Are the reporters being obtuse, or trying hard to push an anti-union agenda to keep funding. This is why I’ve stopped listening.
Bad blood continues after junior doctors pay deal finalised. The DHBs' Julie Patterson, says they only settled to prevent more strikes. pic.twitter.com/b28PWEbsnl
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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”
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?
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.
> 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.
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?
“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.
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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?
“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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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),
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.”
“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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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?
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).
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.
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?)
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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),
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,
We are pleased to release our 7th and final major policy – “The Unconditional Basic Income and Thriving Families” https://t.co/THbZXWZaJu
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
by The Council of Disobedient Women In a press release today Massey University announced it has decided to rebrand and reorientate after struggling to be a University for grown-ups. For some time the University has wanted to be a safe play space for wee-woke-misogynists who have been really badly triggered ...
After a brief dalliance with 'hard Revoke' it looks like the Lib Dems are changing ground on on Brexit, with leader Jo Swinson reverting to calling for a second referendum on Johnson's deal.The party has tabled an amendment to the Queen’s speech requesting that any deal brought back from Brussels ...
The government has decided that someone has done Something Bad. But despite their belief, there seems to be no evidence that they have actually broken the law. So the government's solution is to pass a retrospective law allowing them to be punished anyway, on a lower standard of proof. If ...
So, Judith Collins has done a Facebook rant about climate change, peddling the same shit National has been shovelling for the past twenty years: the impacts are overstated, there's no need to do anything about it, and its too hard anyway (oh, and its so unfair that people who peddle ...
Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nzThere is a lot of discussion on the benefits of ...
I came across this song quite by accident. If it isn't one of Greta Thunberg's favourites - it should be.Video courtesy of YouTube.This post is exclusive to Bowalley Road. ...
Last month, NZDF's shoddy coverup of what it knew about civilian casualties in Operation Burnham began to fall apart, with the revelation that a report on the matter, which NZDF claimed not to have, had been sitting in an NZDF safe for the past nine years. Yesterday, the man responsible ...
While many imagine that countries like the USA and Europe dominate space activities, in fact India is now a major player on this stage. It launches satellites for its own purposes and also commercially, and has constellations orbiting our planet and returning data of vital importance to that nation in ...
Thanks to a report from the Acting Inspector General of Intelligence and Security following a complaint by Nicky Hager, we have come to find out that the SIS illegally spied on Mr. Hager on behalf of the NZDF after publication of Hager’s 2011 book, Other People’s Wars. The NZDF justified ...
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate. FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, ...
For the past week, Extinction Rebellion has been peacefully protesting in London to demand action on climate change. The British government's response? Ban their protests:Police have banned Extinction Rebellion protests from continuing anywhere in London, as they moved in almost without warning to clear protesters who remained at the movement’s ...
An essay by Judith Collins MP reported on Carbon News yesterday seems to show an alarming shift in attitude within the National Party. Collins argues against the Zero Carbon Bill, the Paris Agreement, and downplays the magnitude of climate impacts. The Paris Agreement was adopted in December 2015 and ratified ...
When they were running for election, Labour promised to overhaul the Employment Relations Act and introduce fair pay agreements to set basic pay and conditions on an industry level, preventing bad employers from undercutting good ones. They followed this up by establishing a working group, which reported back in January ...
A list of indicators of bad science – many of these are found in articles promoted by anti-fluoride activists. Anti-fluoride activists have been pouring money into a scaremongering campaign warning pregnant women not to drink fluoridated water. They claim fluoride will lower the IQ of their future child. Fluoride ...
Nothing Left To Say: Labour's pollster, Stephen Mills, remains swaddled-up in the comforting myths of the 1980s. As if the experience of Roger Douglas’s genuinely radical post-Muldoon policy agenda was literally a once-in-a-lifetime thing – as much as the party could possibly absorb for at least the next 50 years.MEMO ...
The Royal Commission on abuse in care is very significant for the disability community. For many decades last century, thousands of disabled children, and adults who managed to survive, were locked away from families and communities. This was not for anything they had done, but for the perceived threat their ...
With an unfair voting system, uneven electorates and an un-elected upper house, the UK's "democracy" is barely worthy of the name. But now the government wants to make it worse:The government has been accused of suppressing voters’ rights with the potential disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of people after plans ...
Back in the 90's and early 2000's, the building industry was building leaky homes which should never have been granted consent. Now it turns out they've been building dodgy office blocks as well:New imaging technology has revealed hundreds of major buildings nationwide have defective or missing concrete or reinforcing steel. ...
Local body election results were released over the weekend, to joy or despair depending on where you live. In Auckland, Phil Goff trounced John Tamihere, who is muttering darkly about running for Parliament again (but which party would want him?) Wellington is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Weta Workshop, except ...
How could government evolve over the next decades? Reports of democracy’s imminent demise are greatly exaggerated. However, satisfaction with political systems in many countries is low, so there is much to do for governments of all political stripes to improve relevance and trust. Digital technologies are seen as one ...
Two years have now gone by since the Friday afternoon when my university-student son and I headed out of our Barcelona flat to a nearby primary school, designated as a polling station for the vote that was to be held the following Sunday: the referendum on Catalonia’s independence from Spain ...
Overruled: The joint decision of Finance Minister, Grant Robertson (Labour) and his Associate Minister, David Parker (Labour) arguably the two most powerful ministers in Jacinda Ardern’s government, to grant OceanaGold the consents which Land Information Minister, Eugenie Sage (Greens) had earlier denied them, offers bitter proof of how hard fighting ...
More than double the number of people who will vote in this year’s local body elections have tried marijuana or urinated somewhere they shouldn’t have. As local elections look set for the lowest turnout in decades, with many regions falling well short of 40%, the Government is exploring a number ...
A Statement on Abortion Law Reform by the Council of Disobedient Women On the eve of bringing an end to antiquated, anti-women abortion laws Green MP Jan Logie intends to write women out of the Bill. With a stroke of the pen, the woke are aiming for total erasure ...
Musings continue apace about “the experienced businessman!” soon to be taking up a National Party MP position. Or to be more accurate, being parachuted into a seat to shut down their former MP Jamie-Lee Ross, who despite his own shortcomings shed at least some more light on the inner workings ...
The Ugandan government wants to murder gay people:Uganda has announced plans to impose the death penalty on homosexuals. The bill, colloquially known as “Kill the Gays” in Uganda, was nullified five years ago on a technicality, but the government said on Thursday it plans to resurrect it within weeks. The ...
Freedom Of Speech? The Säuberung (cleansing by fire) was the work of the German Student Union which, on 10 May 1933, under the watchful eye of the Nazi Reichminister for Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, consigned 25,000 books to the flames in a ritual exorcism of “un-German thought”. According to the logic of the ...
