Killing the Cullen Fund’s costing us

Written By: - Date published: 7:58 am, January 8th, 2013 - 45 comments
Categories: superannuation - Tags:

You may have missed it, but David Shearer recently picked up National’s policy of not contributing to the Cullen Fund until 2017/18 because the Government’s in deficit.

Of course, there is nothing fundamental about being in deficit that alters the case for investing the Cullen Fund any more than there is for transport investment or any other capital spending. It makes as much sense to say you shouldn’t put money in the Cullen Fund when there’s a deficit as to say you shouldn’t unless the surplus is over $5,691,000,000 – zero is an arbitrary and meaningless point. As long as the return exceeds the Crown’s cost of capital, it’s worthwhile.

So, how much have the canned contributions cost us so far? $1.2 billion.

If the contributions had continued at $180m per month and National hadn’t made that weird one-off $250m payment at the end of the 2008/09 year (if investing in the Cullen Fund was so crazy as they claimed, why did they finish with an extra big payment?), we would now have $8.6b more in the kitty to pay for our future superannuation costs and gross government debt would be $7.4b higher – net government debt would be $1.2 billion less than it is now.

(all the data for working this out is here)

And, because, the returns are compounding, the lost gains in the last three years will get exponentially larger (even if returns only keep up with inflation) over time.

Since the contributions were cancelled, the fund has averaged a return of 1.18% a month versus the average Crown borrowing cost of 0.22% per month. 5.5 times. Over its full life, including the big losses in 2008/09, the Cullen Fund has exceeded its goal of beating the Crown’s cost of capital by 2.5%.

Cancelling the Cullen Fund contributions may end up being the costliest mistake this National has made. Because the contributions and the lost gains on them will have to be made up later. See, there’s a legislative requirement that there is a certain amount of money in the Fund (roughly $100b) when it begins to pay down at the end of next decade. The Fund is currently $20.5b when it would be $29.1b if the contributions had continued, and that gap get exponentially wider every year the contributions are suspended.

The legislation has a formula that works out the amount of contributions needed each year to get to that $100b target.

To try to make up the lost ground, when contributions resume in 2017/18, Treasury’s model says we’ll have to put over $2 billion a year in, whereas, if we kept the contributions up the whole time, it would be $1.5b. And the lost time means we’ll never close the gap – in 2030, the Fund will be worth $96b if the contributions only resume in 2017/18, but if they resumed today, there would be $110b.

By failing to invest early, we’re losing tens of billions in the long-run. Tens of billions that would pay for our superannuation when the time comes and would right now be reducing our net debt to the rest of the world.

But that’s National for you, short-termists and failures to the end.

45 comments on “Killing the Cullen Fund’s costing us”

  1. Colonial Viper 1

    By failing to invest early, we’re losing tens of billions in the long-run. Tens of billions that would pay for our superannuation when the time comes and would right now be reducing our net debt to the rest of the world.

    But that’s National for you, short-termists and failures to the end.

    You didn’t mention Labour in your conclusion, even though they have copied this exact same National policy for the exact same National reasons?

    • mike e 1.1

      CV with out the 20 billion in the Cullen fund National would be making cuts similar to Camoron in the UK!?

      • Colonial Viper 1.1.1

        National would have to borrow an extra $45M per week to keep contributing to the Cullen Fund, but that borrowed money would have been paying itself back even faster as the fund gained.

        Having said that, I remain extremely dubious of the safety of these monies invested in the casino financial markets.

  2. Lightly 2

    which is why it’s good to see the Fund actually doing direct investment in assets, buying up large interests in strategic assets (even if one of them is a petrol station chain), not just trading in shares

    • Colonial Viper 2.1

      🙂 sure, its important to follow the clue of the banksters mafia in Europe. Buy up ports, airports, farms, power generation and grid, and other productive assets.

  3. DH 3

    Well I for one hope that the left parties don’t drag this up again. It’s a fools gambit.

    James the risk free rate of return quoted in the fund workings is not the cost of Crown borrowing. That’s the 90day bill rate. Interest on Govt debt is considerably higher than that 0.22% and if they’d borrowed more to pay into the fund it would likely be higher again.

    Any gains would have been negligible, much less than $1.2b, and offset against the reduced cashflow from interest payments on the borrowing.

    • Lightly 3.1

      long-term govt bonds are now going at less than 3%. The 90 day Bill is at 2.5%.

