Open mike 13/07/2023

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 13th, 2023 - 83 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

83 comments on “Open mike 13/07/2023 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Dennis Frank 1
    13 July 2023 at 6:20 am

    So here's the guts:

    Hipkins was also losing his main advantage over National’s leader Christopher Luxon: his personal popularity. He had dropped from 29 to 23 per cent as preferred Prime Minister in the Curia poll, now just three points ahead of Luxon on 20 per cent.

    And the Curia poll also hit a record low for those who believed the country was heading in the wrong direction: 65 per cent said it was heading that way, while only 22 per cent believed it was the right direction.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/labours-chris-hipkins-eyes-up-new-tax-policy-as-poll-struggles-bite-warns-to-expect-restraint-after-ruling-out-wealth-tax-capital-gains-tax/JQ2DUV345RHDDKNVS6C4TI3Y5E/

    The PM has lost his mana and is now only marginally ahead of Luxon. Two thirds of the respondents reckon Aotearoa is going the wrong way, only a fifth think it's on track. The other 13% either believe its going sideways or deemed the question too hard.

    Anyone who can cook up a left-wing win scenario out of this public sentiment are pushing shit up-hill…

  2. Dennis Frank 2
    13 July 2023 at 6:39 am

    Luxon on Hipkins: “He’s just being politically expedient and going to say and do anything in order to win an election.”

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/labours-chris-hipkins-eyes-up-new-tax-policy-as-poll-struggles-bite-warns-to-expect-restraint-after-ruling-out-wealth-tax-capital-gains-tax/JQ2DUV345RHDDKNVS6C4TI3Y5E/

    See that straight-talking stance he's got going there: tell it like it is. It will be expedient to attract floating voters back to Labour after having alienated them. It will also be unlikely. Boomers will need a substantial bribe, so we could expect Grant to pull a magic rabbit out of his financial hat: rob the poor to pay the rich! Classic neoliberalism.

    The PM will be happy with that, knowing that he's out-Luxing Luxon. Labour will leap up & down with excitement, seeing that they will continue to represent the middle class.

    The Herald poll bar graph in primary colours displays a precise electorate triad: left/right/neither all rating a third each!

  3. Dennis Frank 3
    13 July 2023 at 6:48 am

    Stunning revelation from Britain's Conservative govt:

    Ben Wallace, the UK defence secretary, said on Wednesday: “You know, we’re not Amazon.” https://www.ft.com/content/dc658252-6acd-44fc-8e0c-51a284009762

    The Financial Times was impressed to see this announcement to the media. I expect most of their media would have agreed with him that they did indeed know that.

    However there would inevitably be some who would wonder, knowing that any statement from the Conservatives was probably untrue.

    I suspect their media also contains hard-core sceptics operating from down their personal rabbit-hole – immediately realising that the official denial meant the govt really was Amazon. These folk would jump onto the internet to spread the word…

  4. Dennis Frank 4
    13 July 2023 at 7:15 am

    Three's political editor has a farming tail wagging Labour dog theory:

    Behind the scenes, I'm hearing it was the risk of revolt from the farmers that wrecked this one. While $5 million in wealth sounds like a lot to most New Zealanders, a bunch of dairy farms would've been captured and Hipkins didn't count on his ability to sell it in a close election campaign.

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/07/jenna-lynch-risk-of-revolt-from-farmers-wrecked-labour-s-tax-switch-idea.html

    So Hipkins believes dairy farmers vote Labour & freaked out about the wealth tax, realising it would force them to vote National. I'm impressed. Such laser-like political logic would have been way over the heads of most Labourites, I'd have thought.

    • Cricklewood 4.1
      13 July 2023 at 8:18 am

      Heaps of farms are held in trusts as well, there's no doubt it would be problematic to levy a fairly significant tax on what is productive sector in terms of export dollars.

      It's the unproductive stuff we need to figure out how to capture and ideally make things like housing far less of an attractive short term investment vehicle.

      • bwaghorn 4.1.1
        13 July 2023 at 8:57 am

        Ghost houses and air bnbs would be a good start for taxing the fuck out of

        • Shanreagh 4.1.1.1
          13 July 2023 at 11:39 am

          Ghost houses and air bnbs would be a good start for taxing the fuck out of

          That's my view too…..but it needs work and finesse.

          Easier just to say everyone is wealthy and tax them.

          • Incognito 4.1.1.1.1
            13 July 2023 at 1:13 pm

            Easier just to say everyone is wealthy and tax them.

            Even with a sarc tag this would be a disingenuous comment. There is nothing ‘easy’ about the Greens’ Tax Policy, for example. Your disagreeing views are starting to straddle into obnoxious resistance.

            If you wish to have a grown-up conversation about increasing tax (https://thestandard.org.nz/hipkins-tax-gamble/#comment-1959509) you’ll need to start acting like one.

            • Shanreagh 4.1.1.1.1.1
              13 July 2023 at 2:29 pm

              Sorry for leaving off the sarcasm tag. I did mean it sarcastically.

              I am entitled to my views. if I want to express them sarcastically then I will. I happen to think that the Treasury and IRD work on high net work individuals is better. That is not resisting just saying someone else got some thing 'more righter' (sic)

              I have been putting forward other ideas that I hope will be looked at & will have a better chance of success. High net worth people should pay their share and if other taxes are slotted in at home sale or death waypoints those of us less financially endowed can too.

              The Green party wealth tax failed in my view

              1it included the family home

              2 if they were to include the family home the point at which the tax came about needed to be much higher.
              3 I still find the inclusion of KS problematic bearing in mind that those who took it out were probably responding to Govt signals that govt funded national Super may not be affordable in the long term,
              and
              it makes economic sense to do this.

              NB in its work looking at high net worth individuals the figures discounted the value of the family home. That seems a fairly good sign to me that those investigating this had a pretty good understanding of the psyche of NZers as far as aspiring to buy/live in our own piece of dirt.

              While I am glad that the wealth tax idea was knocked out there are still good policies in the Greens manifesto for those of us wanting to opt for the Labour/Greens combo.

              • Incognito …
                13 July 2023 at 9:03 pm

                And again, you misread the comment or chose to ignore the part(s) that you dislike. This is becoming an issue in discussions on this topic but I’m also starting to wonder more about your contributions to other discussion threads on other controversial topics here on TS. Note that my concern doesn’t relate to disagreeing opinion, counter-arguments, or discerning voice but to pattern behaviours that are not conducive to robust grown-up constructive debate. I refer to Lprent’s recent comments for further context.

                Your comment was disingenuous, with or without sarc tag.

                Everybody is free to put forward their views & opinions here. In fact, we welcome & encourage this in the expectation that it generates robust debate. People who have no arguments (left) sometime resort to disingenuous comments and this can turn into obnoxious behaviour.

                The Wealth Tax proposals would affect approximately 0.5 to 0.7% of people, give or take, depending on the proposal. This is miles off being “everyone’, as you sarcastically implied.

                Several times you have deflected & diverted to the example of those 311 of the wealthiest families in NZ that generally have a net worth of more than $50M. It is disingenuous to suggest that tax policy should focus or target on only those families when it is the findings of this research that underpins much of the WT proposals. I note that these are families, not individuals, so you are comparing apples & oranges, again.

