Open mike 13/11/2020

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, November 13th, 2020 - 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 13/11/2020 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. bwaghorn 1
    13 November 2020 at 6:46 am

    Dumb question of the day.

    Do banks pay tax on the interest they earn from borrowers. And is it the same rate savers pay . ?

    • Andre 1.1
      13 November 2020 at 7:01 am

      Sorta kinda yes, sorta kinda not really. The rate banks pay on their profits is the company tax rate, so it's different to the rates paid by individual savers (which vary depending on the saver's total income).

      Banks pay tax on their profits. Profit is income less costs. Since the interest from borrowers is income for the bank, some of it ends up as profit and gets taxed. Along with income from account fees, various other charges. Costs include salaries and wages, buildings and software and other stuff needed to run the bank, regulatory costs, interest on money the bank has to borrow, writing off bad loans, various schemes to shift profits to offshore owners such as licensing and branding and intellectual property fees, etc etc.

      • xanthe 1.1.1
        13 November 2020 at 9:04 am

        Thats a no i think Andre

        I am firmly of the belief that taxing interest payments directly is the proper response and would give govt a direct means of regulating lending. Do Not be misled, The root of the problem is usury !

        • McFlock 1.1.1.1
          13 November 2020 at 4:46 pm

          People have patiently tried to explain it to me, totally legitimately, but I still can't figure out why we don't tax businesses on gross revenue just like we tax people PAYE.

          • Cricklewood 1.1.1.1.1
            13 November 2020 at 5:56 pm

            To do that you would need to make the tax rate much lower, and even then it would likely sink many small to medium businesses.

            In my field a good year sees the company make 5 percent net profit onces expenses wages etc are all paid.

            Revenue is somewhere around 5 million so 250k profit is a good year and that 250k is what we pay company tax on.

            In a bad year we might have revenue of 4million meaning a small loss or at best break even and no company tax paid. If the tax was purely on revenue the only option would be to start letting people go or sinking the company into debt.

            • McFlock 1.1.1.1.1.1
              13 November 2020 at 6:08 pm

              Yeah, the rate could well be much lower.

              But isn't the peril of debt/downsizing/savings/folding exactly the same as that faced by people every day? Lose your job or get your hours cut, we all have the same choice to make.

              • Cricklewood …
                13 November 2020 at 6:20 pm

                Yes it is the same peril, but it would effect everyone in the company and one bad year would sink it meaning 40 staff are out of work. In the current system profit is left in the company so it can absorb 2 or 3 bad years and retain all the staff.

                Now im lucky I work for a company that puts its staff first, everyone kept their jobs over covid, we were paid 80 percent and now we are busy the company is making 'catch up' payments to bring that 80 percent up to 100.

                Plenty of employers (looking at you warehouse group) are short sighted and dont realize the people are what makes the whole thing work. Mine realizes that by retaining staff you save tonnes of money in recruitment and as soon as the market improves you are well placed to take advantage.

                • McFlock …
                  13 November 2020 at 6:33 pm

                  Whether or not the profit is left in the company is up to the shareholders. It seems to me the difference is that when a company makes a loss, it gets a tax break. But the net profit has many loopholes, from CER to the old "BrandNamenz is a subsidiary of brandNameglobal that makes no profit because various fees to brandNameglobal happen to match what would otherwise be net profit".

                  There's no reason similar tax breaks can't be done, maybe even targeted atr NZ-owned businesses. GST already does the tax reimbursement. PAYE does rebates.

          • mikesh 1.1.1.1.2
            13 November 2020 at 7:28 pm

            The logic of business taxation is that revenue is taxed but that expenses which contribute to that revenue may be deducted in calculating the business' tax liability. Interest however is something of an oddball cost inasmuch as it does not contribute to the earning of revenue. Businesses don't borrow – proprietors borrow and invest in their businesses, but such borrowing is a personal expense rather than a business expense. I think the Income Tax Act has it wrong and interest should not be deductible for tax purposes.

            • McFlock 1.1.1.1.2.1
              13 November 2020 at 10:41 pm

              Aren't business liabilities debts? Vouchers and holiday pay and so on?

              And why are people taxed on the expenses that contribute to their income? Food and lodging, for example? Can I deduct my clothing that I wear to work, as opposed to just schlepping around the house?

            • RedLogix 1.1.1.1.2.2
              13 November 2020 at 11:12 pm

              Businesses don't borrow – proprietors borrow and invest in their businesses, but such borrowing is a personal expense rather than a business expense.

              Tell that to my bank, they may well be requiring me to offer security over my personal assets and income, but if the business didn't exist there would be no loan.

              The question you need to ask is, what is the purpose of this borrowing expense?

              In McF's example, food and lodging, is an expense that would be incurred regardless of whether the person paying it was in business or not. The essential and broader purpose being to stay alive rather than necessarily operate a business.

              • McFlock …
                14 November 2020 at 12:00 am

                ok, so what about my work clothes. Not uniform or ppe, just clothes I wear to work? I know if I was a contractor I could mark e.g. uniforms as an expense, why can't I do that as an employee?