      “Any gains would have been negligible, much less than $1.2b, and offset against the reduced cashflow from interest payments on the borrowing.”

      care to do the numbers, or are we just supposed to believe you?

      • DH 3.1.1

        The argument is stupid. The high returns from the fund since payments were cancelled are primarily due to the value of existing investments bouncing back after the big losses in 2008/2009. It doesn’t follow that new money invested would have returned the same kind of sums.

        The long run return from the fund is 2.62% above the risk free rate of return. Even if Govt borrowing cost was the same that’s a gain of $26.2million for every $1billion invested, which wouldn’t come close to $1.2billion in four years.

        Whatever the gains it would also have resulted in a cashflow loss to the Crown of a greater sum, since the cost of Crown borrowing is higher than 2.62%. With the Crown running a deficit they’d have had to borrow the interest as well, which would compound Govt debt further.

        The intended purpose of the Super fund is to take the burden of Super off future generations. Well borrowing won’t do that will it, future generations will instead be paying off similar sums of Govt debt & be no better off.

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1

          Borrowing to put into the Cullen Fund would have left the country better off today, by $1.2B.

          I agree that past performance does not necessarily indicate future performance however (a premise you would do well to stick to yourself).

          • TightyRighty 3.1.1.1.1

            CV, the cheertator has pronounced, therefore it must be so!

            No matter that DH may have a point should he wish to love it himself, this is not a cheerocracy, this is a cheertator ship. All hail CV!

            Why not just Kim Jong-un it and say that labour would have been responsible for the extra 1.2b if national had continued with the payments?

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1.1

              but Labour wouldn’t have continued with the payments. Labour and National think the same way and both have said they wouldn’t continue the payments.

        • mike e vipe e 3.1.1.2

          DH you have got your accounting wrong the 2.62% is the difference between borrowing costs and return i.e. profit.

  4. Here is a link to an interesting chart.

    Max Keiser alludes to it because of the minute amounts of gold owned by your average sovereign wealth fund but it also shows that most sovereign wealth funds invest ridiculous amounts of money in other things. The Cullen fund was recently given the price for being the most innovative SWF. They even beat the Kazakhstan oil fund.

    What that meant according to the website is they had a good system for deciding what to buy and invest in. The Cullen fund has some interest in Dairy, Forest and other real world assets but the GAAP changed one or two years ago allowing them to deny us to find out what kind of derivatives they have on their books, most especially which ones are currently losing money.

    My guess is that with a Merrill Lynch derivatives and wealth specialist on the first of the board of guardians in 2002 when they started trading and a Goldman Sachs banker on the current board of Guardians it is reasonable to presume that the Cullen fund is chockablock with new fangled Financial Products, collateral debt swaps and other derivatives which will evaporate into thin air when the global Financial System collapses under the weight of the derivatives bubble.

    • tc 4.1

      ‘GAAP’ Generally Available Avoidance Policy, so much for IFRS and other tomes from the international beannies board etc etc protecting people by providing transparency so they can make informed decisions.

      There’s a reason why they don’t want you to see the smoke and mirrors.

      • Colonial Viper 4.1.1

        Goldman Sachs bankers get bonuses based on how much money they can rip off from their clients.

        GS is not called the “Vampire Squid” of the investment banking cartel for nothing.

  5. alwyn 5

    There is one major reason for the Government NOT putting any further money into the Cullen Fund.
    NO politiciann, in any party, can be trusted to keep their grubby little paws off the investment policy, at least in the long run. As the fund was set up it was meant to be kept well clear of the political desires of the hack politicians in our Parliament. Unfortunately, because of the Constitutional rules that prevent any Parliament binding its successors we can’t rely on that continuing indefinitely.
    National, for example, proposed in 2008 that the fund should invest 40% of the funds in New Zealand. I don’t know whether they forced it to happen or not but it was certainly a proposal.
    The Green party have been the worst offenders. If one reads through their policy they have very definite proposals for what the fund should do. Basically they will decide what they think is desirable and then order the Fund to invest in their fantasies. I am quite sure they will, if they ever get into power ORDER the fund to invest in any rail project that is proposed, regardless of the economic merits. They will also insist it invests in any form of “renewable” energy that is suggested.
    I would suggest that there won’t be any fund to pay for Super in the future. It will all be frittered away on political grand-standing.
    Labour and Green policies will also prevent the money ever becoming available to pay for Superanuation.
    After all the fund is state owned and therefore anything it owns must be a state-owned asset. However to obtain the funds to pay Super the assets will have to be sold, and these parties policies forbid any such sale.
    Will the funds ever become available? Not a chance. They will just be an enormous slush fund for economic illiterates, like Russel Norman, to blow on their favourite fantasies.