“There can be no such thing as kaupapa Māori political parties or politics in Aotearoa” (Willie Jackson, Labour Party (2017). Māori TV, General/List Election Special) I begin with that claim because at the time, I was confounded at first that it fell out of Willie Jackson’s mouth, and then ...
New Zealand has prided itself for decades with regard to its lack of pollution, and all will be aware that the ‘100% Pure New Zealand‘ meme is under threat through land, water and air pollution of various causes. There is another type of contamination that the country also faces: light ...
New Zealand’s media is doing its part in Japan, reassuring those in the path of the storm that they won’t miss any rugby while away from their flooded homes. New Zealand sports reporters stationed in Japan for the Rugby World Cup have had the rare and heartwarming opportunity to inform ...
Regional Development Minister Shane Jones is the only Cabinet member in favour of putting it all on green. As Finance Minister Grant Robertson finds himself with an enormous $7.5 billion surplus, the Government has begun intense, at times contentious conversations about whether to put the money on red or black at ...
by Susanne Kemp At the start of September close to 100,000 school teachers went on strike in Jordan. They demanded a 50% pay rise. A pay rise actually agreed to by the regime back in 2014. In early October, however, in the face of government repression and threats, the teachers’ ...
Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nzWhy do people still think climate change isn’t real?David ...
Back in 2011, journalist Nicky Hager published Other People's Wars, an expose on NZDF's activities over the previous decade of the "war on terror". NZDF didn't like this, and especially didn't like the fact that it was base don leaks from their own. So, they had the SIS investigate him ...
The Zero Carbon Bill is due back from select committee in two weeks, and will likely pass its final stages in November. So naturally, farmers are planning a hate-march against it. But they're not just demanding lower methane targets so they can keep on destroying the planet; they're also demanding ...
Last year, California burned. This year, to stop it happening again (or rather, to stop themselves from being found liable if it happens again), Pacific Gas and Electric is cutting power to half the state for a week:Schools are closed. Traffic lights down. Tunnels dark. Businesses unopened. Hospitals running on ...
The Best Way: Missing from the on-line voting debate is any reference to the voting system that produces turn-out figures ranging from 77 to 93 percent of registered voters. The voting system used to collect and count the votes cast in our parliamentary elections. The system that involves citizens making ...
Among the great new bunch of political friends we have been making recently is the excellent Australian-based Marxist gender-critical site, Freer Lives. So we asked the comrade who set up that blog to write something for Redline on the blog, himself, his analysis of the rise of gender politics and ...
by Don Franks The Auckland City Mission is struggling with a 40 percent increase in demand for food parcels this year. A total of 23,020 were needed by June. Last month Missioner Chris Farrelly told the Herald the “cupboards are bare” and without an emergency food drive, he can’t see ...
by The Council of Disobedient Women Massey Wellington Student Association had a sit-in today. Imagine a sit-in. On a campus. Against a women’s rights meeting. Did the ’60s really happen or did we fucking dream it? They gathered in the student square, an echo chamber. Sitting on soft pillows ...
For some reasons, my post about the mystery message from inside the Downing Street bunker seemed to catch people's attention. Quite a lot of hits from NZ (unsurprisingly) and the USA (a bit more puzzlingly, but hi there, USAians!!) and 76 views from the Ukraine.I've celebrated my Ukrainian readers in ...
First, almost a score of Labour MPs seem to have sent a letter to the EU basically begging them to accept a deal - any deal - just so Britain can get the Heck on with Brexiting instead of being trapped in limbo:
by Phil Duncan In 2016 the National-led government suspended the Parent Visa Category, through which migrants were able to bring their parents into New Zealand. Since then over 5,700 people have been in immigration limbo, stuck on the visa wait list. Labour is now bringing back the scheme. Well, sort ...
The following was released yesterday (Tues, October 8) by the women’s liberation organisation Speak Up for Women. On 23 September Speak Up For Women announced that we would be holding an event at the Massey University Theaterette in Wellington. The event is called Feminism 2020. The intention of the event ...
The government is currently consulting on plans to improve freshwater quality. So naturally, farmers oppose it:South Taranaki farmers are preparing to fight proposed national freshwater changes that some fear will bankrupt them. The Government's proposed National Environment Standard on Freshwater Management, released in September, rated the Waingongoro River as one ...
Yesterday was the last day for (reliably) posting your vote away in local body elections. Turnouts are mostly much lower than the equivalent time last year (Palmerston North is down 2.3%), and so naturally people are pushing their online-voting snake oil again. Because the online census worked so well, lets ...
This essay, on the political legacy of the eugenics movement, by Kenan Malik was originally published in the Observer on 6 October 2019, under the headline ‘The spirit of eugenics is still with us, as immigrants know to their cost’. Birth control. Intelligence tests. Town planning. Immigration controls. It’s striking how ...
Another year, and the government has announced another enormous government "surplus". And just like last year, its nothing of the sort. When we have people homeless and sick and hungry, when we have schools and hospitals still falling down, when we have underpaid public servants and infrastucture unmaintained or unbuilt, ...
James Forsyth at The Spectator (I know, I know) has tapped one of his contacts inside Number Ten for an insight into the Johnson administration's thinking and strategy.It is fascinating, unsettling and quite, quite mad. Some key points:Negotiations have stalled and the Johnson administration are keen to blame the EU: ...
Fatal Contact: With the arrival of captain James Cook in October 1769, the islands of what would become New Zealand ceased to be the preserve of Polynesian navigators and settlers and became a part of both the world’s map and the world’s history.THE MAORI NATIONALIST assault upon the historical meaning ...
Another round of tactical talks about forming a Government of National Unity have come to nothing with the Liberal Democrats still refusing countenance putting Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street:Opposition talks on Monday made little headway over when to try and vote down Boris Johnson's government and who might succeed him as ...
by Nick Rogers The debate around the meaning of sex and gender made an appearance at this year’s British Labour Party conference in Brighton. Women’s Place UK – an organisation that questions the demand that biological males who self-identify as woman should have access to women’s spaces, to all-women shortlists, ...
Yesterday I went down to Wellington to participate in the Extinction Rebellion protest. Its part of the latest global wave of XR actions, with actions happening all over the world. Some of those protests are massively disruptive: in Canada, XR is blocking major bridges, stopping people from getting to work. ...
The Workshop is a charitable trust for public good. The Workshop undertake research to find ways of communicating that will build support for the solutions that work to solve complex social and environmental problems. See their Report on Talking about Poverty and Welfare Reform below. ...
What is language? We generally assume that it a facility unique to humans, allowing us to share what’s in and on our minds. We can tell of our plans, our past exploits, our knowledge. It also allows us to lie. And yet there are vast numbers of people we can’t ...
