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.
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.
I ran across a recent essay from The Brothers Krynn, which attempts to map common horror monsters onto the Seven Deadly Sins: https://canadianculturecorner.substack.com/p/horror-monsters-and-vice My interest, however, is not in the meat of the piece, but rather the opening paragraph: It is an interesting fact that in recent decades, Vampires have ...
Buzz from the Beehive Transport Minister Simeon Brown dutifully issued advice to all road users to keep safe on our roads during the Easter weekend. He encouraged them to stay safe, plan their journeys ahead of time, and be patient with other drivers while travelling around this Easter long weekend. ...
Oliver Hartwich writes – New Zealanders recently learned about a new feature film. It will be about former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern – and taxpayers will subsidise it to the tune of NZ$800,000. Ardern had nothing personally to do with either the film or the subsidy. But her government’s ...
TL;DR: Here’s the top six news items of note in climate news for Aotearoa-NZ this week, and a discussion above that was recorded yesterday afternoon above between and The Kākā’s climate correspondent : An independent review panel into the emergency response to Cyclone Gabrielle in Hawkes Bayconcluded “that ...
There are now only a few days left to give feedback on the Draft Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport 2024-34 (see our earlier post this week on GPS submission guides). As we’ve reported, the GPS is a disaster for Local Government, so we were particularly interested to hear ...
Willis has pledged to go ahead with the debt-funded tax cuts, despite growing opposition from her own supporters worried about appearing fiscally irresponsible. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The five things that mattered in Aotearoa’s political economy that we wrote and spoke about via The Kākā and elsewhere for ...
Open access notables A survey of interventions to actively conserve the frozen North, van Wijngaarden et al., Climatic Change:The frozen elements of the high North are thawing as the region warms much faster than the global mean. The dangers of sea level rise due to melting glacier ice, increased ...
Bryce Edwards writes – New Zealand’s biggest-ever political donations scandal is finally at an end. But what is the conclusion? No one can really be sure. The Court of Appeal released its judgement on Tuesday about the Serious Fraud Office case against the NZ First Foundation. On ...
In 2015, then-Prime Minister John Key announced plans for a huge ocean sanctuary around the Kermadec Islands, banning fishing and mining from 15% of Aotearoa's EEZ. It was bold, it was ambitious, and it suggested that National might actually care about the environment. Except they fucked it up: Key failed ...
1. Who has just been given the accolade New Zealander of the Year?a. The Kokakob. The Cook Strait Ferryc. Fair God. Dr Jim Salinger 2. Which of these is an affront to decent society?a. Dame Edna Everageb. Mrs Doubtfire c. Dr. Frank-N-Furterd. Brian 3. Who is Penny Simmonds?a. The aspiring actress in Big ...
New Zealand’s biggest-ever political donations scandal is finally at an end. But what is the conclusion? No one can really be sure.The Court of Appeal released its judgement on Tuesday about the Serious Fraud Office case against the NZ First Foundation. On the face of it, the court found ...
Buzz from the Beehive Waves of rain are set to lash much of the North Island during Easter Weekend as a low-pressure system forms east of New Zealand, according to a weather forecast published in the past day or so. Niwa was warning of a “moisture-laden” long weekend, with rain expected ...
Look around us…Nicola Willis’ promises of balancing the books, of cutting spending without reducing services, and of delivering game changing tax cuts are disappearing before her eyes.Everyday we see stories of violent crime ending in horrific injuries, or worse. The cost of living worsens, whereas the PM claimed renters would ...
TL;DR: My top six news of note on the morning of Thursday, March 28 include:The Government will have to borrow between $10 billion to $15 billion more than previously expected in order to make up for a slowing economy and to pay for $14.9 billion of tax cuts, according to ...
This story by Naveena Sadasivam and Kate Yoder was originally published by Grist and is part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story. The long-awaited jobs board for the American Climate Corps, promised early in the Biden administration, will open next month, according to details shared exclusively ...
Should landlords be able to deduct the interest on the loans they take out to bankroll their property speculation? The US Senate Budget Committee and Bloomberg News don’t think this is a good idea, for reasons set out below. Regardless, our coalition government has been burning through a ton of ...
Treasury’s first report on the economy since the change of government presents a damning indictment of Labour’s economic management. The problem for National is that it is so damning that logically, coupled with a rapidly slowing economy, Finance Minister Nicola Willis should respond to it by postponing or even cancelling ...
Budget tensions are becoming evident within the Coalition Government. Winston Peters made numerous political points in his speech to the NZF annual conference. But the attack on his own government’s fiscal policies raised issues of substance. ‘Today in the Sunday Star Times, journalist and former advisor to the Labour ...
Buzz from the Beehive The media – sure enough – have been binging on Finance Minister Nicola Willis’ release of the Budget Policy Statement and a statement headed Government announces Budget priorities This assures us – or rather, this parrots the Luxon team mantra – that the Budget “will deliver ...
The Ides of March brought me COVID followed by a bereavement. No wonder they tell you to be careful of them.I’m home now and have resumed the interrupted recuperation. Very much looking forward to getting back to regular things. Meanwhile, some thoughts…OneThis new Prime Minister guy just keeps getting more dire. ...
News that the Chinese ATP 40 cyber-hacking unit penetrated parliamentary internet networks in 2021 has renewed concerns about the PRC’s malign intentions in Aotearoa. But is the hack that significant given the length of time that has passed since its … Continue reading → ...
When Parliament passed the Intelligence and security Act in 2017, they assured us all that it was full of safeguards. Any intrusive surveillance of New Zealanders would be subject to a "triple lock", requiring the approval of the Minister and (supposedly independent) Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants, as well as post-facto ...
Eric Crampton writes – Richard Harman’s Politik newsletter provides a bit of the context that ought to have been showing up in other media reports on potential reductions in public service staffing. Media has been reporting on staffing cuts on the order of about 7%. Is that ...