    • Colonial Viper 5.1

      Countries with major sovereign wealth funds like Singapore, Norway and Russia seem to do quite well.

      However, I am concerned that our funds are invested in productive assets as much as possible, and not financialised casino instruments.

      And you don’t have to be worried about politicians wasting the money; the bankers are more likely to steal it first.

      • alwyn 5.1.1

        I don’t know anything about the operations of the Russian Fund. Given much of the activities of the Putin regime I would however worry about its soundness.
        One thing to note about the Singapore and Norwegian funds is that they do not invest at all in their own countries. This is not the case in New Zealand and would become even less likely if the Green party had any influence. Investing exclusively outside the country enables one to cash up when it becomes time to spend the money. Investing inside your own country will mean, in practice, that when the state requires the money, as the Cullen fund is meant to be needed, it will mean the only practical buyer of the assets will end up being a foreign purchaser, which is something the Labour and Green parties are sworn to oppose.
        The worst thing that a fund such as the Cullen fund could do would be to invest the money in NZ Government bonds or such like. Then the state would owe the money to itself and when it was needed for paying Super it would have to be done from current taxation. In practice there would be no fund at all.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1

          But the Cullen Fund doesn’t need to “cash up” productive assets, that’s why they are called productive assets: they generate a strong income stream eg dairy farms and hydrodams.

          One thing to note about the Singapore and Norwegian funds is that they do not invest at all in their own countries.

          Not true. For example, Temasak invests in a lot of Singaporean companies.

          • alwyn 5.1.1.1.1

            To your first comment about not having to cash up. This illustrates what I was saying about the way that the design of the Cullen fund will be manipulated to achieve other aims. (Note I am not suggesting that you are a politician who is going to do it). I am only saying that the design of the system will be changed.
            The fund was intended to receive positive contributions from the state until 2029 and then to be run down from that date. The peak of the assets would be achieved in about 2050 and the fund was then expected to SHRINK from about that date.
            I refer to http://www.nzsuperfund.co.nz/index.asp?pageID=2145879268

            You are right about Temasek Holdings. Singapore has two Sovereign Wealth Funds. Temasek Holdings is the smaller. The other, The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, is about 50% bigger. It was that one I was thinking about when I said they did not invest in Singapore. In total about 12% of Singapores funds are invested in Singapore companies.

            • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1.1.1

              12% internal investment is probably a deliberate target by the Singaporean authorities. More than that and the nature of their geography (tiny island nation) would present too much of a risk. For instance, a tsunami causing massive damage to Singapore would end up causing massive damage to their sovereign wealth fund in just one hit, exactly when they needed it.

              In NZ, I suspect that we could have up to 20%-25% internal investment in NZ and still achieve a relatively good risk profile (e.g. no one tsunami or earthquake could take out all NZ investments in one hit).

    • millsy 5.2

      And what is your problem with rail?

      Your concerns (however unfounded they are), will be addressed by having the nation building activites that you deride with such scorn being the filthy neo-liberal scum you are, be the responsibility of a seperate fund.

      You beloved nats, with their Future Investment Fund, has provided such a vehicle, but they, with their obsession with neo-liberalism, are too blind to see it. DS, is probably as well., but he apparenltly has expressed interest into looking into whether a study is possible as to whether we might think about adopting Singapore’s Temasek Holding model.

      • alwyn 5.2.1

        I only just noticed this comment.
        My, you were grumpy when you wrote it weren’t you.
        “You beloved Nats” you say. I don’t know whether you mean “YOU”, in which case you are wrong as I am certainly not a member of that party, or “YOUR”, in which case you are wrong as I certainly don’t think much of them.
        You did notice I said “No politician, in any party, can be trusted to keep their grubby little paws off the investment policy …”. Does that sound like someone who loves a party?
        I distrust the activities of ALL politicians. They are, as a general rule, in it for the power they can over the rest of the populace.

        • millsy 5.2.1.1

          I did a search for your comments. You tend to slant to the right.

          • alwyn 5.2.1.1.1

            I would agree with that. It’s just that I don’t trust po;iticians
            Actually it was the phrase “being the filthy neo-liberal scum you are” that I thought was just a tad harsh.