Being and Being Bought (Spinifex Press, 2013) by Kajsa Ekis Ekman A synopsis and commentary of Chapters 1-2 by Daphna Whitmore Ekman, a Swedish journalist and critic, brings together a Marxist and feminist analysis of prostitution and surrogacy in this groundbreaking book She opens the discussion with a definition of ...
I make no claims to having much legal knowledge, so I defer to those trained in this area.I am very much enjoying this twitter stream from m'learned friend in Edinburgh, deciphering the legal arguments around the Scottish court challenge to Boris Johnson, based on the charmingly obscure principle of Nobile ...
Ivory Folly? The University of Auckland’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor Stuart McCutcheon, upheld the right of the radical nationalist group, Action Zealandia to exercise their freedom of speech – not matter how distasteful that speech might be. A wiser community of students and scholars would have nodded their agreement and moved on. ...
If you are not convinced terrorist Organisation ‘Extinction Rebellion’ is very, very dangerous – watch this video at one of their recent meetings. Not only is this obviously mentally ill Woman begging the other terrorists to promote killing and “eating” babies and children, if you watch carefully other members nod ...
The Ombudsman has been surveying people about their knowledge of the OIA and the right to information. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that widespread:The Chief Ombudsman says too many New Zealanders were in the dark over their right to access official information. Peter Boshier said an independent survey released yesterday on ...
In the wake of last Friday's climate strike, Peter McKenzie had an article in The Spinoff about protest strategies. The school strike movement is "polite" and cooperates with those in power because that's its kaupapa - its led by schoolkids who understandably don't want to risk arrest. But there's more ...
So, the latest ruminations on the gnews from Westminster (Again, sorry; I'll stop making that pun right now). This follows on from, and likely repeats bits of, my last post, on the suggestion that a Government of National Unity (GNU) should be set up and then oversee a referendum before ...
New Zealand likes to think of itself as not a racist country (despite being founded on the racist dispossession and subjugation of Maori). But for years, we've had a racist refugee policy, which basicly excludes refugees from Africa and the Middle East unless they already have relatives here. Now, the ...
Several people have asked me whether a particular repeat litigant could be declared a vexatious litigant, in light of their recent decision to appeal an adverse High Court ruling. My nascent tweet thread was getting ridiculously long, so it became this blog post instead.The short answer is: no. The particular ...
Appealing To The Past: Action Zealandia, like so many of the organisations springing up on the far-Right, across what they call the “Anglosphere”, is born out of the profound confusion over what a man is supposed to be in the twenty-first century and, more importantly, what he is supposed to do.THE STATUE OF ...
The attempts of anti-democratic transactivists to (often violently) disrupt women’s rights organising is largely ignored by those sections of the left most prone to misogyny and authoritarianism in New Zealand. In Britain, however, scores of trade union and left activists added their names to a letter in July, defending ...
The Justice Committee has reported back on the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill. The Bill would establish an independent, quasi-judicial body to investigate and review potential miscarriages of justice, and refer them back to the Court of appeal if required. It would be a vital backstop to our judiciary, help ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters is predicting a hard Brexit for the United Kingdom, as he believes British Prime Minister Boris Johnson won’t be able to negotiate terms before the October 30 deadline. The Minister, who was one of the first to publicly come out and predict British voters would leave ...
Speaking at the Council of Trade Unions' (CTU) biennial conference, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters told unionists that any future attacks on the Government won't work. "Now, we are being attacked by the union movement in this country. You can have your views but I'm here to say standing ...
We want every New Zealander to be happy, safe, and healthy. To do this, we need to support strong, safe communities, and a robust and efficient health system. ...
Defence Minister Ron Mark has used his powers to overrule a noise complaint ruling against Whenuapai airbase on the grounds of "national security". The Environment Court last month released a ruling in favour of a private developer, declaring the Auckland airbase had to comply with noise restrictions when it performs ...
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has opened fire against "unreconstructed morons" after NZ First MP Shane Jones was photographed on holiday holding an AR-15 rifle. Mr Peters is defending Mr Jones, telling Magic Talk host Peter Williams that his MP was just having fun "like most people do". "The ...
New Zealand First Deputy Leader and Under-Secretary for Regional Economic Development Fletcher Tabuteau was in attendance during the morning blessing of the Rotorua Lakefront development project. Around 60 people gathered on the shores of Lake Rotorua, including city mayor Steve Chadwick and deputy Dave Donaldson. The Lakefront development is a ...
Forestry Minister Shane Jones is considering reining in on conversions of farmland to forestry, and also issued a warning to foreign-owned forestry companies that make up nearly 75 per cent of the industry. He said too many foreign companies had not provided enough access for domestic processors to get timber. ...
Speaking to Radio NZ, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said the tightening of the parental category visa is a direct result of the Party’s coalition negotiations with the Labour Party. He said the new changes switch the financial onus from the parent moving to New Zealand to the child ...
The Coalition Government is set to cut red tape in the building and construction sector in an effort to allow more houses to be built, including prefabricated houses. The changes will enable the mass factory production of "high quality" buildings, slash the likely number of building inspections for factory produced ...
Since coming into Government, we’ve worked hard to tackle homelessness and make sure everyone has a warm, dry home. And today, on World Homeless Day, we want to report back and update you on our progress so far. ...
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has hit back at National Party leader Simon Bridges who criticized the Coalition Government’s approach to crime, and said that the latter isn't credible in his attack on the Government over gang recruitment. "We've got as massive drug problem in this country. It is ...
New Zealand Mānuka honey exporters have welcomed an initiative by the Coalition Government to help secure the term “mānuka honey” to be used exclusively by Kiwi exporters, ensuring that our multimillion-dollar industry is protected. Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones had recently announced that a Provincial Growth Funding of $5.7 ...
Political commentator Mike Hosking has labelled New Zealand First leader Winston Peters as “the voice of reason in a government soft on drugs”, for the Party’s stance on drug testing at music festivals. “If common sense is worth a vote, Winston Peters is quids in,” Mr Hosking said. The Labour ...
Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Regional Economic Development Fletcher Tabuteau has announced Provincial Growth Funding to ensure work opportunities in Turangi and Whanganui, through its skills and employment programme, Te Ara Mahi. A fund of $500,000 will go to Rafting NZ in Turangi for a 16-week river guide training course to train ...
Treasury has shown that the Coalition Government has a $7.5 billion surplus, which is $4 billion higher than what was expected in the 2019 Budget unveiled last May. It is also $2 billion higher than the actual surplus unveiled this time last year, and at a size that has not ...