Mike Grimshaw writes – It’s becoming increasingly apparent that many perceive free speech to have become the preserve of the politically right wing, the religiously conservative, the libertarian fringe, the anti-trans, the anti-Māori and…. well, just fill in with whatever groups or individuals you don’t like and don’t ...
Don Brash writes – As everybody who is not blind and deaf is aware, there is a huge political preoccupation with climate change at the moment, a widespread (though by no means unanimous) belief that global temperatures are rising mainly as a result of the greenhouse gases created ...
TL;DR: My six things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy on Wednesday, March 27 include:Chris Bishop laid out his vision for filling Aotearoa-NZ’s $100 billion infrastructure deficit in a speech yesterday, emphasising user pays and private funding, but failed to say how to achieve bipartisanship on population, public borrowing and ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Former Finance Minister Grant Robertson and former Prime Minister Chris Hipkins have been conveying how unhappy they are with the tax system. Last week in his valedictory speech, Robertson called for the introduction of a wealth or capital gains tax. And this week Hipkins ...
On February 14, 2023 we announced our Rebuttal Update Project. This included an ask for feedback about the added "At a glance" section in the updated basic rebuttal versions. This weekly blog post series highlights this new section of one of the updated basic rebuttal versions and serves as a ...
Buzz from the Beehive China has loomed large in Beehive considerations over the past 24 hours, largely because of that country’s mischief-making in the cyber espionage department. Two media statements emerged on that subject hard on the heels of the PM baulking at questions put to him on RNZ’s Morning ...
Chris Trotter writes – WHY IS THE NATIONAL PARTY doing so much for landlords, property developers, trucking, and construction companies, and so little for everybody who isn’t already pretty well-off? It’s as if protecting landlords’ investments and building apartments and roads now constitute the whole of National’s ...
Bryce Edwards writes – When she was campaigning to be Minister of Finance last year, Nicola Willis pledged that she would resign from the job if she failed to deliver tax cuts in her first Budget. Now, it’s that pledge, along with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s ...
Robert MacCulloch writes – The Reserve Bank has doubled staff numbers in five years to 510, with personnel costs rising to $80 million in 2023 from $32 million in 2018 – up by a whopping 150%. I guess when you print $50 billion and flood markets with liquidity, ...
The furore. In case you didn’t notice there was a controversy in the weekend involving dolphins in a little town off the South Island. Don’t panic, they haven’t declared independence and resumed whaling, this was simply a sailing event.The problem began when racing was cancelled on the opening day of ...
For 20 years or more, the case for a meaningful capital tax gains has been mulled over and analysed to death, including by the tax working group chaired by Sir Michael Cullen. More than once, the International Monetary Fund has said a CGT would be a good idea for New ...
TL;DR: My top 10 news and analysis links this morning include:Today’s must-read: The Public Health Communications Centre (PHCC) call for urgent preventive action and a risk assessment survey of long covid in this briefing noteLocal scoop: NZ road deaths surpass OECD rates, so why is the govt reversing safety plans? ...
This story was originally published by Grist and is part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story. This story is part of a collaboration with Grist and WABE to demystify the Georgia Public Service Commission, the small but powerful state-elected board that makes critical decisions about everything from raising ...
This is a guest post from Robert McLachlan Global warming is accelerating; 2023 was off the charts. We need to stop burning fossil fuels. In New Zealand, transport accounts for half of all fossil fuels burnt. In the Emissions Reduction Plan, transport emissions fall 41% by 2035. As the ...
Labour productivity has been receding rapidly over the past two years, reversing a post-lockdown rise. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: My six things to note in Aotearoa’s political economy as at 6:26am on Tuesday, March 26 include:Workers have been treading water in output per hour worked for 12 years, ...
TL;DR: The key events to watch in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy in the week to April 2 include:Today, Parliament resumes sitting at 2pm for the second week of a two-week session. Officials for SIS and GCSB report their annual reviews in public to the Intelligence and Security Select Committee from 5.10pm.Tomorrow, ...
Faced with a barrage of criticism over the promised tax cuts from usually supportive commentators, Finance Minister Nicola Willis yesterday reaffirmed her intention to include them in this year’s Budget. The Government is up against it over the cuts just about every way it turns. Commentators like Fran O’Sullivan, Matthew ...
Here’s my pick of today’s substack posts as of 6:26pm on Monday, March 25: writes via his substack that Market-rate housing will make your city cheaper writes via his substack about the problems talking to double-cab ute (truck) drivers about their vehicles. today about moments of radicalisation in ...
Buzz from the Beehive Just before Christmas, Finance Minister Nicola Willis delivered something that was pitched as a mini-budget and brayed about the decisive action being taken to repair the Government books and support income tax relief in Budget 2024. In a statement headed Fiscal repair job underway. she introduced ...
My sister Belinda asked Dad yesterday what one word would describe Mum best. He said: vivacious.If you only knew her from the photos on the slideshow we've made for today,you might wonder about that, because the camera tended to lie with Mum.If ever she saw a camera pointed at her, she ...
There are two major public consultations closing in the next week, Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan (LTP), and the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS). Closing dates and times: LTP closes Thursday 28 February, at 11.59pm – a minute to midnight! GPS closes Tuesday 2 April, at 12pm noon – note that’s ...
From Kiwiblog’s David Farrar – Bryce Wilkinson writes: Senior Fellow Bryce Wilkinson’s analysis reveals that since March 2009, New Zealand has spent $158 billion more overseas than it has earned, but its NIIP has only fallen by $32 billion.Statistics New Zealand shows that receipts from overseas reinsurers have ...
Is she hinting that the Coalition Government will have to back down on key promises it made in Opposition? Brian Easton writes – The Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, is telling an evolving story about her fiscal challenges. In Opposition she was confident that she could ...
Dear Nicola Willis,Right now you’ve probably got lots of competing demands coming at you. Ministers who’ve inherited quite a mess, or so you’ve told us, looking for money in the budget to improve things. I imagine that’s why they came to parliament - to make things better.You’ll have to make ...