                NB in its work looking at high net worth individuals the figures discounted the value of the family home.

                Citation needed. It’s irrelevant anyway for the purpose of that research.

                • Shanreagh …
                  13 July 2023 at 10:01 pm

                  “NB in its work looking at high net worth individuals the figures discounted the value of the family home.

                  Citation needed. It’s irrelevant anyway for the purpose of that research.”

                  I have already linked to this today.

                  The papers show that Treasury estimated a tax on individuals with assets of over $5 million, not including their family home, would hit only 25,000 individuals or 0.5 per cent of the total population. However, that group would have assets totalling $5 billion or 26% of all the assets held by individuals. Nevertheless, it could raise $3.8 billion a year by 2025 and allow tax reductions for low income taxpayers. But the Prime Minister,ruled it out in late April and even more emphatically yesterday.

                  https://www.politik.co.nz/labours-secret-tax-plans/

                  The figures that are covered in this is 25,000 people with assets of over $5M. It excludes the family home and could raise $3.8billion pa by 2025.

                  So even considering the wealth of these 25,000 the regulators feel that including the family home is not on. They may be more in tune with the known psyche/social/historic relationship that Kiwis have with home ownership.

                  Census data shows that homeownership peaked in the 1990s at 74 percent and by 2018 had fallen to 65 percent of households, the lowest rate since 1951. However, homeownership rates appear to have been more stable between 2013 and 2018.

                  https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/homeownership-rate-lowest-in-almost-70-years#:~:text=Census%20data%20shows%20that%20homeownership,stable%20between%202013%20and%202018.

                  Looking at those who owned more than one property ie excluding the family home, may include some of the ones already caught in the Treasury figures. It gives an idea of where to look now, possibly, if there is a correlation between owning more than one property and ghost or empty houses. Taxing empty houses may be worth looking at.

                  One such analysis, which was based on Land Information New Zealand and Companies Office data, found that 13.2 per cent of property was owned by people who had two properties while 6.5 per cent was owned by people who had three properties.

                  These are the world-wide figures for home ownership.

                  https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/home-ownership-rate

                  Even noting that home ownership rates have fallen in NZ, it is still a majority.

                  I feel we need to work so all have the chance to home ownership. This should not be taxed.

                  Or have a rental market that is stable, possibly including more institutional investors, so people can rent for long periods of time and have stability. They have the option then of home ownership or renting without being at the whim of a private LL who may want to cash up.

                  https://www.localgov.co.uk/How-institutional-investors-can-boost-the-UKs-private-rented-sector/55713

                  • Incognito …
                    14 July 2023 at 1:03 pm

                    I have already linked to this today.

                    That might be the case, but not under this Post and not in this discussion thread, AFAIK.

                    In this thread @ 4.1.1.1.1.1 (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13-07-2023/#comment-1959559) above, your wrote :

                    I happen to think that the Treasury and IRD work on high net work [sic] individuals is better. [my italics]

                    And in this thread @ 4.1.2 (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13-07-2023/#comment-1959561) below, you were referring & linking to the IRD research.

                    So, I mistook it as the IRD study, my bad.

                    I assume you’ve read those Budget papers released by Treasury and you’ve seen that Treasury advised against the exemption of the family home with some strong arguments.

                    The irony of your irrational resistance to including the family home in a Wealth Tax, which would only affect 0.5 or 0.7% of people, i.e., the wealthiest of all, is that it could increase inequity and move home ownership further out of reach for more Kiwis.

                    Including the family home in a WT is not a disincentive for home ownership, not even for those wealthy individuals. It is a fact that Capital Gains are a major source of un-taxed wealth in NZ. To wean off Kiwis from investing or speculating in property, including the family home, and instead investing in productive enterprises is something I do advocate unlike you, it seems.

                    I won’t even go into the effects of your stance on inter-generational wealth transfer among the well-offs by exempting the family home.

                    The absolute majority of home owners in NZ would not be affected by a WT under the proposals that we have seen. Your resistance is based on fear and thus is irrational.

                    If you are worth $2+M then you can afford to pay a WT. End of.

                  • weka …
                    14 July 2023 at 2:29 pm

                    The figures that are covered in this is 25,000 people with assets of over $5M. It excludes the family home and could raise $3.8billion pa by 2025.

                    How does this lift everyone out of poverty?

                    The GP budgeted for $15.48B in 2024/2025 via a wealth tax, tax on trusts, and a change in companies tax rate.

                    That's what was needed to lift people out of poverty. Your figures are designed for an approach that lifts some people out of poverty and leaves the rest behind. That's horrible.

              • weka …
                13 July 2023 at 9:38 pm

                why is including the family home a problem?

                • Molly …
                  13 July 2023 at 9:47 pm

                  Houses always cost money – rates, repairs, maintenance, insurance.

                  Homes used as the owner's residence don't generate income, and will still require money even when paid off.

                  The wealth tax is a poor substitute for a more efficient income and corporate tax system.

                  • weka …
                    14 July 2023 at 2:32 pm

                    that doesn't adequately explain why a personal home should be excluded from a wealth tax.

                    Houses always cost money and yet people with over $2m are making far more in capital gains than it costs to maintain a house.

                    Houses do generate income, via capital gains. It's not weekly income but it is untaxed wealth accrual that most definitely people benefit from compared to people who don't own a home or who do but have assets less than $2m.

                    • Molly …
                      16 July 2023 at 2:28 pm

                      "Houses do generate income, via capital gains. "

                      That's incorrect. Unrealised capital gains on residences is not income.

                      Many make the assumption that capital gains is guaranteed. Many home owners buy where they can afford or where it meets their life priorities (ie. close to family), and not necessarily in places with high capital gains.

                      Primarily, the current way of thinking about this issue is this:

                      1. Successive governments (both left and right) while pontificating about housing costs, have not prioritised this during their terms. In fact, most actions have been supportive of increasing prices and housing cost inflation, perhaps because it has been a driver of an economy that looks successful. However, let's ignore this.
                      2. Despite the failure of those successive governments to rein in housing costs, the state housing available has diminished as the population has grown, leaving the opportunity for private landlords to take a greater share of the rental market, which has also increased as home ownership becomes more difficult.
                      3. Half-hearted attempts to improve existing housing stock has been enacted by legislation, which shows the separation between talk and walk for the state, as they have repeatedly recused themselves from meeting the standards they have set.
                      4. Those who have repeatedly been identified as not paying income tax from flipping houses, by the mechanism of using it as a primary residence for three months, continue to be able to use this without fear of censure by the IRD. This is a data search for government departments to address, yet it remains a low or no priority area – even as talking heads keep talking about those who are making money by doing so.
                      5. Landlords who perform the service of providing housing of a good standard, and an affordable price are lumped in with non-landlords who take advantage of housing scarcity and provide unacceptable accommodation at ridiculous prices. The Tenancy Tribunal is either not able to deal with the complaints, or the complaints are not being made. Also, it may be that the Tribunal should pass on the worst cases to the court system, so that fines and sentences are immediate.
                      6. The vilification of landlords begins with the assumption that all landlords behave as the lowest common denominator, despite the fact that housing is a service provided.
                      7. Despite housing remaining a high cost, a removal of an existing business expense of bank interest is considered justified. Although every other business is able to claim this real cost of providing services. The only reason for this is that the capital gains of housing is now expected to keep increasing significantly and there are those that view this as immoral – even though individual investors do not play a part in this increase. However, if the result is not a reduced profit margin, but an actual detour into loss – then landlords will have to either subsidise the cost of providing housing to others, or will have to raise the rent to bring the business back into equilibrium. This move treated landlords as flippers who were avoiding capital gains tax, rather than the preferred type of private landlord who provides a good service, and ran their tenancies as a business.
                      8. That perspective once entrenched was destined to move onto any property owner, whether flipper, landlord or homeowner, and so it has come to pass.

