport Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed news of progress being made by the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) on the first of several crucial resilience projects underway on the South Island’s West Coast.“State highways across the West Coast are critical lifelines for communities throughout the region, including for freight and tourism. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Migrant school leavers to get part-time work rights
    The coalition Government is providing migrant school leavers with greater opportunities, by increasing access to part-time work rights for those awaiting the outcome of a family residence application, Immigration Minister Erica Stanford has announced.  “Many young people who are part of a family residence application process are unable to work. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Funding to support use of NZ Sign Language
    Seven projects have received government funding totalling nearly $250,000 to maintain and promote the use of New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL). Initiatives that received an NZSL Board Community Grants this year include camps that support the use of NZSL through physical and sensory activities, and clubs where Deaf people and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Inflation data shows progress in economic recovery
    Today’s Consumer Price Index data which has inflation at 3.3 per cent for the year to July 2024, shows we are turning our economy around and winning the fight against rampant inflation, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says.  “While today’s data will be welcome news for Kiwis, I know many New ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Experts to advise Minister on Oranga Tamariki
    The Oranga Tamariki Ministerial Advisory Board has been re-established by the Minister for Children, Karen Chhour. “I look forward to working with the new board to continue to ensure Oranga Tamariki and the care and protection system, are entirely child centric,” Minister Chhour says. “The board will provide independent advice ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Expectations set for improved medicines access
    Associate Health Minister David Seymour says he has set clear expectations for Pharmac around delivering the medicines and medical technology that Kiwis need.  “For many New Zealanders, funding for pharmaceuticals is life or death, or the difference between a life of pain and suffering or living freely. New cancer medicines ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Regional Development Minister to host summits
    Regional Development Minister Shane Jones will hold a series of nationwide summits to discuss regional priorities, aspirations and opportunities, with the first kicking off in Nelson on August 12. The 15 summits will facilitate conversations about progressing regional economic growth and opportunities to drive productivity, prosperity and resilience through the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Government delivers new school for Rolleston
    The Coalition Government is addressing growing demands on Canterbury’s school network, by delivering a new primary school in Rolleston, Education Minister Erica Stanford says. Within Budget 24’s $400 million investment into school property growth, construction will begin on a new primary school (years 1-8) in Selwyn, Canterbury.  Rolleston South Primary ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • New speed camera signs to improve safety
    The Government is welcoming the rollout of new speed camera signs for fixed speed cameras to encourage drivers to check their speeds, improving road safety and avoiding costly speeding tickets, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “Providing Kiwis with an opportunity to check their speed and slow down in high crash areas ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • NZ, Korea strengthen relationship
    New Zealand and the Republic of Korea continue to strengthen their relationship, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.   “New Zealand and Korea have a long history – from New Zealand soldiers fighting in the Korean War, through to our strong cooperation today as partners supporting the international rules-based order.    ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Investing for future growth in tourism and hospitality
    The Government is moving forward with recommendations from the Tourism Data Leadership Group, beginning with establishing a Tourism Data Partnership Fund says Tourism and Hospitality Minister Matt Doocey. “The Tourism Data Partnership Fund is funded through the International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy (IVL) and will provide up to $400,000 ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • 4000 more job seekers to get case managers
    A new over-the-phone employment case management service will see thousands more job seekers under the age of 25 supported to find work, Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston has announced. “MSD case managers provide valuable support to help people into work, but less than a third of those receiving ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Trade Minister to attend G7 meeting in Italy
    Trade Minister Todd McClay will attend the Group of Seven (G7) Trade Ministers meeting in Reggio Calabria, Italy next week. This is the first time New Zealand has been invited to join the event, which will be attended by some of the world’s largest economies and many of New Zealand’s ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Ministers reveal consequences for unruly Kāinga Ora tenants
    Ministers are pleased to see Kāinga Ora taking a stronger approach to managing unruly, threatening or abusive tenants, Housing Minister Chris Bishop and Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka say.    “For far too long, a small number of Kāinga Ora tenants have ridden roughshod over their neighbours because, under Kāinga ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Prime Minister wraps up US visit in California
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has finished a successful four-day visit to the United States with meetings in California on his final day focusing on innovation and investment.  “It has been fantastic to be in San Francisco today seeing first-hand the deepening links between New Zealand and California. “New Zealand company, EV Maritime, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Prime Minister leads Indo-Pacific Four at NATO