Official Information Act figures released to NZME show there were 350 assaults on officers in the year to the end of June, 79 more than the year before. The increase in attacks have sparked calls for more legal protection for first responders to be enacted. The assaults included officers being ...
“Nobody wants to see babies uplifted”, this was the pronouncement of Minister for Children Hon. Tracey Martin as her department, Oranga Tamariki, faces multiple inquiries into the number of babies being taken from their families. “But a baby can die with a single punch, “the Minister continued. “So sometimes, Oranga ...
We're making progress on tackling the long-term challenges: from homelessness, to strengthening border security, to bringing banking back New Zealand's small towns. ...
Associate Transport Minister Shane Jones has backed the ambitious plan to move Auckland’s port to Northport, at Whangarei harbour, which he says will be the “King Kong of infrastructure”. The plan is part of the recommendations of a six-person independent working group, which has recommended the Ports of Auckland be ...
A six-member independent working group selected the option of moving Auckland’s port to Northport, in Whangarei, ahead of other options. In what could be New Zealand’s most ambitious infrastructure project yet, a major expansion of the Marsden Point port could happen within 15 years. The project, officially called the “Upper ...
The final Electricity Price Review recommended prohibiting prompt payment discounts but allowing “reasonable” late fees. The findings of this review was welcomed by the Coalition Government, but they hope companies will follow through with its recommendations without regulations needed to be passed. Meridian Energy had already stopped prompt payment discounts, ...
Fletcher Tabuteau, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Regional Economic Development The Provincial Growth Fund (PGF)through its skills and employment programme, Te Ara Mahi,will invest nearly $600,000 to ensure work opportunities for locals in Turangia and Whanganui, Parliamentary Under Secretary for Regional Economic Development Fletcher Tabuteau announced today. “I’m pleased to announce the PGF ...
An export-led economy is one of New Zealand First’s key principles, and our commitment to achieving this is shown by the continuing skyrocketing demand for our beef and sheep meat exports. Beef + Lamb New Zealand's New Season Outlook 2019-20 report forecasts beef, lamb and mutton prices to lift from ...
Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones announced today in Gisborne an investment of $17.27m into bringing “world-leading” food-growing technology and the creation of more than 100 new jobs in the East Coast city. The funding comes from the Provincial Growth Fund, and included a $15 million loan to LeaderBrand, a ...
Hon Shane Jones, Minister for Regional Economic Development More than 100 people in Tairāwhiti’s Tolaga Bay will benefit from two employment initiatives supported by the Provincial Growth Fund, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones and Employment Minister Willie Jackson announced today. “Tolaga Bay is an incredibly tight-knit community, but one in ...
Hon Shane Jones, Minister for Regional Economic Development The Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) is supporting Gisborne business Leaderbrand to produce salad vegetables year round and create more jobs in the Tairāwhiti region, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones announced today. “Our support for Leaderbrand will help them build large greenhouses ...
“Nobody wants to see babies uplifted”, this was the pronouncement of Minister for Children Hon. Tracey Martin as her department, Oranga Tamariki, faces multiple inquiries into the number of babies being taken from their families. “But a baby can die with a single punch, “the Minister continued. “So sometimes, Oranga ...
Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones has praised the promise by New Zealand’s biggest banks not to close any provincial branches while the Coalition Government trials regional banking hubs across the country. The Minister said the announce was the “first sign of hope for regional communities”, many of which have ...
Rt Hon Winston Peters, New Zealand First Leader New Zealand First is proud to have delivered an upgrade of the SuperGold Card website and a new smartphone app, which will help unlock the full benefits of the SuperGold Card for 750,000 New Zealand seniors.Party Leader Rt Hon Winston Peters, ...
Delivering a key election campaign promise, New Zealand First is proud to have accomplished a long overdue upgrade of the SuperGold Card today. At an event in Auckland, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters joined Minister for Seniors Hon. Tracey Martin in unveiling the new website and smartphone app which ...
Another busy week, from speaking with world leaders on the world stage about climate change, to equipping our school leavers with everything they need to get ahead in life. ...
At 1.30pm tomorrow, hundreds of thousands of Kiwis will join about 65 million people around the globe in ShakeOut, the world’s biggest earthquake drill. The annual drill is to remind people of the right action to take during an earthquake which is to Drop, Cover, Hold, and to practise their ...
Kiwis are benefiting from higher wage growth and low inflation under the Coalition Government. Stats NZ data out today shows the rise in the cost of living remains low, as annual Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation fell to 1.5% in September from 1.7% in June. “The low inflation comes as ...
New Zealand’s economic strength and resilience has been recognised in a major update on the state of the global economy. The IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook released overnight shows a reduced global growth forecast over the next two years as issues like the US-China trade war and Brexit take hold. ...
Justice Minister Andrew Little has today introduced a new Bill to prevent terrorism and support the de-radicalisation of New Zealanders returning from overseas. The Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill gives the New Zealand Police the ability to apply to the High Court to impose control orders on New Zealanders who ...
A Bill that proposes targeted changes to simplify the processes for Māori land owners when engaging with the Māori Land Court has had its First Reading today. “The approach taken by the Government is to ensure that the protection of Māori land remains a priority as we seek to improve ...
Let me first thank all the new unionists and members in the room. There is nothing more important to improving people’s working lives than people making the decision to care, to get on board and help, to take up the reins and get involved. Congratulations to you. You bring the ...
Minister of Defence Ron Mark has signed a certificate exempting the activity of engine testing at Whenuapai Airbase from the Resource Management Act 1991. The Act gives the Minister of Defence the power to exempt activities for the purposes of national security. The certificate will mean the recent Environment Court ...
Finance Minister Grant Robertson has announced New Zealand will join the Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action while attending APEC meetings in Chile. The objective of the 39 member Coalition is to share information and promote action to tackle climate change. It was formed in April this year, in ...
Ladies and gentlemen, NZCTU President Richard Wagstaff, members of respective unions – thank you for the invitation to speak to you today. This might be preaching to the choir, but the importance of trade unions in New Zealand’s historical arch is difficult to understate. And it is my belief that ...
"Let’s start by acknowledging that it has been a huge year. " Police Association Annual Conference James Cook Grand Chancellor Hotel Wellington Nau mai, haere mai. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ka nui te mihi, ki a koutou katoa. President of the Police Association, Chris Cahill; Members of the Association and ...
Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters and Minister of Defence Ron Mark have announced the New Zealand Government’s decision to again deploy a Royal New Zealand Air Force P-3K2 (P-3) maritime patrol aircraft to support the implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions imposing sanctions against North Korea. New ...
Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters says New Zealand continues to have serious concerns for peace and stability in north-east Syria. “Recent reports that hundreds of ISIS-affiliated families have fled from a camp are deeply concerning from a humanitarian and security perspective”, Mr Peters says. “While we acknowledge Turkey’s domestic security ...