  6. Rogue Trooper 6

    interesting. a long-standing, well read socialist that I am friends with argues that the “Greens” are “idealists” 🙂 and do not see the people clearly, except Julie, mmmwha

  7. Tiresias 7

    It must be remembered, too, that National’s friends in the finance industry do very much better out of KiwiSaver than they do the Cullen Fund.

  8. infused 8

    There is equal chance we could have lost that much money. What would your headline be then? Either way National is fucked, but less fucked this way.

    • Colonial Viper 8.1

      There is equal chance we could have lost that much money.

      Best to invest it in houses and property instead

      • TightyRighty 8.1.1

        No, big budget movies seem the way forward.

      • alwyn 8.1.2

        You are aware of what the primary cause of the banking liquidity crisis in 2008 was are you?
        All those people putting ever larger amounts of money into houses and property and then when the bubble burst the whole thing fell apart.
        Now repeat after me, “House prices can fall as well as rise”.

        • Colonial Viper 8.1.2.1

          The thing is that your answer covers investment asset prices, and implies that it wasn’t actually a liquidity crisis in 2008. Never was of course.

  9. TightyRighty 9

    But for 67 million the country for got 1.5 billion back. That’s ROI

    • mike e vipe e 9.1

      tighty almiighty we didn’t get 1.5 billion the film co got that before expenses that just the takings at the door.All up between the hobbit and LOR the govt has pumped nearly $400 million and NZ has benefited by $400 million Zero profit!
      The Hobbit is not doing any where near as well in door sales down considerably on the LOR !

      • TightyRighty 9.1.1

        At the risk of another incoherent rant, source please for your claim that $400m went in, and that NZ only saw $400m worth of benefit.

        I think you are full of it to be honest. The film companies spent more than that all these films in NZ. So should we just ignore the marketing and tourism spin offs?

        • mike e vipe e 9.1.1.1

          Between council and govt hand outs since the Clark govt started funding the LOR i think you will find from last years hobbit fiasco figures published here on the standard thats roughly the sum stumped up by us the tax payer!

      • TightyRighty 9.1.2

        At the risk of another incoherent rant, source please for your claim that $400m went in, and that NZ only saw $400m worth of benefit.

        I think you are full of it to be honest. The film companies spent more than that on all these films in NZ. So should we just ignore the marketing and tourism spin offs?

        • mike e vipe e 9.1.2.1

          These film companies might have spent more on these films but not all in NZ!

  10. tracey 10

    One drawback is that having bought shares when prices were high we have lost the opportunity to buy in when they are low. Key would know this from his trading days. The one thing he has some knowledge of hes fucked up

  11. tracey 11

    Tightright cld you post your source for the statement that the coubtry has received 1.5b from the hobbit?

  12. mike e vipe e 12

    Tight arse almighty show me the real figures they Don’t look any where as good as you portray!
    The feel good factor maybe but no real increase in tourism no real increase in jobs!
    The Americas cup on the other hand has built a $2 billion a year boat building industry!
    When the hobbits have finished thats if they are the film industry will bugger off to Estonia!

  13. irascible 13

    I would contend the biggest balls up any Government of NZ has made was the Muldoon decision to axe the 1972-75 Labour Governments contributory superannuation scheme followed by the KeY-English decision to prune the Labour Government (Cullen) fund. In both cases short term self interest has won out over long term investment in the country and thus encouraged the “flog off the assets to foreign corporates” policies we now see being enacted in the name of “saving the country (by destroying it)”.

    • millsy 13.1

      Very little chance the NZ Superannuation Corporation would have made it beyond the 80’s (rather like disco really). It would have been chopped up and farmed out to Wall St.

  14. irascible 14

    Agrred. Richardson would’ve been in there boots & all ready to privatise and gut the NZ Superannuation Corporation in the quest for “private enterprise efficiencies.”
    I doubt if Douglas would’ve attempted to dismantle what was, in 1975, his policy and creation. Then, again, that is supposing that Douglas didn’t undergo the same sort of road to Damascus revision that lead to his leaving Labour and creating ACT.

    • millsy 14.1

      ” doubt if Douglas would’ve attempted to dismantle what was, in 1975, his policy and creation. ”

      You never know with Douglas….