The Local Government, Transport and Auckland Minister hasthreatened councils with intervention if they don’t merge water assets to take them off balance sheet, just as the now-repealed Three Waters plan directed. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: My six things of note this morning for Monday, March 25 include:Simeon ...
A listing of 36 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, March 17, 2024 thru Sat, March 23, 2024. Story of the week Thanks to John Mason having the stamina to sit down to watch "Climate - the Movie" ...
This morning the Q&A programme had Simeon Brown on to talk about National’s replacement for Three Waters. In case anyone’s forgotten the three are - drinking water, waste water, and sewerage. It’s quite important not to get them mixed up. In much the same way that you wouldn’t want to ...
Today’s newsletter comes with a mini-podcast conversation between me and my buddy Liv Tennet, talking about her time as a child actor in Lord of the Rings. It’s a conversation with a lot of giggles as she talks about falling off a horse, and becoming a meme. Read ...
The Desmog Climate Disinformation Database documents, "individuals and organisations that have helped to delay and distract the public and our elected leaders from taking needed action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and fight global warming." It's a who's who of the organised climate change denial movement, in other words. In ...
Bob Edlin writes – A High Court judge has decided miscreants who have mana – or who claim to have mana – should be treated differently from miscreants who have none. It’s a ruling that suggests indigenous law-breakers have a better chance of securing a discharge without conviction ...
Welcome to the first, and possibly last, edition of Brickbats, Bouquets and Bull’s Wool. In which I’ll take a look at the events of the last week or so, and rate them.In such ratings the numbers usually have more to do with the opinions of the reviewer, than the actual ...
Roger Partridge writes – My earlier column this month, New Zealand’s highest court could be facing a turning point, prompted a flood of feedback from business readers and lawyers alike. A common query was what Parliament can do to restrain an overreaching judiciary. This week I discuss two steps Parliament ...
TL;DR: In today’s ‘six-stack’ of substacks at 6.16pm on Friday, March 22: writes about New Zealand's Building Boom—And What the World Must Learn From It over at his substack. challenges the Auckland Council’s use of a 3.8 degrees of warming forecast to oppose a wave-park and data centre project ...
Is she hinting that the Coalition Government will have to back down on key promises it made in Opposition?The Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, is telling an evolving story about her fiscal challenges. In Opposition she was confident that she could deliver her promised income tax cuts. Appointed minister, she ...
Buzz from the Beehive Ministers of the Crown have drawn attention to one sector of the science sector which is unlikely to be subjected to heavy spending cuts, a state-funded broadcaster which is doing nicely, thank you, and a sporting event that had $5.4 million from the public purse puffed ...
Abbott’s Freestyle Libre sensors allow continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The sensor is applied to the back of the patient’s arm, with a thin filament under the skin measuring glucose levels constantly. But it costs around $100 per sensor and must be replaced once every 14 days. Photo by BSIP/Universal Images ...
The Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) recently released a report in which he exposes the existence of a foreign intelligence partner-controlled technological “capability” inside the headquarters of the GCSB, NZ’s 5 Eyes-affiliated signals intelligence collection and analysis agency. … Continue reading → ...
Peter Dunne writes – Nearly three decades after the introduction of MMP and multiparty governments there should be a greater level of understanding about their finer points than often appears to be the case. The reaction to the despicable outburst from the Deputy Prime Minister at the weekend highlights ...
The sweet kisses from fruit of summerHave slowly been turning dullerYou say, "those times"And "remember the daysWhen we went outside and there still was the shade?"Taking no reason into play…Autumn. Clear, blue days shortening to longer nights, growing colder. Aotearoa.That’s us. The temperature dropping, the looming car crash - so ...
Bryce Edwards writes – “It is often said that behind every great man is a great woman”. This is the pitch by the National Party Botany electorate branch to attend their “Ladies Afternoon Tea with Amanda Luxon”. For $110 including GST, you can turn up on Saturday 20 April ...
David Farrar writes – The Electoral Commission has published the expense returns for political parties for the 2023 election. I’ve put them in a table with how many votes a party got so we can see the spend per vote. National only spent $3.34 for every vote they got, almost ...
Winston Peters’ headline-making actions over the past week may have been a show of political power intended to strengthen his hand in Budget negotiations. It was no accident that his State of the Nation speech was as it was. He made it as New Zealand First Leader, not as Deputy ...
Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The five things that mattered in Aotearoa’s political economy that we wrote and spoke about via The Kākā and elsewhere for paying subscribers in the last week included:Former Labour Finance Minister Grant Robertson bowed out of politics this week, giving a series of exit ...
Graham Adams writes — If you love the law or sausages, as the saying goes, best not to look too closely at how they are made. And after watching the orgy of self-pity when Newshub’s closure was announced on February 28, television journalism should definitely be added to the list of those ...
Venerable New Zealand political commentator, Chris Trotter (https://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/), is a sad creature these days. Once one of the most reliable Leftist writers out there – Economic Left at that – Trotter seems to have absorbed the worldview of Auckland culture-war obsessives. It is not for me to categorise what he ...
The Coalition Government’s plan to ‘get Auckland moving’ is a cuts cover-up that will ultimately cost Aucklanders more to move around the city, says Labour Auckland Issues spokesperson Shanan Halbert. ...
Slashing the Ministry of Pacific Peoples by 40% will have a devastating impact on pacific communities and further highlights how little this government cares about anything other than cutting taxes for the wealthiest few. ...
Labour has proposed an urgent inquiry to investigate the ever-increasing profits of supermarkets, aiming to lower costs for shoppers and food producers alike, says Labour Spokesperson for Commerce and Consumer Affairs Arena Williams and Primary Production Spokesperson Cushla Tangaere-Manuel. ...
With 14% of jobs on the line at the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, the responsible Minister Melissa Lee is failing to stand up for the very communities she’s meant to be representing. ...