Biosecurity Minister Damien O’Connor is warning travelling Kiwis to be vigilant as the high-season for the crop-eating brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) is under way. “We’re on high alert to stop BMSB arriving in NZ. The high season runs until April 30 and we’ve strengthened our measures to stop stink ...
The Government is moving swiftly to change the law to improve the welfare and pastoral care of students living in university halls of residence and other tertiary hostels. Cabinet has agreed to several changes, including creating a new mandatory Code of Practice that sets out the duty of pastoral care ...
The Minister for Conservation Eugenie Sage has launched a new comprehensive trapping guide for community trappers to help them protect our native birds, plants and other wildlife, at Zealandia in Wellington today. ‘A practical guide to trapping’, has been developed by the Department of Conservation (DOC), and was launched during ...
Associate Health Minister Julie Anne Genter welcomes PHARMAC’s move to improve access to long-acting reversible contraception (LARCs). PHARMAC has today announced it will fund the full cost of Mirena and Jaydess for anyone seeking long term contraception, lifting previous restrictions on access to Mirena. “I welcome women having greater choices ...
The Government has approved the next stage of a major redevelopment of Taranaki Base Hospital, which will deliver new and improved facilities for patients. Health Minister Dr David Clark has announced details of a $300 million dollar project to build a new East Wing at the New Plymouth hospital. It ...
Extra funding will allow Rural Support Trusts to help farming families, says Minister for Rural Communities and Agriculture Damien O’Connor. “I know that rural families are worried about some of the challenges facing them, including the ongoing uncertainty created by the Mycoplasma bovis outbreak. “Those concerns sit alongside ongoing worries ...
Thank you for the opportunity to be here to present certificates to the 16 graduates who have completed a beekeeping course delivered by the Howard League. Let us start by acknowledging Auckland Prison’s Deputy Prison Director Tom Sherlock, and Acting Assistant Regional Commissioner of Corrections Northern Region Scott Walker - ...
Finance Minister Grant Robertson leaves this weekend to attend the APEC Finance Ministers meeting in Santiago, Chile. Discussions between APEC Finance Ministers at the meeting will include the effects of the current global economic uncertainty, risks for APEC economies and sustainable development of the region. While at APEC Grant Robertson ...
The Minister for Pacific Peoples Aupito William Sio says for Pacific people, language can be a source of strength. It can help ground us and give us confidence. When we speak them, our languages provide us with an immediate and intimate access to our identity and our story - and ...
The Coalition Government has announced an action plan to improve the wellbeing of disabled New Zealanders by addressing inequalities in play, active recreation and sport. The initiative includes training to develop a workforce that understands the needs of children and young people with a range of impairments, advocacy for fit ...
The construction sector is being freed up to allow more homes to be built more quickly as the Government cuts through some of the red tape of the Building Act. “Every New Zealander deserves a warm, dry, safe home and old inefficiencies in the Building Act make building slow and ...
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has welcomed further details on the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall’s visit to New Zealand next month. Their Royal Highnesses will visit New Zealand from 17-23 November – their third joint visit to New Zealand and first in four years. They arrive in Auckland ...
Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth and Minister of Agriculture, Damien O’Connor, heads to Thailand today to attend the final Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Ministerial meeting, as negotiations enter their final stages. “The RCEP Agreement would anchor New Zealand in a regional agreement that covers 16 countries, ...
Pacific young people living in the Hawke’s Bay, Southland and Otago regions will have access to support services that have proved successful in helping young people find new earning and learning opportunities. “Tupu Aotearoa is about changing Pacific young peoples’ lives. Our young people are talented, they are smart, they ...
Introduction As the Minister for ACC I thank you all for the work that you do supporting New Zealanders in their literally most vulnerable moments. From those who hold people’s lives in their hands, to the people who research technique, technology and trends, your work is highly valued. A special ...
Notes prepared for speeches in Christchurch – Wednesday 9 October 2019 Today’s topic, “trends and opportunities for the New Zealand economy,” is certainly one getting a great deal of commentary at the moment. Looking across the media landscape lately you’ll notice we aren’t the only ones having this discussion. There ...
Minister of Health Dr David Clark and Associate Minister of Health Peeni Henare say this year’s World Mental Health Day theme is a reminder of why the Government’s work on mental health is so important. “This year the World Federation for Mental Health has made suicide prevention the main theme ...
Associate Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Carmel Sepuloni will represent the government at Australia’s Meeting of Cultural Ministers in Adelaide this week. “This year’s meeting is special because New Zealand is expected to become an International Member of the Meeting of Cultural Ministers at this Australian forum,” Carmel Sepuloni said. “The meeting is an opportunity to ...
The Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service has resolved 608 insurance and EQC claims in its first year in operation, Minister Megan Woods has announced. The government service, which celebrates its first birthday today, provides a one stop shop to help Cantabrians still battling to get their homes repaired or rebuilt ...
Today’s topic, “trends and opportunities for the New Zealand economy,” is certainly one getting a great deal of commentary at the moment. Looking across the media landscape lately you’ll notice we aren’t the only ones having this discussion. There has been an increasing amount of attention paid to the outlook ...
The Government is acting swiftly to strengthen NZTA’s regulatory role following a review into the Transport Agency, and Ministry of Transport’s performance as its monitor, Transport Minister Phil Twyford said today. An independent review by Martin Jenkins has found NZTA failed to properly regulate the transport sector under the previous ...
The Netherlands and New Zealand have a long-standing and close relationship based on many shared interests and values. We value the rule of law, our democracies, and multilateralism. And we value our environment – at home and globally. Right now there are major global challenges in all of these areas – ...
The Government is putting right a decade’s worth of underpayment to nurses, doctors and other health workers, says Health Minister Dr David Clark. Initial sampling of District Health Boards payroll records has found that around $550-$650 million is owed to DHB staff to comply with the Holidays Act. It’s expected ...
A strong surplus and low debt show the economy is performing well, and means the Government is in a good position to meet the challenges of global economic uncertainty. “The surplus and low levels of debt show the economy is in good shape. This allows the Government to spend more ...
New applications from mining company OceanaGold to purchase land in Waihi for new tailings ponds associated with its gold mines have been approved. Minister of Finance Grant Robertson and Associate Minister of Finance David Parker considered the applications under the Overseas Investment Act. Earlier this year, applications from OceanaGold to ...
New Zealanders in Tūranganui-a-Kiwa / Poverty Bay will witness Māori, Pākehā and Pacific voyaging traditions come together today as the Tuia 250 Voyage flotilla assembles for the first time, Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti Minister Kelvin Davis says. “Tuia 250 is a national commemoration and an opportunity for honest conversations ...