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • More proof National not delivering for New Zealanders
    The Ministry of Social Development’s latest Household Incomes Report is more hard evidence of the growing poverty in New Zealand, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. “National claims to be delivering for New Zealanders. This report puts the lie ...
    2 hours ago
  • Strong support from medical community for Healthy Homes Bill
    More than a thousand medical professionals, medical students, and other New Zealanders have shown their support for Labour’s Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. ...
    5 hours ago
  • Labour will fund Buller Health Centre
    A Labour Government will fully fund the Buller Integrated Family Health Centre in Westport, confirming its commitment to the people of the West Coast and the role of central government to fund essential public services, says Labour’s Health spokesperson David ...
    6 hours ago
  • National’s affordable promise for Auckland more smoke and mirrors
    The 26,000 additional houses National plans to build in Auckland on public land over the next decade include fewer than 5,000 affordable homes, while more than 60 per cent will be available for speculators to buy, says Leader of the ...
    10 hours ago
  • National out of touch over immigration
    National’s abrupt backflip on their recently-announced changes to immigration shows they never understood the problem and just came up with a confused knee jerk response, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. “Regional communities and businesses were quite right to ...
    1 day ago
  • English out of touch on homelessness
    Bill English’s comments that he doesn’t know why people are complaining about the blowout in the number of homeless families the government is putting up in motels just shows how tired and out of touch National is after nine years, ...
    1 day ago
  • All Kiwis to have same standard of cancer care
    Labour is promising that all New Zealanders will have access to the same level of cancer care no matter where they live in the country, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little.   “As someone who has survived cancer I ...
    2 days ago
  • Infrastructure announcement too long coming
    “What took you so long?” is Labour’s response to the Government’s announcement of a new infrastructure investment vehicle. Labour’s Auckland Issues spokesperson Phil Twyford says Labour announced its policy in 2015 to debt-finance infrastructure and service that debt with targeted ...
    2 days ago
  • Time for a breather on immigration
    National has no idea how to house the record number of people entering New Zealand, let alone cope with the pressure on health, education, and transport from this record population growth, says Labour’s Immigration spokesperson Iain Lees-Galloway. ...
    4 days ago
  • Labour to invest $4 billion in education
    Labour’s Education Manifesto will bring positive change across the education sector and is backed by a massive investment, says Labour’s Education Spokesperson Chris Hipkins.  “Labour’s plan will see an extra $4 billion invested over the next four years. It’s organised ...
    4 days ago
  • National’s shame: worst homelessness in the OECD
    National’s legacy is a housing crisis that has given New Zealand the worst homeless rate in the developed world, says Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    4 days ago
  • Labour taking action on school donations
    Labour will end so-called voluntary school donations for the majority of parents across the country under its $4 billion plan to revitalise the education sector, says Labour Leader Andrew Little. “Labour has always been committed to a world-class free education ...
    4 days ago
  • Labour to work with Queenstown to build more houses
    Labour will work with Queenstown-Lakes District Council, iwi, and the Community Housing Trust to build the modern, affordable housing Queenstown desperately needs, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. ...
    5 days ago
  • Nats blow the Budget on motels after bowling state houses
    National is spending $140,000 a day putting homeless families in motels, the legacy of nine years of selling off and knocking down state houses, says Labour Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    5 days ago
  • New revelations in Joanne Harrison report
    The State Services Commission’s report into the treatment of whistle-blowers by Joanne Harrison has revealed new accusations against the convicted fraudster, says Labour MP Sue Moroney.  “The report found that four staff inside the Ministry of Transport who had raised ...
    5 days ago
  • Snafu at Princess Margaret
    Jonathan Coleman has to stop the stalling over a new building for mental health services in Christchurch to replace the quake damaged Princess Margaret Hospital, says Labour’s Health spokesperson David Clark. “The Government must accept that Christchurch is still recovering ...
    5 days ago
  • Labour’s fiscal plan to build a fairer New Zealand
    Labour will re-build our housing, health and education while responsibly managing New Zealand’s finances, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little.  “Under Labour’s Fiscal Plan we will deliver big investments in the services we all need and care about, invest ...
    6 days ago
  • Nats show they’re the tax dodgers’ best friends
    The government is taking the knife to IRD at a time when we need a highly skilled department to ensure that multinationals and speculators don’t get away with dodging tax, says Labour’s Revenue spokesperson Michael Wood. ...
    6 days ago
  • Labour secures the future for NZ Super
    A Labour Government will secure the future for New Zealand Superannuation so we can continue to provide superannuation to those retiring at age 65, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. “One of the first things a Labour-led Government will ...
    1 week ago
  • Multinationals must pay fair share of tax