COURT OF APPEAL: TRIFECTA OF VICTORY FOR NZ FIRST, TRIFECTA OF FAILURE FOR OPPONENTS For the third time since April 2020, New Zealand First has defeated the Serious Fraud Office and all those complicit in a malicious attack against a political party going about its lawful business in a lawful ...
The Green Party stands with people who live in public housing, people in dire housing need, experts and advocates in demanding better than the Government’s archaic approach to housing those who need our support the most. ...
New Zealand has recently lost the hosting rights of some major international sporting events including the America’s Cup, the Rugby Championship, Netball World Cup, and the Wellington Sevens. We are now at a huge risk of losing SailGP as well. And it won’t stop there. The recent issues with SailGP ...
A Member’s Bill drawn this week would modernise insurance law and make things fairer and more transparent for consumers, Christchurch Central MP Duncan Webb said. ...
The Minister for Disability Issues has confirmed she was aware of funding issues in mid-December and did nothing to stop it. On 14 March, she signed off on changes that were announced and implemented on 18 March without any consultation with disability communities. ...
Green Party MP Julie Anne Genter says her members' bill is an opportunity for the coalition government to plug the gap in electric vehicle incentives. ...
The National Government continues to talk about irresponsible tax cuts that will only drive up inflation, despite the country entering a technical recession. ...
The Minister for Disability Issues must act urgently to reinstate flexibility around the funding for disability support and apologise to disabled carers. ...
This story has been initiated by a leftie shill reporter who proactively sought to call a member of a former band, which disbanded twelve years ago, give their biased appraisal of what was said in my speech, and concocted a ham-fisted attempt at a story that does nothing but show ...
The Government has accepted Labour’s change to the Road User Charge (RUC) discount for hybrid vehicles, meaning there will still be some incentive for people to buy greener vehicles. ...
Many in the mainstream media have taken what was said in New Zealand First’s State of the Nation Speech in Palmerston North on Sunday and deliberately, deceitfully, and ignorantly misrepresented what I said and why I said it. The headlines and commentary on the news stated that I compared ‘co-governance ...
Kicking the most vulnerable people out of state housing and pushing them towards homelessness will result in a proliferation of poverty and trauma across our most vulnerable communities. ...
Te Pāti Māori co-leader and MP for Waiariki, Rawiri Waititi has penned a letter asking MPs to support his members bill to remove GST from all food. The bill is expected to go through its first reading in parliament this Wednesday. “I’m calling on all political parties to support my ...
Good afternoon. Thank you for, in your very busy lives, turning up to this meeting today. On October 14th last year New Zealanders overwhelmingly voted for change. That is exactly what this new government is bringing. New Zealand First campaigned to ‘take back our country’ and stop the disastrous economic ...
This year is about getting real with Kiwis and discussing the tough issues, as the National Government exacerbates inequality and divides New Zealand, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said ...
The Government adding Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) to its already roaring environmental policy bonfire is an assault on the future of wildlife that makes Aotearoa unique. ...
After 12 years of fighting to protect our moana we are finding ourselves back at square one and back at court. Today, the Environmental Protection Agency is sitting in Hawera to reconsider an application from Trans-Tasman Resources to dig up 50 million tonnes of the seabed in South Taranaki. This ...
Minister Shane Jones’ decision to step away from a seabed mining project is evidence of the murky waters surrounding the Government’s fast-track legislation. ...
The growth of Treaty of Waitangi clauses in legislation caused so much worry that a special oversight group was set up by the last government in a bid to get greater coherence in the publicservice on Treaty matters. When ministers first considered the need for tighter oversight in 2021, there ...
The growth of Treaty of Waitangi clauses in legislation caused so much worry that a special oversight group was set up by the last government in a bid to get greater coherence in the publicservice on Treaty matters. When ministers first considered the need for tighter oversight in 2021, there ...
The Coalition Government’s miscalculation saga continues as it has forgotten an eyewatering $90 million gap in its interest deductibility cost figures, say Labour Finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds and Revenue Spokesperson Deborah Russell. ...
He Pou a Rangi Climate Change Commission has today released advice that says if the Government doesn’t act now New Zealand is at risk of not meeting its climate goals. ...
The Coalition Government has today confirmed it is abandoning first home buyers who are struggling to get ahead, says Labour Finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds. ...
Transport Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed the passing of legislation to move light electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) into the road user charges system from 1 April. “It was always intended that EVs and PHEVs would be exempt from road user charges until they reached two ...
New Zealand is strengthening its ability to combat illegal fishing outside its domestic waters and beef up regulation for its own commercial fishers in international waters through a Bill which had its first reading in Parliament today. The Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2023 sets out stronger ...
Economists Carl Hansen and Professor Prasanna Gai have been appointed to the Reserve Bank Monetary Policy Committee, Finance Minister Nicola Willis announced today. The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) is the independent decision-making body that sets the Official Cash Rate which determines interest rates. Carl Hansen, the executive director of Capital ...
Apartment owners and buyers will soon have greater protections as further changes to the law on unit titles come into effect, Housing Minister Chris Bishop says. “The Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Act had already introduced some changes in December 2022 and May 2023, and ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters will travel to Egypt and Europe from this weekend. “This travel will focus on a range of New Zealand’s traditional diplomatic and security partnerships while enabling broad engagement on the urgent situation in Gaza,” Mr Peters says. Mr Peters will attend the NATO Foreign ...
Transport Minister Simeon Brown is encouraging all road users to stay safe, plan their journeys ahead of time, and be patient with other drivers while travelling around this Easter long weekend. “Road safety is a responsibility we all share, and with increased traffic on our roads expected this Easter we ...
About 1.4 million New Zealanders will receive cost of living relief through increased government assistance from April 1 909,000 pensioners get a boost to Superannuation, including 5000 veterans 371,000 working-age beneficiaries will get higher payments 45,000 students will see an increase in their allowance Over a quarter of New Zealanders ...