                      Right, let's look at property prices in Auckland over the last ten years:

                      https://www.opespartners.co.nz/property-markets/auckland

                      Median price now: $995,000 Median price 2013: $570,000

                      That's an increase of $42,500 a year, or $425,000 over the ten year period. But there are costs associated with home ownership.

                      (Used this interest rate calculator)

                      1. The lost opportunities of the deposit invested:

                      Assume a 4% return over ten years monthly interest calc:

                      10% – $57,000 – $27,977.46 20% – $114,000 – $55,954.93

                      So the deposit alone will have lost earnings over this ten year period.

                      Best case scenario, if the house was purchased with cash, using the same interest rates the loss in interest is;

                      $570,000 – $279,774.63

                      While the capital value of the house has increased, the material depreciation would have decreased unless money has been spent on maintaining the property to the standard in which it was purchased.

                      A conservative estimate for house maintenance is 1% of the house value annually;

                      https://www.wisemove.co.nz/post/how-much-should-you-spend-on-home-maintenance-each-year.

                      For simplicity I'll use only the purchase price rather than increase the value each year. Using the same calculator parameters, but with a yearly compound interest:

                      $5,700/year – over ten years with lost interest – $76,872.20

                      Not yet calculated is other associated costs such as insurance, and rates.

                      Using low 2023 rates of $2,400 to adjust for the fact they are not 2013 rates,

                      https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/housing-affordability/127986739/auckland-rates-some-of-citys-poorest-suburbs-hardest-hit-by-rates-increases.

                      and an estimate of $200/month for home insurance will bring the annual rates and insurance bill to $4,800.

                      Put this into the interest calculator as above and:

                      After 10 years the cumulative cost is: $64,734.49

                      So, this is a best case scenario, that assumes no borrowing from the banks, but takes into account conservative lost interest.

                      It also assumes no material improvements in the property:

                      $279,774.63 Full purchase price lost interest

                      $ 76,872.20 Maintenance 1% incl lost interest

                      $ 64,734.49 Rates & Insurance incl lost interest

                      $421,381.32 Cost of owning home purchased for cash over 10yrs

                      Which is not far off the increase in capital value: $425,000

                      In essence, the "income" you refer to comes in @ $3,618.68 over ten years, or $361.87yr.

                      If a mortgage is involved, you can see how this creates a deficit for home owners in terms of financial benefits.

                      I would say that many average homeowners who live in their own homes, are paying out more for that decision than they are receiving in capital gains. The above calculation may indicate why. Many of those with a mortgage pay more for their housing than they would pay in a similar rental.

                      Let's not also forget that the hope is that housing prices decrease for all, and some have had significant losses in their investments recently:

                      "Currently, Auckland house prices have fallen 23.17% from the peak of the market in Nov 2021 through to May 2023."

                      https://www.opespartners.co.nz/property-markets/auckland

                      I hope that gives some indication of why I believe that treating capital gains as income – when there is no income – is an ill considered approach.

                    • weka []
                      16 July 2023 at 5:05 pm

                      The lost opportunities of the deposit invested:
                      Assume a 4% return over ten years monthly interest calc:

                      10% – $57,000 – $27,977.46 20% – $114,000 – $55,954.93

                      So the deposit alone will have lost earnings over this ten year period.

                      You lost me already.

                      1. what is the amount of the deposit?
                      2. what does 10% minus $57,000 mean?
                    • Molly …
                      16 July 2023 at 5:22 pm

                      "You lost me already.

                      1. what is the amount of the deposit?
                      2. what does 10% minus $57,000 mean?"

                      Not minus, a obviously confusingly placed hyphen – referring to the usual deposits of either 10% or 20% of the purchase price, so:

                      Therefore, "10% – $57,000 – $27,977.46"

                      meant 10% deposit = $57,000 which if placed in a 4% (I took it as 5% with 1% going to IRD) compounding interest account would have generated $27,977.46 in interest over the ten year period.

                • Shanreagh …
                  13 July 2023 at 10:22 pm

                  Homes are homes not $$$$$ making ventures to bring in money.

                  Family homes provide stable places to live, bring up a family, stay in a community and be able to contribute to it.

                  People who own more that one home are looking at the $$$ side or it may be an extension to the family home concept in having a bach or crib (though I don't find that very persuasive)

                  Renting in NZ can be fraught with non professional or non institutional landlords leading to many people not having the ability to stay in one suburb (schooling etc) let alone one place.

                  I linked to a paper about the UKs housing and the need to provide more renting accomodation and this discusses focussing on instituinal investment

                  https://www.localgov.co.uk/How-institutional-investors-can-boost-the-UKs-private-rented-sector/55713

                  I have not searched very deeply for articles on the benefits of home ownership but here is one from the US

                  https://www.fortunebuilders.com/benefits-of-homeownership/

                  NZ has had a long social history of citizens being encouraged to own their own homes/properties including

                  1 legislative action over the years ranging from the breaking up of the great estates in the 1890s (when parts of NZ were on track to becoming little Englands with a built in tenant/landlord class and a farm owner/farm labourer class.

                  2 Home ownership was felt to be a just reward to be offered to returned soldiers after both WW1 & WW2 (particularly) Some times loans, some times sections/houses.

                  3 through to the Govt selling sections, houses, offering home loans, offering topped up savings schemes for deposits through the old NZ Post. Needless to say this all came to a grinding halt with the neo-libs. "not the role of Govt to encourage the flow of money anywhere other than the market' etc etc plus other rubbish

                  • weka …
                    14 July 2023 at 2:33 pm

                    Homes are homes not $$$$$ making ventures to bring in money.

                    I agree. Let's remove the capital gains from all housing. Great solution.

                    • Shanreagh …
                      16 July 2023 at 3:59 pm

                      Weka, Please see Molly's thoughtful response on this topic immediately above.

                      16 July 2023 at 2:28 pm

                      I hope that gives some indication of why I believe that treating capital gains as income – when there is no income – is an ill considered approach.

                      This to me has an impact like the story about little boy and the Emperor without clothes. Calls it like it is.

                      I must say this is one of the first that I have read that actually looks at what is proposed without name calling, 'misunderstanding' saying people don't understand links, connections and is short on rhetoric (this is a good thing)

                      Then read mine about the history of encouragment to buy a family home here in NZ that has been a feature since the 1890s at least and probably before that under the various provincial govts.