Minister for Trade and Export Growth David Parker leaves tomorrow for Dubai, London and Berlin for a series of meetings to advance New Zealand’s trade interests. In Dubai he will visit New Zealand’s Pavilion at Expo 2020 where construction is underway. There he will meet Minister of State for International Cooperation, Her ...
Confirmation that PHARMAC will fund two new cancer drugs is further evidence of the good progress the Government is making to improve the treatment of New Zealand’s leading cause of death, Health Minister David Clark says. From 1 December PHARMAC will fund alectinib (Alecensa) for ALK positive advanced non-small cell ...
Alex Casey talks to Henessey Griffiths, a 22 year-old Dunedin student who just finished her dissertation about one of Youtube’s most controversial stars. Content warning: this article contains mention of suicide, please take careYesterday afternoon in Dunedin, honours student Henessey Griffiths sent a tweet that was a year (or rather, five ...
The Transport Minister has released almost all of the letters he's received from Green MPs, but still refuses to release the letter from Julie Anne Genter that is now at the centre of an Ombudsman complaint. ...
Court documents have confirmed Winston Peters was sent a letter by officials four years into his seven-year overpayment of national superannuation asking him to check details he had supplied, including that he was 'single'. ...
Olympic sailors Blair Tuke and Peter Burling are throwing their weight behind a campaign encouraging New Zealander consumers and businesses to reduce their plastic pollution. ...
National Party leader Simon Bridges says his MP Agnes Loheni let him know she'd be contesting the candidacy for Botany, adding it's a "free world". ...
Think you’ve got your KiwiSaver sorted? Try Kōura’s ‘robo-advice’ questionnaire and you might be surprised.If a person who looks like they know about finance asks you whether your appetite for risk is low, medium or high, what do you say? The problem is most Kiwis don’t understand what the question ...
The Social Services and Community Committee is seeking submissions on the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill. This bill aims to improve the process of applying for rates rebates. It proposes: • Removing the requirement to make a statutory ...
The Māori Affairs Committee is calling for submissions on the Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. ...
The New Zealand Police have been used as a political pawn which is stretching their resources and seriously affecting their ability to address the real causes of crime, such as gang related supply of illicit drugs. ...
Alex Casey yarns to Karen O’Leary, early childhood teacher by day and star of Wellington Paranormal and What We Do in The Shadows by night. Two of the funniest moments in New Zealand television last year were entirely fence-based. First up there was Agni on The Block NZ, who packed a ...
NZ Police wish to clarify that cartridges filled with steel or lead shot are not prohibited. They may still be used under the Arms (Prohibited Ammunition) Order 2019 as shotgun cartridges are specifically excluded from the prohibition order. ...
NZ Police wish to clarify that cartridges filled with steel or lead shot are not prohibited. They may still be used under the Arms (Prohibited Ammunition) Order 2019 as shotgun cartridges are specifically excluded from the prohibition order. ...
Josie Adams is in tonight’s episode of Have You Been Paying Attention. Specifically, she is in the audience.When you watch Have You Been Paying Attention? tonight, please consider the bladders of audience members watching it live. They offer beverages, but my God it’s a dangerous offer. As I found out ...
Despite comments from Auckland City Council CCOs Board Chairs re pay and performance bonuses for top managers—Herald Newspaper Tuesday Oct 15th--there is very little evidence that says high pay and bonuses improve the performance of a company. Most ...
By Michael Andrew Pacific diplomats, academics and youth leaders will gather in Auckland this week to discuss security, economic development and other pressing issues shaping the region’s future. Pacific Futures will be held on October 18 and will feature speakers from across the region, including Samoa’s Deputy Prime Minister ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Hutchinson, PhD Candidate, Australian National University It has been more than two years since “clearance operations” by Myanmar’s security forces, the Tatmadaw, forced more than 700,000 Rohingya across the border to neighbouring Bangladesh. During this time, the UN Security Council has ...
Fast food company Restaurant Brands has made a smaller half year profit largely because of accounting changes as it prepares to invest heavily in the launch of Taco Bell in New Zealand. ...
Pacific Media Centre Newsdesk Papua New Guinea police have issued a warrant for the arrest of former Prime Minister Peter O’Neill. According to EMTV News, the Waigana district court issued the warrant which was based on evidence previously compiled by police investigators. Acting Police Commissioner David Manning said he ...
Patient Voice Aotearoa welcomes the comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters on ‘The Project’ on Friday last week. Peters stated “Right now…we know we are not spending nearly enough on pharmaceuticals and first world drugs…the ...
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is calling on outgoing Porirua Mayor Mike Tana to repay money clocked up on his ratepayer-funded fuel card for personal travel. The Ernst and Young report released yesterday reveals that, within less than three ...
Barely a month after the Solomon Islands switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China, the country’s Central Province has signed an agreement with the Beijing-based Sam Group to develop Tulagi Island, across Ironbottom Sound from the capital Honiara. Tulagi was the pre-war base of the British ...
We review the entire country and culture of New Zealand, one thing at a time. Today, a new hole-in-the-wall eatery in Auckland dedicated to New Zealand’s favourite snack.Cheese On Toast has unsavoury connotations for a lot of New Zealand music fans, but now you can wash that bad taste out ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Md Arif Hasan, PhD candidate, Victoria University of Wellington CC BY-NDClimate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.If you have a question you’d like an expert ...
There’s an innovation renaissance brewing in post-earthquake Christchurch as multicultural entrepreneurship replaces the old boys’ network. This required a new name, writes Steven Moe.An unusual name that evokes images from Harry Potter is fine by the Ministry of Awesome, because it immediately sets it apart. Founded in the aftermath of ...
Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) and Ngā Tāngata Microfinance endorse the Salvation Army’s call for tougher regulations on debt collectors and mechanisms to provide forgiveness or waivers for debts to private lenders and Government that are "effectively ...
Cotton On members are currently negotiating a new Collective Agreement with their employer, but despite the company’s repeated claims that they will provide “a pathway to the living wage”, a “people first focus” and a “commitment to ...
Today the Wellington Howard League releases the results of its fourth annual Wellington Howard League prison survey. The survey suggests a variation in the conditions experienced across prisons in New Zealand and an overall decline in most aspects surveyed. This ...
Some people go for a run to let off steam after work, while others try their hand at ballroom dancing or hit up a pub quiz. And some, as Greta Yeoman discovers, throw sharp objects at walls. She gives it a go.An uncoordinated, anxious journalist with terrible aim is probably ...
A move by Australia's financial regulator could be enough to turn the big banks' threat to ditch New Zealand into a reality - or at least see them charge customers more. ...