    A Labour Government will crack down on multinational companies that are dodging paying their fair share of tax, says Labour Leader Andrew Little. “New Zealanders are missing out by hundreds of millions according to the IRD because multinational companies can ...
    1 week ago
  • ACT’s approach to children backward and ill informed
    Act’s new deputy leader’s claim that Labour’s support for families could “extend the misery of child poverty and even child abuse” is ill informed and offensive, says Labour’s Deputy Leader Jacinda Ardern. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Canterbury hatchet job a disgrace
    The Government’s glib acceptance of advice that the Canterbury District Health Board doesn’t need more money is a hatchet job and a disgrace, says Labour’s Health Spokesperson David Clark. “To claim that the DHB was using tactics to leverage more ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Quality for Kiwi kids at ECE
    After more than a decade of rapid growth in the number of children participating in Early Childhood Education (ECE), it’s time to take stock and map out a clear plan for the future, says Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Labour to boost ECE quality
    Labour will ensure kids get the best start in life by boosting funding for Early Childhood Centres to employ 100 per cent qualified and registered teachers, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Labour will stump up a million dollars for Maniototo Hospital
    A Labour led Government will make a million dollars available to rebuild the Maniototo Base hospital in Ranfurly, says the Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little.  “This will be a much needed boost for a long overdue rebuild that has ...
    2 weeks ago
  • No vision for the West Coast
    The West Coast welcomes any Government investment in our region but the lack of any real alternative vision for the West Coast’s economy is disappointing, says Damien O’Connor Labour’s West Coast-Tasman MP.  “The establishment of a Mining Research Unit will ...
    2 weeks ago
  • National’s youth work scheme too little too late
    After nine years, National’s belated attempt to provide work opportunities for unemployed youth should be seen for what it is, a half-hearted, election gimmick from a party that’s ignored the problem till now, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Kiwis won’t fall for Joyce’s spin
    Steven Joyce’s embarrassingly obvious spin on Labour’s Families Package won’t fool anyone, says Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Labour prioritises families and public services
    Labour’s Families Package delivers a bigger income boost to more than 70 per cent of families with children than Budget 2017. By not spending $1.5 billion a year on tax cuts, Labour is able to do more for lower and ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Kiwis can’t sleep in your ghost houses, Nick
    The Government’s housing infrastructure announcement is another Nick Smith special – over-promising with no detail on delivery, says Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Labour helps older New Zealanders and low income families with winter heating bills
    Labour will further boost its commitment to warm, healthy housing with a Winter Energy Payment for superannuitants and people receiving main benefits, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. “Everyone deserves a warm, healthy home to live in. But that’s ...
    2 weeks ago
  • National must rule out retrospective override for Ruataniwha
    National must categorically rule out using retrospective legislation to override the Supreme Court’s decision that the land swap of conservation land flooded by the proposed Ruataniwha Dam was illegal, says Labour’s Shadow Attorney General David Parker. “Having not got their ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Flavell’s failure a win for Māori landowners
    The Māori Development Minister’s admission that his unpopular Ture Whenua Māori Bill won’t pass into law prior to the election is a victory for Māori landowners, but only a change of government will keep the Bill gone for good, says ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Stats confirm growing housing shortfall
    National’s failure to fix the housing shortage has been starkly illustrated by new statistics, says Labour Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Systemic abuse of kids in state care
    After admitting there was systemic abuse of children in State care the Government must do the right thing and launch an independent inquiry, says Labour’s Deputy Leader Jacinda Ardern. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Migrant worker exploitation needs sharper focus
    The astonishing number of employers found guilty of exploiting migrants shows that migrant exploitation is a serious problem in New Zealand, says Labour Workplace Relations and Safety spokesperson Iain Lees-Galloway. “A total of 53 companies have been banned from recruiting ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Minister faces questions over dam debacle
    Today’s Supreme Court ruling dismissing an appeal to allow a land swap for the controversial Ruataniwha Dam is a victory for our conservation estate and Hawke’s Bay ratepayers, but leaves the Conservation Minister with serious questions to answer, says Ikaroa-Rāwhiti ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Too little too late on Wellington housing
    The announcement today on social housing in Wellington by the National Government is a pitiful and cynical election ploy, says Labour’s Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson. “In 2012 Housing New Zealand emptied out the Gordon Wilson Flats, taking 130 places ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Foreign trusts wilt in the sunlight, but more transparency needed
    The fact that the numbers of foreign trusts registered in New Zealand has plummeted after the Government’s belated and reluctant imposition of a new reporting regime, in the wake of the Panama Papers scandal, shows the need for a transparent, ...
    3 weeks ago