                      Then reflect on why the proposal to include the family home, at the least, made it doomed to failiure once it got out into the electorate. There are other oddities.

                      I feel this odd and ill thought out policy 'queered the pitch' and 'frightened the horses' so much that Hipkins has needed to squash speculation. In doing so he has had to rule out (again) the one that Treasury had been working on that had a higher assets limit $5m, did not include the family home.

                      This report was referred to by DF here.

                      13 July 2023 at 8:59 am

                      The papers released yesterday include a series of technical papers addressing the issues a wealth tax would involve, but there was a strong undertone within them that both Treasury and Inland Revenue could see endless complexities in trying to introduce the tax and doubted it would achieve the revenue gains the Government hoped.
                      https://www.politik.co.nz/labours-secret-tax-plans/ | Politik

                      I think we are well rid of the threat of this policy and it opens the door to a mature discussion on 'what is wealth?' cf The Greens say $2m and The Treasury said $5m. Knowing that The Treasury had access to much more quality information from other Govt depts and seemingly a better handle on what IRD/The Treasury called 'wealth' the higher figure is more like it. Productive industries like farms and factories though could easily top the $5m mark.

                      As Harman says…….'endless complexities in trying to introduce the tax and doubted it would achieve the revenue gains the Government hoped'.

                      So let us turn our minds to other ways to alleviate poverty, to make sure our overall taxation is fair and that it generates enough to meet all the policies of Govt including alleviating poverty. The Greens policy was silent on

                      • why the wealth tax had been chosen
                      • what other types of tax had been looked at and why they were discarded
                      • why an additional tax was needed in any case ie with Vote: Govt reordering could alleviating poverty have been done in some other way?
      • Shanreagh 4.1.2
        13 July 2023 at 2:34 pm

        Yes why were farms/productive units included?

        The paper on high net worth is much more nuanced in saying that the high net worth individuals were wealthy but this was often from running productive units….business, farming ect.

        Most of the capital gains made by the researched families came through increases in the value of businesses they own or control.

        https://www.ird.govt.nz/-/media/project/ir/home/documents/about-us/high-wealth-research-project/hwi-research-project/factsheets-supporting-hwi-report/tax-and-the-economic-income-of-the-wealthy.pdf?modified=20230420234159

      • weka 4.1.3
        13 July 2023 at 9:36 pm

        Heaps of farms are held in trusts as well, there's no doubt it would be problematic to levy a fairly significant tax on what is productive sector in terms of export dollars.

        It's the unproductive stuff we need to figure out how to capture and ideally make things like housing far less of an attractive short term investment vehicle.

        I think there is possibly a case to be made about farms, but the problem is farms have also had massive property capital gains in the past few decades and that is wealth. Some farmers can sell their farms and never work again. Other farms have huge debt because they believed that industrial dairy was the way to go. They won't be paying the wealth tax but the farmers in between might struggle.

        • Shanreagh 4.1.3.1
          13 July 2023 at 10:34 pm

          What is the fixation about capital gains?

          Some of these farmers work really hard with living expenses being funded via a current account through the year and paid off after wool/meat/sales and only being able to pay themselves for 40 or 50 years of hard work after the property is sold. Even then many leave money in and don't get the full amount, forgiving any debts at death. Wage and salary earners usually get more than just their living expenses met.

          I think many people seem to have some odd ideas about what and how other people live.

          The papers show that Treasury estimated a tax on individuals with assets of over $5 million, not including their family home, would hit only 25,000 individuals or 0.5 per cent of the total population. However, that group would have assets totalling $5 billion or 26% of all the assets held by individuals. Nevertheless, it could raise $3.8 billion a year by 2025 and allow tax reductions for low income taxpayers. But the Prime Minister,ruled it out in late April and even more emphatically yesterday.

          https://www.politik.co.nz/labours-secret-tax-plans/

          My opinion is that the Greens wealth tax lost it once the family home was included. It might have been less controversial had the family home been excluded.

          • weka 4.1.3.1.1
            14 July 2023 at 1:57 pm

            What is the fixation about capital gains?

            Ok, so you clearly don't understand the political argument around poverty and the wealth gap.

            Capital gains on housing is a large part of why many people live in poverty. The increases in the property market drove up house prices and rents. Some people did very well out of that, and many people can no longer afford to feed and raise their kids.

            Labour's response is to raise wages, and they've done a good job on raising the minimum wage. But that hasn't kept up with the housing costs. They've also raised some benefits, but again, it's not kept up with housing costs and never can. This is a political choice to leave a lot of people living in poverty.

            Some possible solutions:

            • crash the property market (no-one wants this).
            • Slowly drop the property market (eg over a decade) while raising wages and benefits (the GP did some work on this when Turei was co-leader, but it's not politically viable).
            • tax wealth and replace core benefits with a GMI, use rent caps and other tools to hold rents steady while incomes catch up.
            • weka 4.1.3.1.1.1
              14 July 2023 at 2:16 pm

              kept up with housing costs should be caught up with housing costs.

            • Shanreagh 4.1.3.1.1.2
              16 July 2023 at 4:10 pm

              Ok, so you clearly don't understand the political argument around poverty and the wealth gap.

              Pity responses are more and more being phrased like this rather than acknowledging that the questioner did understand poverty/wealth conundrum but has disagreed with The Greens suggested solution.

              In saying this you are using the great TINA (there is no other alternative) principle that in a quality debate gets you nowhere. If the policy got anywhere near The Treasury, Treasury would sniff out a TINA policy from a 1000 paces.

              Because there are other alternatives – The Greens had chosen the wealth tax. And no-one seemed to know why, at least not on here.

          • Molly 4.1.3.1.2
            16 July 2023 at 3:06 pm

            "My opinion is that the Greens wealth tax lost it once the family home was included. It might have been less controversial had the family home been excluded."

            The wealth tax is a strange beast anyway, but I addressed some of the issues regarding capital gains on the home as income here:

            .https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13-07-2023/#comment-1960028

            • Shanreagh 4.1.3.1.2.1
              16 July 2023 at 4:11 pm

              Great post Molly. smiley Thank you.

              • Molly …
                16 July 2023 at 4:24 pm

                All good. I tried to be as conservative as possible, and it assumes perhaps a fairly high interest rate (I took it as 5% with 1% going to IRD), but it is also very low on maintenance estimates etc, so I think it balances out.

                As soon as you've taken a loan out for the mortgage, the costs grow quite significantly, and given that most people with a mortgage pay more to service it than renters – it shows clearly the problem with assuming capital gains leads to material benefits for home owners.

    • scotty 4.2
      13 July 2023 at 8:20 am

      Jenna Lynch's opinion is not something I would hang my hat on.

  5. PsyclingLeft.Always 5
    13 July 2023 at 9:27 am

    18 to 24 year olds.

    Est eligible to vote : 418831

    Per cent enrolled : 59.71 %

    https://elections.nz/stats-and-research/enrolment-statistics/enrolment-by-general-electorate

    Labour and Greens MUST get them to vote. Crucial.

    Labour…all those Tradie apprentices you helped !

    Greens…Climate and all !

    Labour and Green get moving !

    • Dennis Frank 5.1
      13 July 2023 at 9:58 am

      Labour and Greens MUST get them to vote. Crucial.