A staffing survey carried out by the senior doctors’ union, the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, has found a gaping shortfall of hospital specialists at the Northland DHB. ...
Iain Lees-Galloway has defended granting residency to a man with multiple drink-driving convictions saying the person had been in the country for 20 years and had kept out of trouble for a long time. ...
Editor’s Note: Here below is a list of the main issues currently under discussion in New Zealand and links to media coverage.New Zealand Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand.Today’s content by Dr Bryce Edwards.Industrial relations Luke Malpass (Stuff): Winston Peters holds the keys to new union laws. Will ...
Not the impeachment investigation. Nor Ukraine. Syrian Kurds.Last week, Turkey invaded the bit of Syria controlled by America’s Kurdish hitherto-allies, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan says he only wants to occupy a border strip to resettle Syrian refugees and create a buffer zone between ...
Yes we fully support Minister of transport plan to use special speed cameras finally catching all speeding trucks, and other vehicles on our narrow single lane roads that are not fit to use as a speedway by any vehicle. ...
This afternoon Fish & Game posted a public statement responding to my email to supporters this morning – specifically rejecting our claim that steel shot is now deemed "enhanced penetration ammunition" and therefore possession of ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mandie Shean, Lecturer, School of Education, Edith Cowan University Two-thirds of young people experience levels of exam stress that mental health organisation ReachOut describes as “worrying”. Research shows high levels of exam stress can interfere with attention and reduce working memory, leading ...
The National Party's outrage that the Immigration Minister granted residency to a protected person and recidivist drink driver, entitling them to the same benefits as New Zealanders, has backfired. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Beckett, Lecturer in Media and Communications, University of Melbourne Reports of Facebook moderators’ appalling working conditions have been making headlines worldwide. Workers say they are burning out as they moderate vast flows of violent content under pressure, with vague, ever-changing guidelines. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Lycett, Senior Research Officer, Deakin University; Honorary Fellow, The University of Melbourne, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute Three simple factors can predict whether a child is likely to be overweight or obese by the time they reach adolescence: the child’s body mass ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Marshall, Lecturer, Landscape Architecture and Urban Ecology, University of Melbourne You may mock the national anthem by singing “Our land abounds in nature strips” but what you might not know is how true that is. In Melbourne, for example, more than ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Keith Rathbone, Lecturer, Modern European History and Sports History, Macquarie University It’s unlikely Daryl Morey, general manager of the Houston Rockets basketball team, realised he’d be sparking an international diplomatic incident when, on October 4, he tweeted the following Stand with Hong ...
Good morning, and welcome to The Bulletin. In today’s edition: Pressure on government from unions, mosque attack victim widows turned down for residency, and another Nat eyes safe Botany seat nomination.Pressure is being put on the government to deliver on one of their major promises to the union movement, reports the NZ ...
It’s the end of an era at Three as MAFS NZ and Guy Williams’ new show canceled and 7 Days cut to bone, writes Duncan Greive.A trio of shows which have been amongst Three’s most important local productions are either being canceled or severely cut back, as the channel’s agonising ...
'Joker' expects viewers not only to understand its cruelty, but to understand the justified violence of a white man when the protests of black men and women in the US are regularly met with condemnation, vilification and exclusion. ...
She runs the women's Aussie Rules and netball programmes at one of Australia's oldest sports clubs, so why is Jane Woodlands-Thompson sitting on the Silver Ferns bench? ...
As someone with a severe chronic illness, Hannah McGowan has a vested interest in getting to the bottom of what cannabis can and can’t do for her health. The reality, she discovers, is complicated.Woo [colloq.]: Mystical, supernatural or pseudo-scientific beliefs not backed up by evidence. I crave a well informed, ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The last PM shock jock Alan Jones slapped down was Jacinda Ardern. His language was particularly offensive, advertisers deserted his program and he apologised to New Zealand’s leader. But at least Ardern didn’t have to ...
By Michael Andrew and Sri Krishnamurthi The true story of one of the Pacific’s great waka builders and sailor has been captured in a stirring and visually gripping documentary. Loimata: The Sweetest Tears follows the final years of Ema Siope, a Samoan born kiwi who endured a tumultuous past ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Cowie, Director, WHO Collaborating Centre for Viral Hepatitis, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity Around one-third of Australians living with hepatitis C have been cured in the last four years. Hepatitis means inflammation of the liver. Hepatitis C is ...
New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. Image AsiaPacificReport.nz/RNZ.Commentators across the political spectrum seem to agree – the Labour-led Government’s popularity is being damaged by its failure to deliver in Jacinda Ardern’s self-proclaimed “Year of Delivery”. Instead, the delivery of bad news to Labour and the Government has come in ...
Internet Service Providers have cautiously greeted the news that the Government is exploring an internet filter for violent extremist and terrorist content. ...
Editor’s Note: Here below is a list of the main issues currently under discussion in New Zealand and links to media coverage.New Zealand Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand.Today’s content by Dr Bryce Edwards.Polls Richard Harman (Politik): Ardern now dependent on Peters Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom): Ardern still standing, but ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Greg Austin, Professor UNSW Canberra Cyber, UNSW This is part of a new series looking at the national security challenges facing Australia, how our leaders are responding to them and how these measures are impacting society. Read other stories in the series ...