Ensuring social housing is being provided to those with the greatest needs is front of mind as the Government restarts social housing tenancy reviews, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka says. “Our relentless focus on building a strong economy is to ensure we can deliver better public services such as social ...
The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary will not go ahead, with Cabinet deciding to stop work on the proposed reserve and remove the Bill that would have established it from Parliament’s order paper. “The Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill would have created a 620,000 sq km economic no-go zone,” Oceans and Fisheries Minister ...
Dam safety regulations are being amended so that smaller dams won’t be subject to excessive compliance costs, Minister for Building and Construction Chris Penk says. “The coalition Government is focused on reducing costs and removing unnecessary red tape so we can get the economy back on track. “Dam safety regulations ...
The coalition Government is expanding the medium-scale adverse event classification to parts of the North Island as dry weather conditions persist, Agriculture Minister Todd McClay announced today. “I have made the decision to expand the medium-scale adverse event classification already in place for parts of the South Island to also cover the ...
The passing of legislation giving effect to coalition Government tax commitments has been welcomed by Finance Minister Nicola Willis. “The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023–24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill will help place New Zealand on a more secure economic footing, improve outcomes for New Zealanders, and make our tax system ...
Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Judith Collins and Tertiary Education and Skills Minister Penny Simmonds today announced plans to transform our science and university sectors to boost the economy. Two advisory groups, chaired by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, will advise the Government on how these sectors can play a greater ...
The Budget will deliver urgently-needed tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders while putting the government’s finances back on a sustainable track, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. The Finance Minister made the comments at the release of the Budget Policy Statement setting out the Government’s Budget objectives. “The coalition Government intends ...
The coalition Government will look at options to address a zoning issue that limits how much financial support Queenstown residents can get for accommodation. Cabinet has agreed on a response to the Petitions Committee, which had recommended the geographic information MSD uses to determine how much accommodation supplement can be ...
Cabinet has agreed to a short extension to the final reporting timeframe for the Royal Commission into Abuse in Care from 28 March 2024 to 26 June 2024, Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden says. “The Royal Commission wrote to me on 16 February 2024, requesting that I consider an ...
The coalition Government is delivering an $18 million boost to New Zealanders needing to travel for specialist health treatment, Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says. “These changes are long overdue – the National Travel Assistance (NTA) scheme saw its last increase to mileage and accommodation rates way back in 2009. ...
The Government is recognising the innovative and rising talent in New Zealand’s growing space sector, with the Prime Minister and Space Minister Judith Collins announcing the new Prime Minister’s Prizes for Space today. “New Zealand has a growing reputation as a high-value partner for space missions and research. I am ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters has confirmed New Zealand’s concerns about cyber activity have been conveyed directly to the Chinese Government. “The Prime Minister and Minister Collins have expressed concerns today about malicious cyber activity, attributed to groups sponsored by the Chinese Government, targeting democratic institutions in both New ...
Independent Reviewers appointed for School Property Inquiry Education Minister Erica Stanford today announced the appointment of three independent reviewers to lead the Ministerial Inquiry into the Ministry of Education’s School Property Function. The Inquiry will be led by former Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully. “There is a clear need ...
State Highway 1 across the Brynderwyns will be open for Easter weekend, with work currently underway to ensure the resilience of this critical route being paused for Easter Weekend to allow holiday makers to travel north, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “Today I visited the Brynderwyn Hills construction site, where ...
Introduction Good morning to you all, and thanks for having me bright and early today. I am absolutely delighted to be the Minister for Infrastructure alongside the Minister of Housing and Resource Management Reform. I know the Prime Minister sees the three roles as closely connected and he wants me ...
New Zealand stands with the United Kingdom in its condemnation of People’s Republic of China (PRC) state-backed malicious cyber activity impacting its Electoral Commission and targeting Members of the UK Parliament. “The use of cyber-enabled espionage operations to interfere with democratic institutions and processes anywhere is unacceptable,” Minister Responsible for ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins today announced New Zealand will provide logistics support for the upcoming Solomon Islands election. “We’re sending a team of New Zealand Defence Force personnel and two NH90 helicopters to provide logistics support for the election on 17 April, at the request ...
The European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill received Royal Assent today, completing the process for New Zealand’s ratification of its free trade agreement with the European Union. “I am pleased to announce that today, in a small ceremony at the Beehive, New Zealand notified the European Union ...
Public consultation on the terms of reference for the Royal Commission into COVID-19 Lessons has concluded, Internal Affairs Minister Hon Brooke van Velden says. “I have been advised that there were over 11,000 submissions made through the Royal Commission’s online consultation portal.” Expanding the scope of the Royal Commission of ...
Hardworking families are set to benefit from a new credit to help them meet their early childcare education (ECE) costs, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. From 1 July, parents and caregivers of young children will be supported to manage the rising cost of living with a partial reimbursement of their ...
A specialised Independent Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) tasked with preparing and publishing independent non-binding advice on the design of a "green" (sustainable finance) taxonomy rulebook is being established, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says. “Comprising experts and market participants, the ITAG's primary goal is to deliver comprehensive recommendations to the ...
Defence Minister Judith Collins has thanked the Chief of Army, Major General John Boswell, DSD, for his service as he leaves the Army after 40 years. “I would like to thank Major General Boswell for his contribution to the Army and the wider New Zealand Defence Force, undertaking many different ...
25 March 2024 Minister to meet Australian counterparts and Manufacturing Industry Leaders Small Business, Manufacturing, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly will travel to Australia for a series of bi-lateral meetings and manufacturing visits. During the visit, Minister Bayly will meet with his Australian counterparts, Senator Tim Ayres, Ed ...
Government commits almost $3 million for period products in schools The Coalition Government has committed $2.9 million to ensure intermediate and secondary schools continue providing period products to those who need them, Minister of Education Erica Stanford announced today. “This is an issue of dignity and ensuring young women don’t ...
Good morning, it’s great to be here. First, I would like to acknowledge the New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors and thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. I would like to use this opportunity to outline the Government’s ambitious plan and what we hope to ...