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon today chaired a meeting of the Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) countries – Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand. The IP4 met in the context of NATO’s Summit in Washington DC hosted by President Biden. “Prosperity is only possible with security,” Mr Luxon says. “We need ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • District Court judges appointed
    Attorney-General Hon Judith Collins today announced the appointment of three new District Court Judges.   The appointees, who will take up their roles in July and August at the Manukau, Rotorua and Invercargill courts, are:   Matthew Nathan Judge Nathan was admitted to bar in New Zealand in 2021, having previously been ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Urgent review into Wairoa flood response begins
    Environment Minister, Penny Simmonds today announced the terms of reference for a rapid review into the Wairoa flood response. “The Wairoa community has raised significant concerns about the management of the Wairoa River bar and the impact this had on flooding of properties in the district,” says Ms Simmonds. “The Government ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • NZDF’s Red Sea deployment extended
    New Zealand has extended its contribution to the US-led coalition working to uphold maritime security in the Red Sea, Defence Minister Judith Collins and Foreign Minister Winston Peters announced today. “The decision to extend this deployment is reflective of the continued need to partner and act in line with New ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government provides support to tackle tax debt and compliance
    New compliance funding in Budget 2024 will ensure Inland Revenue is better equipped to catch individuals who are evading their tax obligations, Revenue Minister Simon Watts says. “New Zealand’s tax debt had risen to almost $7.4 billion by the end of May, an increase of more than 50 per cent since 2022. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Taking action to reduce road cones
    The Coalition Government is taking action to reduce expenditure on road cones and temporary traffic management (TTM) while maintaining the safety of workers and road users, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.  Rolling out a new risk-based approach to TTM that will reduce the number of road cones on our roads.  ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Celebrating 100 years of progress
    Te Arawa Lakes Trust centenary celebrations mark a significant milestone for all the important work done for the lakes, the iwi and for the Bay of Plenty region, says Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti and Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka. The minister spoke at a commemorative event acknowledging 100 years ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Foreign Minister to travel to Korea and Japan
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters will travel to the Republic of Korea and Japan next week.    “New Zealand enjoys warm and enduring relationships with both Korea and Japan. Our relationships with these crucial partners is important for New Zealand’s ongoing prosperity and security,” says Mr Peters.    While in the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government creates MAG for retail crime victims
    The coalition Government is establishing a Ministerial Advisory Group for the victims of retail crime, as part of its plan to restore law and order, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith and Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee says.  “New Zealand has seen an exponential growth in retail crime over the past five ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Huge opportunity for educators and students as charter school applications open
    Associate Education Minister David Seymour says today is another important step towards establishing charter schools, with the application process officially opening.  “There has already been significant interest from groups and individuals interested in opening new charter schools or converting existing state schools to charter schools,” says Mr Seymour. “There is ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Decreasing gas reserves data highlights need to reverse oil and gas exploration ban
    MBIE’s annual Petroleum Reserves report detailing a 20 per cent reduction in New Zealand’s natural gas reserves shows the need to reverse the oil and gas exploration ban, Energy Minister Simeon Brown says.“Figures released by MBIE show that there has been a 20 per cent reduction in New Zealand’s natural ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Providers of military assistance to Russia targeted in new sanctions
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has announced further sanctions as part of the Government’s ongoing response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.    “Russia’s continued illegal war of aggression against Ukraine is a direct and shocking assault on the rules-based order. Our latest round of sanctions targets Russians involved in that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • OECD report shows New Zealand is a red tape state
    Minister for Regulation David Seymour says that the OECD Product Market Regulation Indicators (PMRI) released this morning shows why New Zealanders sorely need regulatory reform. “This shocker result should end any and all doubt that the Government must go to war on red tape and regulation,” says Mr Seymour.  “The ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government unveils five-point climate strategy
    The coalition Government is proud to announce the launch of its Climate Strategy, a comprehensive and ambitious plan aimed at reducing the impacts of climate change and preparing for its future effects, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says. “The Strategy is built on five core pillars and underscores the Government’s ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • National Bowel Screening Programme reaches 2 million life-saving screening kits
    The National Bowel Screening Programme has reached a significant milestone, with two million home bowel screening kits distributed across the country, Health Minister Dr Shane Reti announced today.   “This programme, which began in 2017, has detected 2,495 cancers as of June 2024. A third of these were at an early ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Granny flats popular with all ages
    More than 1,300 people have submitted on the recent proposal to make it easier to build granny flats, RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk say. “The strong response shows how popular the proposal is and how hungry the public is for common sense changes to make ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

Page generated in The Standard by Wordpress at 2024-07-19T21:03:59+00:00