      That was posted to this site several times last election, and probably the one before that too. The usual response of the people: doan wanna.

      That's the amusing thing about the Greens' tax strategy – those most likely to benefit matches those least likely to vote. I suspect the Greens do actually know that, and are yielding to the traditional socialist stance out of their inner need to signal that virtue.

      Feeling good defeats political logic. Morally righteous defeats success. But hey, always possible that the electorate could prove me wrong…

    • Corey 5.2
      13 July 2023 at 12:16 pm

      Hipkins killed any hope of that yesterday. No really he did. We care deeply about policy unlike the easily conned boomers who fall for every scam and conspiracy online, we see through political bullshit.

      We are renters ffs. We want a capital gains tax and to sock it to the rich.

      He basically told every zoomer and millennial to go fuck ourselves because none of the policies we care about in housing or tax will ever happen under him, he basically told us it doesn't matter left wing party you vote for, it ain't happening, "end of story"

      Get rid of that muppet.

      That budget he canned would have labour polling in the fucking 40s for a few weeks.

      No political instincts, no charisma, no spine and he takes weeks and weeks to make decisions about his errant ministers.

      • Anker 5.2.1
        16 July 2023 at 2:50 pm

        I am on your side Corey about renting and not home ownership for your generation. Two step children and I am really not sure how they will manage. We give them as much help as we can.

        But I have to object to your potrayal of boomers who 'fall for every scam and consipiracy theory on line". Where's your evidence for this? It didn't look to me like there were a whole lot of boomers at parliament (the protest) and as far as I know most boomers got the covid jab.

        Having read the piece that Denis put up earlier (the interview with Sir Geoffry Palmer) I was reminded how in my childhood we would never lock our doors. What has changed? Don't know. I was a working class kid and was housed cause of the state house building programme. The conditions we lived in would be considered overcrowding now.

        The solution to the housing crisis that is most likely to work is to flood the market with housing. Labour have been unable to do it.

        But sincerely, I do feel for your genderation.

  6. newsense 6
    13 July 2023 at 9:31 am

    So roll Chippy, put Grant in for the election and give something new groundbreaking and positive a real shot?

    Perhaps better than going down as National lite and continuing to have little or nothing to show from the Ardern years in terms of significant change to inequality.

    Plus first openly gay PM and with plenty of experience on how to do the job.

    Whatdya reckon?

    • Sabine 6.1
      13 July 2023 at 9:37 am

      bwhahahahahahah

      yeah, nah nah. Might as well put any of the other diversity picks up.

      The problem is not the person announcing the policies, the problem are the policies.

      • newsense 6.1.1
        13 July 2023 at 10:13 am

        That’s a very casual dismissal of Grant as a ‘diversity pick up.’ If he wasn’t gay, I’d suggest he’d have been a shoo in as leader much earlier in the piece.

        And the policies are exactly my point. Clearly there has been a movement in Labour to address inequality and Hipkins has made it a no go.

        It would be a chance to front tax reform already prepared for by the revenue minister.

        The quote here was a wealth tax was over 50% popular. If that’s true don’t be out of step with the other countries.

        Otherwise the gap between Chippy and Steven Joyce begins to look less than that between him and his party.

        • Molly 6.1.1.1
          13 July 2023 at 12:51 pm

          "If he wasn’t gay, I’d suggest he’d have been a shoo in as leader much earlier in the piece."

          Do you ascribe this supposed homophobia to the internal workings of the Labour Party, or are you suggesting it exists in large quantities in voters?

        • Sabine 6.1.1.2
          13 July 2023 at 5:54 pm

          I don't think G.R has any support from the public other then those that reflexively vote Labour.

          Put G.R in the leader spot and i am taking bets that Labour could fall below Cunliffe efforts2014, Labour got about 25.1 %? And god only knows how low Andrew Little polled when they pushed J.A to the spot of leadership in order to win an election.

          Chippie is the best atm i think they have, and he is about as exiting as is stale white toast. Untoasted.

      • Shanreagh 6.1.2
        13 July 2023 at 11:40 am

        The problem is not the person announcing the policies, the problem are the policies.

        Got it in one Sabine.

        • newsense 6.1.2.1
          13 July 2023 at 12:00 pm

          Neither of you read the comment- clearly with Minister Parker’s report there’s been preparation for some redistributive tax and support within Labour for that. That would be the basis for proposing the new leader. To potentially follow through on a core policy.

          and @Jack you ever watch Key in the house?

          Grant can be an effective communicator, but has been inside treasury and not thinking outside of Wellington. Remember him standing out on that pub politics show waaay back with Wallace Chapman.

    • Jack 6.2
      13 July 2023 at 10:36 am

      You kidding right? Grant is an even bigger turn-off. You only need to look at his performances in the house – smarmy, conceited, loud mouth.

      But it does open an interesting question. Who will be the Labour leader come Christmas. Certainly won’t be anyone in the current cabinet.

      • Anker 6.2.1
        16 July 2023 at 2:42 pm

        Grant to me looks like he is ready to sign out. Just my opinion, but we are not seeing much of him of late and he is not standing for Wellington Central and going to be a list MP. Bets on that if Labour loses he will walk

      • newsense 6.3.1
        13 July 2023 at 11:48 am

        He stood aside last time. This might be choosing to cement a certain legacy or leave with only having furthered inequality.

    • Corey 6.4
      13 July 2023 at 12:19 pm

      I agree, Grant is funny, articulate and Grant could have been a Keating rather than a Gordon Brown.

      Better than the muppet they chose!

      • newsense 6.4.1
        13 July 2023 at 11:10 pm

        Guess I was seeing the possibility of it as a Barristan Selmy or Jora Thormont type mission. Among which Labour finance ministers does he want to be remembered? It’s all a lot of faff, but so is getting into politics.

        He and David Parker have already suggested they disagreed with Hipkins, or at least Hipkins says it was his decision. Enough of these captain’s calls. We’re not a presidency. They only work if his whole team, many of whom won’t be back, support his stance. He can’t say it’s a captain’s call unless the whole team goes along with it in a parliamentary democracy.

        It’s not captains at the toss at Lord’s.

  7. tsmithfield 7
    13 July 2023 at 10:04 am

    When considering National's boot camp idea, I think it is very important to consider the specifics of the proposed program before making broad judgements.

    I checked with Chat GPT about the effectiveness of boot camps. It came back and said that the evidence is mixed on boot camps that focus on physical exercise etc, and that there isn't much evidence that they are any more effective than other interventions.

    But then I asked, what if the focus is on addressing education and drug addiction issues and social support is provided for youth when they return to the community. (as is the case with National's proposal). Here is its response below:

    That's a very important question. Research consistently shows that comprehensive, multi-faceted interventions that address a range of needs and issues have the greatest potential to positively impact youth offender outcomes, including reducing recidivism.