Minister for Pacific Peoples Dr Shane Reti has announced the Government’s commitment to the Auckland Secondary Schools Māori and Pacific Islands Cultural Festival, more commonly known as Polyfest. “The Ministry for Pacific Peoples is a longtime supporter of Polyfest and, as it celebrates 49 years in 2024, I’m proud to ...
Before moving onto the substance of today’s address, I want to recognise the very significant and ongoing contribution the Breast Cancer Foundation makes to support the lives of New Zealand women and their families living with breast cancer. I very much enjoy working with you. I also want to recognise ...
New Zealand has notched up a first with the launch of University of Canterbury research to the International Space Station, Science, Innovation and Technology and Space Minister Judith Collins says. The hardware, developed by Dr Sarah Kessans, is designed to operate autonomously in orbit, allowing scientists on Earth to study ...
Introduction Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today and I’m sorry I can’t be there in person. Yesterday I started in Wellington for Breakfast TV, spoke to a property conference in Auckland, and finished the day speaking to local government in Christchurch, so it would have been ...
The Coalition Government is contributing more than $1 million to support the establishment of an emergency multi-agency coordination centre in Northland. Emergency Management and Recovery Minister Mark Mitchell announced the contribution today during a visit of the Whangārei site where the facility will be constructed. “Northland has faced a number ...
New Zealanders have enjoyed a broader range of voices telling the story of Aotearoa thanks to the creation of Whakaata Māori 20 years ago, says Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka. The minister spoke at a celebration marking the national indigenous media organisation’s 20th anniversary at their studio in Auckland on ...
Commercial catch limits for some fisheries have been increased following a review showing stocks are healthy and abundant, Ocean and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. The changes, along with some other catch limit changes and management settings, begin coming into effect from 1 April 2024. "Regular biannual reviews of fish ...
COMMENTARY:By Ronny Kareni Since the atrocious footage of the suffering of an indigenous Papuan man reverberates in the heart of Puncak by the brute force of Indonesia’s army in early February, shocking tactics deployed by those in power to silence critics has been unfolding. Nowhere is this more evident ...
Analysis - Nicola Willis is holding firm on tax cuts despite the economic outlook being worse than forecast and critics urging her to wait, writes Peter Wilson for The Week In Politics. ...
Opposition MPs and unions are criticising a proposal by New Zealand’s Ministry of Pacific Peoples to cut staff by 40 percent. The country’s largest trade union — The Public Service Association — says the ministry has informed staff that it is looking to shed 63 of 156 positions. Opposition MPs ...
A poem by Poetry Aotearoa Yearbook 2024 featured poet Carin Smeaton. Daughtr of the 90s when she gets promoted to usherette a baby blu eel carries her all the way up to mothership she’s hovering high she lets the underaged in to see keanu reeves she lets the only lonely ...
Analysis by Keith Rankin. Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand. My earlier article – Can ‘Good’ be the Greater Evil? – looked at the issue of how wars should end, and how Good versus Evil ...
The only published and available best-selling indie book chart in New Zealand is the top 10 sales list recorded every week at Unity Books’ stores in High St, Auckland, and Willis St, Wellington.AUCKLAND1 AMMA by Saraid de Silva (Moa Press, $38)A stunning debut novel reviewed by Brannavan ...
From Steve Martin to Ricky Stanicky, a pick’n’mix of things worth watching and listening to this long weekend. This is an excerpt from our weekly pop culture newsletter Rec Room. Sign up here. If you’re at a loss for something to occupy yourself with this Easter, don’t panic: The Spinoff’s got ...
Jesus had dinner with his 12 disciples right before he died. Noted historian Madeleine Chapman finds out who really deserved to be there.First published in 2018 but let’s be honest, the subject is timeless. As you sit on your couch this Easter Sunday, eating a chocolate egg you know ...
The newly-promoted Northern League club is on a mission to return to the National League for the first time in two decades. Plenty about domestic football in New Zealand has changed in that time – but the sense that this amateur competition is not an entirely level playing field remains. ...
Comment: Every year on February 2, a dozen men in tuxedos and top hats approach the burrow of a groundhog in Gobbler’s Knob, Pennsylvania and entice the beaver-like rodent to emerge and predict the weather. If the groundhog, named Punxsutawney Phil, sees its own shadow when it is summoned, legend ...
Loading…(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){var ql=document.querySelectorAll('A[quiz],DIV[quiz],A[data-quiz],DIV[data-quiz]'); if(ql){if(ql.length){for(var k=0;k<ql.length;k++){ql[k].id='quiz-embed-'+k;ql[k].href="javascript:var i=document.getElementById('quiz-embed-"+k+"');try{qz.startQuiz(i)}catch(e){i.start=1;i.style.cursor='wait';i.style.opacity='0.5'};void(0);"}}};i['QP']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){(i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)})(window,document,'script','https://take.quiz-maker.com/3012/CDN/quiz-embed-v1.js','qp'); Got a good quiz question?Send Newsroom your questions. The post Newsroom daily quiz, Friday 29 March appeared first on Newsroom. ...
Auckland Council has put a deadline on new weather-impacted property owners applying for categorisation as government funding looks set to run out. Councillors have voted to support a deadline of September 30 for property owners who haven’t accessed support to come forward and engage with the council’s recovery office. It ...
NONFICTION 1 BBQ Economics by Liam Dann (Penguin Random House, $40) “It’s official,” wrote Dann nine days ago in the Herald, where he works as business editor at large, “we’re in recession.” Yeah, great. He delivered the bad stats: “GDP fell 0.1 percent in the December 2023 quarter, compared with ...
By Anneke Smith, RNZ News political reporter A petition urging the New Zealand government to provide urgent humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people has been tabled in the House. More than 200 people gathered on Parliament’s forecourt today and they were met by MPs from Labour, the Greens and Te ...