Daily Review 14/03/2017 
After a brief dalliance with 'hard Revoke' it looks like the Lib Dems are changing ground on on Brexit, with leader Jo Swinson reverting to calling for a second referendum on Johnson's deal.The party has tabled an amendment to the Queen’s speech requesting that any deal brought back from Brussels ...2 hours ago
The government has decided that someone has done Something Bad. But despite their belief, there seems to be no evidence that they have actually broken the law. So the government's solution is to pass a retrospective law allowing them to be punished anyway, on a lower standard of proof. If ...6 hours ago
Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz There is a lot of discussion on the benefits of ...9 hours ago
I came across this song quite by accident. If it isn't one of Greta Thunberg's favourites - it should be.Video courtesy of YouTube.This post is exclusive to Bowalley Road. ...9 hours ago
Thanks to a report from the Acting Inspector General of Intelligence and Security following a complaint by Nicky Hager, we have come to find out that the SIS illegally spied on Mr. Hager on behalf of the NZDF after publication of Hager’s 2011 book, Other People’s Wars. The NZDF justified ...1 day ago
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate. FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, ...1 day ago
The Royal Commission on abuse in care is very significant for the disability community. For many decades last century, thousands of disabled children, and adults who managed to survive, were locked away from families and communities. This was not for anything they had done, but for the perceived threat their ...1 day ago
More than double the number of people who will vote in this year’s local body elections have tried marijuana or urinated somewhere they shouldn’t have. As local elections look set for the lowest turnout in decades, with many regions falling well short of 40%, the Government is exploring a number ...5 days ago
“There can be no such thing as kaupapa Māori political parties or politics in Aotearoa” (Willie Jackson, Labour Party (2017). Māori TV, General/List Election Special) I begin with that claim because at the time, I was confounded at first that it fell out of Willie Jackson’s mouth, and then ...6 days ago
https://mailchi.mp/7d9133add053/closing-the-gap-october-2019-newsletter ...6 days ago
Foreign Minister Winston Peters is predicting a hard Brexit for the United Kingdom, as he believes British Prime Minister Boris Johnson won’t be able to negotiate terms before the October 30 deadline. The Minister, who was one of the first to publicly come out and predict British voters would leave ...4 hours ago
We want every New Zealander to be happy, safe, and healthy. To do this, we need to support strong, safe communities, and a robust and efficient health system. ...1 day ago
At 1.30pm tomorrow, hundreds of thousands of Kiwis will join about 65 million people around the globe in ShakeOut, the world’s biggest earthquake drill. The annual drill is to remind people of the right action to take during an earthquake which is to Drop, Cover, Hold, and to practise their ...6 hours ago
Alex Casey talks to Henessey Griffiths, a 22 year-old Dunedin student who just finished her dissertation about one of Youtube’s most controversial stars. Content warning: this article contains mention of suicide, please take careYesterday afternoon in Dunedin, honours student Henessey Griffiths sent a tweet that was a year (or rather, five ...55 mins ago
The Transport Minister has released almost all of the letters he's received from Green MPs, but still refuses to release the letter from Julie Anne Genter that is now at the centre of an Ombudsman complaint. ...1 hour ago
Court documents have confirmed Winston Peters was sent a letter by officials four years into his seven-year overpayment of national superannuation asking him to check details he had supplied, including that he was 'single'. ...3 hours ago
An ambitious target for new officers seems to have turned into a cynical redefinition - how will police take the news? ...3 hours ago
Olympic sailors Blair Tuke and Peter Burling are throwing their weight behind a campaign encouraging New Zealander consumers and businesses to reduce their plastic pollution. ...3 hours ago
The Social Services and Community Committee is seeking submissions on the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill. This bill aims to improve the process of applying for rates rebates. It proposes: • Removing the requirement to make a statutory ...4 hours ago
By Michael Andrew Pacific diplomats, academics and youth leaders will gather in Auckland this week to discuss security, economic development and other pressing issues shaping the region’s future. Pacific Futures will be held on October 18 and will feature speakers from across the region, including Samoa’s Deputy Prime Minister ...6 hours ago
Fast food company Restaurant Brands has made a smaller half year profit largely because of accounting changes as it prepares to invest heavily in the launch of Taco Bell in New Zealand. ...6 hours ago
Higher household costs helped to push consumer prices higher in the past three months, beating expectations. ...6 hours ago
Just talking about how good things will be if given the chance no longer cuts the electoral mustard. ...7 hours ago
In the 1980s, 78 percent of New Zealanders owned the home they lived in. Fast forward to today, and that's dropped to just 55 percent. ...7 hours ago
Principals nervously wait for the final outcomes of the biggest education system review in 30 years. ...8 hours ago
Dairy prices rose slightly in the latest global auction overnight. ...10 hours ago
New Zealand's light is still glowing bright on the international investment stage despite a pause of caution from investors this year. ...11 hours ago
A move by Australia's financial regulator could be enough to turn the big banks' threat to ditch New Zealand into a reality - or at least see them charge customers more. ...11 hours ago
Zhang Jun looks at how China can move beyond imitating its more developed counterparts to leading the world in innovation. ...15 hours ago
After two bad polls, Jacinda Ardern was greeted by a friendly crowd of unionists - but one eager for faster and greater progress. ...15 hours ago
'Joker' expects viewers not only to understand its cruelty, but to understand the justified violence of a white man when the protests of black men and women in the US are regularly met with condemnation, vilification and exclusion. ...15 hours ago
She runs the women's Aussie Rules and netball programmes at one of Australia's oldest sports clubs, so why is Jane Woodlands-Thompson sitting on the Silver Ferns bench? ...15 hours ago
Is the Government going soft on its so-called Electric Vehicles pledge? The University of Auckland's Basil Sharp doesn't think so. ...15 hours ago
A preview of the public lecture to be given at the National Library in Wellington this week by distinguished playwright Dean Parker. ...15 hours ago
Volunteer drug testers must tip-toe around a legal grey area to be able to spell out the risks of drug-taking to festival-goers. ...16 hours ago
Internet Service Providers have cautiously greeted the news that the Government is exploring an internet filter for violent extremist and terrorist content. ...1 day ago
The proceeds from the sale of Trump-style "Make Ardern Go Away" hats are being used to promote far right Facebook pages. ...1 day ago
Support has risen for the general arming of police officers in the wake of March 15, but the police minister is opposed. ...1 day ago
Are the reporters being obtuse, or trying hard to push an anti-union agenda to keep funding. This is why I’ve stopped listening.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Policy is badly explained too 🙁
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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”
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?
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.
> 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.
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?
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
like he has said though why give super to people who are wealthy,
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Unconditional not universal is what he’s calling it
Thanks, if missed that. Makes sense as it’s not universal. I wonder what he means by unconditional.
He means that if you meet the conditions, you don’t have to meet conditions.
Lol
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.
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.
“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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You are still missing the point.
Nope. I get the whole ‘failing to achieve the 5% threshold’ angle.
I’m not talking about failing to reach 5% (although there is that too).
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.
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),
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.
And your theoretical government falls at the first vote of confidence.
What theoretical govt???
Your minority National Party led one.
Why would it fall at the first vote of confidence?
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.
But National have coalition partners, that’s the whole point of C and S.
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)
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.
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.
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.
If TOP get 4.5% and no electorate, what happens to those votes?
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)
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?
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)
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.
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.
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)
I moved the rest of this conversation to OM so we could have the threading and reply buttons back. It’s here,
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.”
We need to challenge the lie, make it common knowledge.
Couldn’t have said it better Matthew.
Totally agree.
“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.
What’s the current $ value of super?
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.
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.
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)
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?
I’ve have no idea what you are talking about there.
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?
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).
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
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?)
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.
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.
“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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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,
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)
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”
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.
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.
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.
Yep – time for talk is over
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/326509/water-infrastructure-needs-billions-in-investment
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]
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. 😉
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.
There’s no need to get all worked up about it. Just don’t vote MP if you want to change the Government
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.
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.
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
test
Not cool: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/90422323/matthew-ridges-car-wash-exploited-migrant-workers
I use carfe to have my car valet.
I’m going to look elsewhere. That’s shit.