    1. Education: Many young offenders have low levels of educational attainment, so providing educational opportunities can be critical for their future success. This can help reduce recidivism by providing them with more opportunities for employment and a better socioeconomic status, both of which are often correlated with lower crime rates.
    2. Substance Abuse Treatment: Many youth offenders struggle with substance abuse issues. Evidence-based substance abuse treatment, including both pharmacological and behavioral interventions, can therefore be an important component of reducing recidivism.
    3. Social Support: A strong network of support can be critical for youth offenders returning to their communities. This might include mentoring programs, family-based interventions, and community reintegration programs designed to help youth navigate the challenges they face after release.

    Programs that address these issues as part of a holistic intervention are more likely to be effective than those that only focus on one aspect. The "Risk-Need-Responsivity" (RNR) model is a widely recognized framework in the field of criminal justice that emphasizes the importance of addressing individual's risk factors, needs, and their ability to respond to interventions.

    That said, the specifics of implementation matter a great deal. Not all programs are created equal, and it's important for programs to be based on solid research, well-implemented, and regularly evaluated for effectiveness. It's also important to consider the specific characteristics and needs of the individual youth, as different interventions may be more or less effective for different individuals.

    As always, it's crucial to look for up-to-date, peer-reviewed research when considering the effectiveness of specific interventions or models.

    This response is very much in line with my understanding of the situation. So, if a program has these elements, then it is far more likely to be successful than the traditional boot camp model.

    • Molly 7.1
      13 July 2023 at 10:09 am

      Interesting response from Chat GPT.

      I agree with what you follow it up with, but especially your paragraph here:

      "That said, the specifics of implementation matter a great deal. Not all programs are created equal, and it's important for programs to be based on solid research, well-implemented, and regularly evaluated for effectiveness. It's also important to consider the specific characteristics and needs of the individual youth, as different interventions may be more or less effective for different individuals."

    • You_Fool 7.2
      13 July 2023 at 10:21 am

      So collective web wisdom is that boot camps suck but investing money into proper rehabilitation and social services work…

      Which party do you think will actually do the stuff known to work? And which one will throw kids into an army camp, talk about setting up the other stuff and then never actually do it because of stuff….

      • tsmithfield 7.2.1
        13 July 2023 at 10:33 am

        Which party do you think will actually do the stuff known to work?

        Well, what the current government is doing certainly doesn't seem to be working.

        But, all I have done, is asked Chat GPT about essentially National's policy on this. From the article:

        • Young Offender Military Academies, would be set up by the Ministry of Justice in partnership with the Defence Force, for young serious offenders aged 15 to 17 to spend up to a year. They would include schooling, counselling, drug and alcohol treatment, mentoring, and cultural support, and a case worker will be assigned to the family.
    • lprent 7.3
      13 July 2023 at 10:43 am

      ChatGPT ??? A completely reliable system prone to making shit up. Generally it seems to feed back what the questioner wants. I’d want to look at the exact search statements to determine flaws. But that lack of references tends to indicate that this is likely to be complete bullshit. Ask for pinpoint references and then check them.

      However, I’ve seen about 3 or 4 rounds of boot camp type proposals go through so far in the last 40 years. What I always notice is that they are invariably set up on the absolute cheapest possible basis. Their operational costs were a tiny fraction of the cost of (for instance) basic training by the military. Their setup costs were tiny as well.

      Certainly the last round of NationalAct ones were. All that have tried to implement were complete failures.

      1. Education is really expensive, especially when you’re looking at kids without basics and at varying levels. That is before you even look at the social and mental deprivation interfering with education.
      2. Substance abuse is also bloody expensive, especially providing the on-site facilities for emergency treatment and getting staffing.

      3. Social support – again expensive and really hard to setup in community. Typically this would take quite some time to set up. And it’d probably have to localised so it’d need to scattered widely. The probability of being able to use existing social services is minimal – they’re overstretched already. This is a whole new country wide program.

      4. Whatever else is used in a boot-camp. To date this has mostly been people shouting. That was cheapish, but completely ineffective.

      So until ActNational announces their programme setup and per person budget, it is pointless considering it. I’d bet we never see anything over the next 100 days. To date they have only ever provided day-care levels of funding.

      So this is just a corflute slogan policy with a picture of the Luxon dimwit next to it.

      A separate question is if the boot-camp idea would be effective at all. I consider that to be highly unlikely as well. In my opinion as a ex-soldier who has done a real boot-camp and as someone who spent a number of years writing military training programs, it is highly unlikely.

      There is a reason why our military is so damn picky about who they induct and how they train them. It is a highly expensive operation. Doing a boot-camp for teens who don’t want to be there and who aren’t selected as being trainable is a few orders of magnitude harder and more expensive.

      Speaking as a programmer, relying on ChatGPT for research without thoroughly checking the sources of what it produces is the action of a gullible idiot. Ask it for pinpoint reference links and then check them.

      • tsmithfield 7.3.1
        13 July 2023 at 11:18 am

        relying on ChatGPT for research without thoroughly checking the sources of what it produces is the action of a gullible idiot. Ask it for pinpoint reference links and then check them.

        Yeah, I would agree with you normally on this. Except, I wasn't just relying only on Chat GPT. I was also relying on a lecture I remember during my Masters years, when we had a lecture from a guy who runs an institution in the US for youth on the verge of serious prison time as a last intervention.

        He was saying it was easy to get amazing change while the youth were in the institution, but the changes evaporated once the youth returned to their communities. So, they had to do a lot of community intervention and provide a lot of community support to get the changes to stick more reliably.

        Therefore, so far as National's plan goes, I agree with it in principle. But, whether it will be done well enough is another matter. These sort of interventions are incredibly expensive. So, if the community side of the intervention is only at a superficial level, then I doubt it will work.

        • Molly 7.3.1.1
          13 July 2023 at 11:56 am

          I posted about the Limited Service Volunteer programme below, and one aspect that does seem to be positive is that IF a volunteer does go on to enlist, they have a fully functioning community around them from that point on, that allows them to make changes.

          Providing a supportive environment post intervention is the most difficult part of supporting change.

        • tsmithfield 7.3.1.2
          13 July 2023 at 11:57 am

          And, I just asked Chat GPT for supporting studies. Here was the result:

          Absolutely, here are a few studies and reports as of my knowledge cut-off in September 2021, related to the points mentioned:

          1. Education: A report from RAND Corporation, "How Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here?" (2014), discusses the positive effects of correctional education on reducing recidivism and increasing employment.
          2. Substance Abuse Treatment: A paper by Mitchell et al. (2007) titled "Does incarceration-based drug treatment reduce recidivism? A meta-analytic synthesis of the research" found that prison-based substance abuse treatment was associated with reduced post-release recidivism.
          3. Social Support: In the study "Effects of mentoring on post-release outcomes: findings of a longitudinal study in England and Wales" (2019) by Shapland and Bottoms, the researchers found that having a mentor can significantly reduce reoffending among young offenders.
          4. Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model: A paper by Andrews and Bonta (2010) titled "Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice" provides evidence for the effectiveness of the RNR model in reducing recidivism.

          Remember, ongoing research in this area may provide newer insights, so it's always good practice to look for the most recent studies on the topic. Also, these studies provide evidence based on large populations and may not apply equally to every individual case. Interventions should always be tailored to individual needs and circumstances.

          [This is not good enough. You know that you must provide links to material you quote or cite.