Pacific Media Watch The Paris-based global media freedom watchdog RSF (Reporters Without Borders) has appealed for information about the “disappearance” of Palestinian journalist Bayan Abusultan. She was reportedly last seen on March 19 among people “sequestered” in this week’s raid and siege of Al Shifa hospital by Israeli troops in ...
EDITORIAL:The Jakarta Post It happens again and again; indigenous Papuans fall victim to Indonesian soldiers. This time, we have photographic evidence for the brutality, with videos on social media showing a Papuan man being tortured by a group of plainclothes men alleged to be the Indonesian Military (TNI) members. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robyn J. Whitaker, Director of the Wesley Centre for Theology, Ethics, and Public Policy & Associate Professor, New Testament, Pilgrim Theological College, University of Divinity A strange and eclectic range of activities takes place across these few weeks of the year. Some ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Panizza Allmark, Professor Visual & Cultural Studies, Edith Cowan University It’s Easter weekend, which means many of us will be kicking back with the greatest hits on repeat. But whether you’re a boomer, or an ‘80s or ’90s kid, you might be ...
RNZ Pacific Fiji’s Acting Public Prosecutor has filed an appeal against the sentences of former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama and suspended police chief Sitiveni Qiliho in their corruption case. Bainimarama was granted an absolute discharge for attempting to pervert the course of justice while Qiliho received a conditional discharge with ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Arosha Weerakoon, Senior Lecturer and General Dentist, School of Dentistry, The University of Queensland Casezy idea/Shutterstock How does toothpaste work? What did people use before toothpaste was invented? – Amelia, age 7, Meanjin (Brisbane) Thanks for your ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brett Hallam, Associate professor, UNSW Sydney IM Imagery/Shutterstock Solar SunShot is well named. The Australian government announced today it would plough A$1 billion into bringing back solar manufacturing to Australia, boosting energy security, swapping coal and gas jobs for those ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clare Dix, Research Fellow in Nutrition & Dietetics, The University of Queensland Easter is the time for chocolate. The shops are full of fantastically packaged and shiny chocolates in all shapes and sizes, making trips to the supermarket with children more challenging ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Felton, Adjunct Senior Researcher, University of South Australia Even in a stubborn cost-of-living crisis, it seems there’s one luxury most Australians won’t sacrifice – their daily cup of coffee. Coffee sales have largely remained stable, even as financial pressures have ...
Mining company Trans-Tasman Resources has unexpectedly withdrawn its application for a consent to suck the valuable metals vanadium and titanium from the Taranaki seafloor, as it apparently wagers on the Government’s new fast-track process. It had spent two-and-a-half days putting its case to the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision-making committee, at ...
Contrary to the Associate Minister of Education’s claims, analysis of Healthy School Lunches Programme - Ka Ora, Ka Ako assessments has revealed it provides excellent value for the taxpayer dollar, as a groundswell of public opposition to Government ...
Greenpeace says wannabe Taranaki seabed miner Trans-Tasman Resources is likely banking on Christopher Luxon’s fast-track process to side-step proper scrutiny of its Taranaki seabed mining proposal by bailing out of the Environmental Protection Agency hearing ...
Kiwis Against Seabed mining today slammed Australian owned would-be seabed miner Trans Tasman Resources (TTR) for abandoning its application to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to mine the seabed of the South Taranaki Bight. The company ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katie Attwell, Associate Professor, School of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia Ground Picture/Shutterstock Months after COVID vaccines were introduced in 2021, governments and private organisations mandated them for various groups. Health and aged care workers were among the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Dzurak, Scientia Professor Andrew Dzurak, CEO and Founder of Diraq, UNSW Sydney Diraq For decades, the pursuit of quantum computing has struggled with the need for extremely low temperatures, mere fractions of a degree above absolute zero (0 Kelvin or ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne A national Essential poll, conducted March 20–24 from a sample of 1,150, gave the Coalition a 50–44 lead including undecided, a reversal ...
The Taxpayers’ Union has today made a formal request under the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Open Government Information () for information held about how New Zealand Members of Parliament are spending taxpayer ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Nelson, Honorary Principal Fellow, The University of Melbourne A Byzantine depiction of the Eucharist in Saint Sophia Cathedral, Kyiv.Jacek555/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA A nasty quarrel arose in the 11th century over what kind of bread should be used in holy ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick Hesp, Professor, Flinders University Patrick Hesp In some parts of Australia, coastal dunes are retreating from the ocean at an alarming rate, as waves carve up the beach and wind blows the sand inland. But coastal communities are largely ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Heemsbergen, Senior Lecturer, Digital, Political, Media, Deakin University With an impressive 60% of the US smartphone market, Apple is undeniably big, but not a clear monopoly. Yet, years of innovation by Apple have effectively given the company its own exclusive ...
Whether you’re facing layoffs or are just an emotional junior staffer, it’s always a good idea to scout out a good crying place before you need it. It’s an incredibly hard time for Wellington. Across the city, thousands of public servants are hearing tough news about redundancies and layoffs. Government ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Miller-Jones, Professor, Curtin University Nuclear explosions on a neutron star feed its jets. Danielle Futselaar and Nathalie Degenaar, Anton Pannekoek Institute, University of Amsterdam, CC BY-SA How fast can a neutron star drive powerful jets into space? The answer, it ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daryl Adair, Associate Professor of Sport Management, University of Technology Sydney Earlier this week, independent MP Andrew Wilkie accused the AFL of conducting “off the books” illicit drug testing to identify players using substances of abuse, then inappropriately withdrawing them from matches ...
The Government’s announcement that it will scrap plans for a vast marine sanctuary around the Kermadec Islands is ‘shameful’ and will make it impossible for Aotearoa New Zealand to meet its international commitments, says the World Wide Fund for Nature ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland Shutterstock The federal government has bowed to pressure from the car industry, announcing it will relax proposed emissions rules for utes and vans and delay enforcement of the new standards ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Suzanne Rutland, Professor Emerita, University of Sydney In his latest book, Jewish Life in Medieval Spain, Jonathan Ray focuses on the tumult of the 14th century in Spain – a time of the plague, civil strife and war between the two largest ...
While creating a slate of world-class shows, Whakaata Māori also developed a generation of world-class creatives. Television is an odd word. It mixes the Ancient Greek and Latin languages, and its most literal meaning is “far-off sight”. In the contemporary and living language of te reo Māori, “whakaata” as a ...
Yesterday the UN Security Council passed a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Israel’s war on Gaza. This significant step and the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza prompted an urgent debate in the New Zealand Parliament. Leader ...
The Government’s decision to reduce access to continuous glucose monitors (CGM) not only threatens the lives of children with type 1 diabetes and increases the potential for ‘Dead in Bed’ syndrome, but also threatens the health of their parents an ...
Apples are available year-round, but the wide variety on offer involves intensive scientific research – and large-scale commercialisation. What’s beautiful, red, sweet and crunchy? Tony Martin’s favourite kind of apple: Sassy. The CEO of apple and pear breeding organisation Prevar, Martin’s fondness for Sassy represents professional success as well as ...
Family violence specialist service Shine is calling on employers to stop asking for proof of domestic violence in order for employees to access domestic violence leave. The call comes five years after the introduction of the Domestic Violence ...
The Deputy Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee is calling for public submissions on the Budget Policy Statement 2024. The Budget Policy Statement 2024 (BPS) sets out the Government's priorities for the 2024 Budget. It explains the approach ...
Brutal government spending cuts that will see the size of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples slashed by 40% will hit Pasifika communities hard, the PSA says. The Ministry has told staff that it is seeking voluntary redundancies, and to redeploy and reassign ...
I live with five people I mostly love, but our different ideas about generosity are starting to really irk me.Want Hera’s help? Email your problem to helpme@thespinoff.co.nzDear Hera,This is a bit of a random one but here goes. I’m 22 and work an OK job (OK meaning I get paid ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maria Nicholas, Senior Lecturer in Language and Literacy Education, Deakin University Earlier this month, the New South Wales government announced it would roll out programs for gifted students in every public school in the state. This comes amid concerns gifted school ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Rudge, Law lecturer, University of Sydney Massachusetts General Hospital In a world first, we heard last week that US surgeons had transplanted a kidney from a gene-edited pig into a living human. News reports said the procedure was a ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Tombs, Howard Paterson Chair of Theology and Public Issues, University of Otago The 5th-century Maskell panel showing Jesus in a loincloth.British Museum, CC BY-NC-SA When Jesus is shown on the cross, he is almost always depicted wearing a loincloth around ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Panizza Allmark, Professor Visual & Cultural Studies, Edith Cowan University Shutterstock When you think about a red object, you might picture a red carpet, or the massive ruby in the Queen’s crown. Indeed, Western monarchies and marketing from brands such ...
COMMENTARY:Jewish Voice for Peace The UN Security Council passed a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza on Monday — and for the first time since the beginning of the Israeli military’s genocide of Palestinians, the United States abstained rather than vetoing it. Security Council resolutions are legally binding, ...
Asia Pacific Report A New Zealand investigative journalist and author says the US spy system hosted by the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) appears to be a controversial intelligence system used in global capture-kill operations. Writing a commentary for RNZ News today, Nicky Hager, author of Secret Power, a 1996 ...
While Nicola Willis wouldn’t give any details on its size, she said a package of tax cuts is definitely still coming in this year’s budget, writes Catherine McGregor in this excerpt from The Bulletin, The Spinoff’s morning news round-up. To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here. ...
The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming the investigation into the Department of Internal Affairs after it was revealed that the Department’s Chief Executive personally reached out to expedite a DJs passport application. Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns ...
Finance minister Nicola Willis delivers her first budget statement, and unwittingly helps Joel MacManus save his relationship. Nicola Willis strode into the Beehive Theatrette. Around me, on the green foldout seats, were the country’s top business and political journalists. They were all here to see her announce the Budget Policy ...
Twenty years ago today, Māori Television launched after much controversy. Jamie Tahana looks back on its survival and impact across two decades. Chad Chambers stepped onto the stage, the brim of his cap casting a shadow across his face. His smile beamed as bright as his white freezing works gumboots, ...
Tauranga, Rotorua, Wellsford, Onehunga, Westhaven marina – Gavin Strawhan walks the meanish streets of New Zealand in his entertaining debut novel The Call, almost sure to roar into the number 1 position on the Nielsen bestseller chart, its front cover bearing a rave from somebody: “A really good and genuinely ...
On a Thursday in February, at Wellington’s Conservation House, the Conservation Authority, a statutory body advising the eponymous department and minister, Tama Potaka, opened its 195th meeting. Under consideration that afternoon was an agenda item written by Tim Bamford, chief advisor in the Department of Conservation’s biodiversity, heritage and visitors ...
Are the reporters being obtuse, or trying hard to push an anti-union agenda to keep funding. This is why I’ve stopped listening.
https://twitter.com/nzmorningreport/status/841367660294094848
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),
https://thestandard.org.nz/coalition-building-deft-politics-from-little/#comment-1306352
I have a feeling that there is some good writing on this in Pundit too, I might see if I can find it. My concern is that in a tight election National will trump L/G, which is why L/G need all the MPs they can get. If L/G were actively working with TOP pre-election it might be different, but even then TOP have never been in parliament before and I’m not sure how much they would be trusted to be stable.
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,
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-16032017/#comment-1310096
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,
https://twitter.com/garethmorgannz/status/841501008723353600
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”
https://www.facebook.com/garethmorgannz/posts/1433644913344009?comment_id=1433652383343262&reply_comment_id=1433675593340941&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D
Perhaps you can explain to me how the Policy this week is a UBI despite being selectedly targeted and then how it will fit into The Big Kahuna costings and plan? Because I just don’t get it.
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.