          Also, you seem to be new to using ChatGPT and an ignorant tool using an ignorant tool. Lprent has already commented on your ignorance.

          Ask it for pinpoint reference links and then check them.

          Responses from ChatGPT, for example, can sound very compelling & convincing and it is easy to be fooled by this. ChatGPT is also prone to what is called ‘hallucinating’, which means it can generate utter BS.

          You are in Pre-Mod until you’ve provided links for your alleged sources and checked them.

          You cannot hide behind responses from ChatGPT or any other GPT tool. You write & submit the comments and thus they are yours and your responsibility.

          This Mod note is mostly educational & instructional because I suspect the use of GPT and other AI tools will become more common here on TS and people have to be aware of the pitfalls, just as they are about using material sourced from MSM and SM.

          In other words, this is not personal but a precedent/reference point for future moderation – Incognito]

          • Incognito 7.3.1.2.1
            13 July 2023 at 2:11 pm

            Mod note

          • tsmithfield 7.3.1.2.2
            13 July 2023 at 3:35 pm

            Fair enough:

            https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR564.html

            This study relates to education in correctional facilities rather than boot camps. But the key point is that dealing with educational deficiencies reduces offending.

            Inmates who participate in correctional education programs had a 43 percent lower chance of recidivating than those who did not — a reduction in the risk of recidivating of 13 percentage points.

            and

            Two juvenile correctional education programs show promise: Read 180 and Florida's Avon Park Youth Academy.

            https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-00669-004

            The second study considered drug interventions in incarcerated communities, including including theraputic communities and boot camps. Positive results in reducing reoffending for theraputic communities. Mixed results for boot camps.

            Because National's plan includes remedial education and drug interventions, plus social support, rather than the traditional fitness regime associated with boot camps, I would argue the plan proposed by National is more akin to theraputic communities than boot camps.

            http://www.antoniocasella.eu/nume/Andrews_Bonta_Criminal_Justice_Policy_2010.pdf

            This study again found that education and drug interventions were more effective in reducing offending in prisoners compared to punitive punishments. Although not directly related to boot camps, the similar principles are likely to apply given that in both circumstances, the interventions will apply to confined individuals.

            Consequently, I think it is reasonable to argue that any program that includes these elements whether in prison or some other setting where individuals have been confined due to their offending will likely be more effective than merely locking people away or putting them through a fitness regime in the context of a boot camp.

            [You made an effort to provide 3/4 links; where’s the 4th link?

            The link for the 2nd study goes to an Abstract only; where’s the full study report?

            You made an effort to ‘check’ the source material by skimming the key findings and/or abstracts, quite possibly relying on and reiterating what ChatGPT had already generated for you, and I doubt you read those two publications that were 17 pages (13 + 4 pages of references) and 156 pages long, respectively.

            For example, where in the study by Andrews and Bonta does it say that “education and drug interventions were more effective in reducing offending in prisoners compared to punitive punishments”? It may well be in there somewhere, but the onus is on you to point us to it rather than making us read the whole paper for ourselves (and then coming to a different conclusion).

            You don’t seem to be aware that ChatGPT may be intrinsically biased because it is trained on huge volumes of text found on the internet. In addition, you may have increased any bias through your lines of questioning to ChatGPT.

            Your selective material, selective quoting, and super-superficial ‘analysis’ suggest that you were simply searching for stuff that confirmed your own bias. You used this as an excuse to spread NACT talking points & propaganda here on TS.

            You are trying hard to merge & marry NACT & your apparent preference of boot camps with the findings of those studies when there’s in fact little to no support for this in the material. If I’m incorrect then point to the relevant sections on boot camps in those studies. As far as I can tell, the available evidence in the material you provided is negative re. boot camps and even shows they are counter-productive for the level of recidivism.

            You must try harder and you’re wasting other people’s time – Incognito]

            • Incognito 7.3.1.2.2.1
              13 July 2023 at 5:44 pm

              Mod note

            • tsmithfield 7.3.1.2.2.2
              13 July 2023 at 6:28 pm

              Hi Incognito.

              Very often, abstracts are the best that is available due to publications being in paid subscription journals. So, that is the best I can probably do.

              Here is the link I missed. Again an abstract.

              For the link below, it is necessary to approach the authors for the full version. So, I am unsure how long it will take to get a response back to that.

              https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232592251_Rehabilitating_Criminal_Justice_Policy_and_Practice

              https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17991050/

              This study found that fifth and six graders improved performance as a result of mentoring.

              I disagree with you about relevance. Having read quite a few papers, and written a thesis, it is not unusual to refer to research that in principle should apply in different settings. Sometimes, that is the best that can be done if specific research is not available in that area.

              If that were not the case, we would not be conducting medical research on mice and drawing possible implications for humans.

              I think it is intuitively obvious that correcting educational gaps, reducing drug addiction, and providing social support would be effective in many settings.

              • Incognito …
                13 July 2023 at 9:36 pm

                [this is another Mod note for you]

                Here is the link I missed. Again an abstract.

                It is the same one as before. The one that is still missing is the one by Shapland and Bottoms.

                For the link below, it is necessary to approach the authors for the full version. So, I am unsure how long it will take to get a response back to that.

                I’m not asking or expecting you to get the full version from the authors. The issue is that you superficially parade summarised material (abstracts) because it confirms your bias and suits your narrative. Without the all the information & context in a full paper/report all we’re left with is the equivalent of reading headlines or tweets.

                This study found that fifth and six graders improved performance as a result of mentoring.

                That’s lovely but what does this and/or the PubMed link have to do with the Mod notes?

                I disagree with you about relevance. Having read quite a few papers, and written a thesis, it is not unusual to refer to research that in principle should apply in different settings. Sometimes, that is the best that can be done if specific research is not available in that area.

                Irrelevant to the Mod notes, as far as I can tell.

                If that were not the case, we would not be conducting medical research on mice and drawing possible implications for humans.

                Are you comparing youth offenders to lab mice? And boot camps to lab experiments?

                I think it is intuitively obvious that correcting educational gaps, reducing drug addiction, and providing social support would be effective in many settings. [my italics]

                I like that! It is intuitively crystal clear that you’re diverting and that you’re wasting more of my precious time – Incognito.

            • tsmithfield 7.3.1.2.2.3
              13 July 2023 at 7:43 pm

              Further to my last comment, that Andrews and Botha paper is actually a very good one, because it suggests that factors such as correcting educational and drug addiction interventions along with social support are necessary for any programs aiming to reduce offending. From that article on page 40:

              However, once again, adherence with such principles will not enhance crime prevention unless the applications are in touch with empirically validated psychological principles of behavioral influence and behavior change. We examine the failure of get tough policies on criminal recidivism briefly

              The article refers to their RNR model as a framework for developing interventions in a wide variety of settings. On page 44 &45:

              1. Risk principle: Direct intensive services to the higher risk offenders and minimize services to the low risk offenders.

              2. Need principle: Target criminogenic needs in treatment. 44 ANDREWS AND BONTA 3.

              Responsivity principle: Provide the treatment in a style and mode that is responsive to the offender’s learning style and ability.

              These are general principles the authors posit should be applied to any program aimed at addressing criminal behaviour in a variety of settings.

              And this model is largely met by National's proposed program. In principle at least. Whether that will be implemented effectively is another story.

              [You keep on wasting my time with this.

              The task at hand is for you to learn the limitations of your uncritical, biased & selective use of ChatGPT to promote NACT talking points & propaganda.

              Your task, set by me and with support from other Mods, is not to argue for or defend NACT propaganda but to correct your comments that were missing links and critical commentary by yourself. In other words, ChatGPT sold you lemons and you were and still are trying to sell them off here. But they are now your lemons and you now are the seller, not ChatGPT or whatever or whoever your source was. So, you must take ownership of and responsibility for your comments and be accountable.

              This is the basis of robust god-faith debate here on TS and it applies to every commenter.

              I’m still waiting for a link + check by you of the 4th article by Shapland and Bottoms. Get on with it because I’m running out of patience and I’ve better things to do.

              I also asked you where in the study by Andrews and Bonta does it say “education and drug interventions were more effective in reducing offending in prisoners compared to punitive punishments”? This was triggered by your claim “This study again found that education and drug interventions were more effective in reducing offending in prisoners compared to punitive punishments.” I still haven’t seen it, most likely because you made it up.

              There’s one more comment of yours pending in Pre-Mod. I will deal with that one too but don’t bother submitting any other comments till this has been resolved, one way or another, as I will send them straight to Trash – Incognito]

      • Molly 7.3.2
        13 July 2023 at 11:53 am

        Limited Service Volunteer programmes have been running through both Labour and National governments. They could be considered a supported form of bootcamp.

        They often have young people on them that have been directed there by the Ministry of Social Development, or the Justice System.

        I have relatives that have been tasked with running some of these courses in the past.

        Unfortunately, the mix of "directed" volunteers and those who have an interest in the Armed Forces as a career disrupts both groups in terms of outcomes.

        There's a good report from 2019 that has a wealth of detail in it:

        https://www.defence.govt.nz/assets/publication/file/259fd2ccdb/Limited-Service-Volunteer-Report.pdf

  8. newsense 8
    13 July 2023 at 10:15 am

    So similar to current models? Why call it a boot camp? Thread derail.

    • tsmithfield 8.1
      13 July 2023 at 10:29 am

      I have asked the same question. I wish they didn't call it a boot camp. That just makes it a target for critics.

  10. Phillip ure 10
    13 July 2023 at 11:26 am

    Brilliant gambit/tactic from bus drivers/first union.

    From tomorrow to the following Saturday..bus trips will be free..

    The driver's will work…but their industrial action is to not collect fares .

    That's the way to do it..!

    Don't inconvenience the punters…hit the employer where it hurts…their turnover…

    This should remake how strikes are done..

    (Sits back…fingers steepled..)

    • Belladonna 10.1
      13 July 2023 at 1:25 pm

      I remember – 20 or so years ago – the bus drivers in Sydney doing this.

      A very popular tactic with the public.

      How effective it will be in shifting the bosses – I don't know.

      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-bus-drivers-to-give-free-travel-for-a-week-as-industrial-action-continues/7NZMBVGPU5CR7G352KKGKS3K6E/

      The point made about the route display info being tied into the Hop machine – does give pause for thought. You really do want to get onto the right bus….

      Van der Putten said the AT HOP card equipment does not only scan for payment but allows buses to show what route they are operating on.

      “Without basic information like bus routes being displayed on buses, it will be very hard for our customers to navigate the bus network next week, including for school students travelling on both school buses and scheduled AT services.”

      However, it looks as though it may be a bit hit-and-miss – as to whether you get a free ride or not.

      First Union organiser Hayley Courtney said approximately 700 drivers will take part in the action across both unions.

      “I’m not sure of the number of routes or the routes exactly but if you want a free ride, just ask the driver if they’re a union member.”

  11. Dennis Frank 11
    13 July 2023 at 12:42 pm

    Seems like the call from the PM for a focus on basic priorities has been anticipated by the public service:

    $14,200 for a wardrobe unit and $22,700 for a bookcase, both at the Ministry of Justice. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/govts-108m-spend-up-on-office-renovations-and-refurbishments/7PQ2F2OXBJAHLB6ZG6NWSRSTSI/

    Would you pay that for those two pieces of furniture? If you would be aghast at the prospect, you probably aren't a public servant…

    • tWiggle 11.1
      13 July 2023 at 3:03 pm

      Thanks for the article. Next time I suggest you read past the headline and first few paragraphs quoting National's cherry-pick. There is plenty of info there that sounds reasonable about the spend.

      Can't make a judgement call on bookcase and wardrobe, but if the walls they are to fit are 10 m long, that would explain the costings.

  12. tWiggle 12
    13 July 2023 at 5:06 pm

    If anyone wishes to educate themselves about the Sovreign Citizen movement, Münecat deep-dives SovCits around the world. A well-researched, comprehensive explanation of the wads of paperwork they wave around. As usual, 1.5x speed gets you through it faster. Spoiler: it boils down to grifters preying on unsure people in a scary world.

  13. Mike the Lefty 13
    13 July 2023 at 6:31 pm

    David Seymour continues the right-wing grandstanding on crime.

    Today he is calling for harsher sentencing for crimes against work places

    So is he saying that crimes in workplaces are more serious than crimes in people's homes?

    I bet people who suffer home invasions wouldn't agree with him.

    It just shows even more plainly that Seymour doesn't really have a clue about how to really address crime, he thinks he can easily solve it by inserting a few words into a government bill.

    ACT clearly think that government is an easy glamorous job. Jacinda would chuckle at their naivety.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300927510/act-promises-tougher-sentences-for-attacks-on-workers

    • Belladonna 13.1
      13 July 2023 at 6:53 pm

      AFAICS in the article – there is no mention of relative sentences against crimes committed during a home invasion (which is already, I think, an aggravating circumstance)

      He's simply talking about making attacking a worker – in their place of employment, carrying out their usual job – an aggravating factor at the time of sentencing.

      It's likely to be pretty popular for those who've been seeing local small business workers assaulted, not to mention nurses, ambos and firefighters attacked while they're trying to actually save lives.

      The comparison would be with an assault in the street, or in a pub, or at a political rally. Where the assault sentence would not have the additional factor included.

      This is more of the same proposal to restrict judges over sentencing that ACT have already signalled in several other areas. So nothing new from them.

      I am less confident that ACT are, that they can actually influence judicial sentencing- but perhaps they have a plan if they are in government next year….

    • Incognito 13.2
      13 July 2023 at 7:22 pm

      It just shows even more plainly that Seymour doesn’t really have a clue about how to really address crime, he thinks he can easily solve it by inserting a few words into a government bill.

      Nope, Seymour, Luxon, and NACT don’t want to solve crime. They are cynically manipulating opinion to win votes and the Treasury benches. Just look at their policies, mostly not or poorly costed (what’s $1.5B aanyway?), because they don’t give a toss.

  14. newsense 14
    13 July 2023 at 9:20 pm

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/132546099/government-admits-it-made-a-mistake-when-keeping-a-lid-on-the-carbon-price

    Hipkins’ government can break its own laws to keep the farmers happy and doesn’t really have a plan to clean up its mess.