                • RedLogix …
                  14 November 2020 at 1:32 am

                  Again the question comes down to purpose; ordinary street clothes that could be worn anywhere don't count as deductables, but uniforms that only have a work purpose do. (Usually uniforms will be provided to employees, while contractors will purchase their own … hence that small distinction.)

                  Every tax administration has to draw a line somewhere on this, otherwise you'd finish up with every expense, everywhere, being deductable and no-one would have any taxable income at all. Fun far right fantasy, but not very practical.

                  Although more widely I do agree with you. Australia rather generously allows quite a range of work related expenses to be claimed, that NZ does not.

                  • McFlock …
                    14 November 2020 at 2:25 am

                    So every expense a business makes to merely exist is deductible (cleaners, xmas functions, rent for admin space, cars for managers who only work on one worksite), but expenses I have for merely existing aren't.

                    Flipping it around, if individuals only paid tax on their annual "profit" in the same way businesses do, you can bet the farm that the government would close "tax avoidance" (not "evasion") schemes like "IP fees to global parent corporation based in the Caribbean".

                    In fact in some ways that's the Mossack Fonseca thing that got closed at the NZ end when they beefed up identification rules.

                    • RedLogix …
                      14 November 2020 at 8:22 am

                      Flipping it around, if individuals only paid tax on their annual "profit" in the same way businesses do,

                      By definition profit exists only in the context of a business, and most proprietors would consider it the primary purpose of owning and running a business. And that profit is ultimately distributed to it's owners as a taxable activity.

                      By contrast what is the purpose of your life? A person earns money in order to spend it, not to have it sit idle in a bank. The idea of profit as the primary purpose of our personal lives is a form of degeneracy.

                      Or as others have pointed out, taxing the gross income of all businesses would lead to huge distortions as margins across different business sectors vary enormously. Some sectors, like supermarkets would pay massive amounts of tax on their turnover, while others like professional services much lower amounts.

                      Consider the situation when as a software engineer I work as a contractor, not an employee. I'd have a little company that would have relatively low costs, laptops, travel, a few software licenses, while the huge majority of the revenue would be paid out to me as as drawings. If the company paid tax on it's gross revenue, it would be taxed once as company income, and then almost all of it again as personal income. Effectively double taxing me on the same income.

                      By contrast, if gross revenue was taxed on a business that bought and sold capital items, for example multi-million dollar industrial equipment, would see the govt would be taking a chunk of every business to business transaction, again leading to massive distortions. A typical manufacturer/wholesaler/retailer chain might see the same item taxed at least three times before it got to the end user.

                      The tax system we have may be arcane in parts, but it has evolved over many decades to serve us reasonably well. It could certainly stand for improvement, but first we need to understand the machine we propose tinkering with. In my experience through a long career in heavy industry, the first step to make something go better was very rarely to just take a sledge hammer to it.

                    • RedLogix …
                      14 November 2020 at 8:38 am

                      And nothing above says that the lines are set in concrete. Different tax administrations interpret these matters quite differently. For example in the USA (as far as I'm aware) householders can claim mortgage interest on the family home as a deductable expense.

                      I quite like this idea, as it would tend to put homeowners and investors on a more even footing.

              • mikesh …
                14 November 2020 at 12:13 pm

                Tell that to my bank, they may well be requiring me to offer security over my personal assets and income, but if the business didn't exist there would be no loan.

                If the business doesn't exist then the issue doesn't exist either. We are talking about a business that exists by dint of some investment, and suggesting that it makes no difference to that business whether the money so invested is borrowed, or whether it comes from the proprietor's own pocket.

                The question you need to ask is, what is the purpose of this borrowing expense?

                That is the question the Income Tax Act asks. I'm suggesting that this is the wrong question to ask. To me it seems senseless to suggest that the purpose of an expense is "the acquisition of taxable income" unless the expense contributes to that objective. Augmenting one's capital by borrowing puts one in the position of being able to invest – a personal benefit – but it is the investment itself that earns the taxable income.

                The purpose of borrowing is the augmentation of capital.

      • bwaghorn 1.1.2
        13 November 2020 at 11:22 am

        Ta kinda obvious now I see it explained

    • Tricledrown 1.2
      13 November 2020 at 10:21 am

      All profits are taxable except on private homes owned for 5 yrs or more and Rentals of 10years ownership.The highly profitable big 4 Aussie banks pay no tax in NZ none ,under CER they can move profit to Australia which they do.So the Australian govt has been getting subsidized to the tune of $1.5 billion of tax on the $6 to$7billion profits the big 4 have been extracting out of NZ.

  3. joe90 3
    13 November 2020 at 7:25 am

    ..couldn’t see that coming..

    A reporter for the travel site, Gene Sloan, is aboard the SeaDream 1 and was meant to be documenting the new safety measures on the small vessel, which departed from Barbados on Saturday and is carrying 53 passengers and 66 crew.

    https://people.com/travel/passenger-aboard-first-cruise-ship-to-return-to-sailing-in-caribbean-tests-positive-for-covid-19/

    • Sanctuary 3.1
      13 November 2020 at 7:34 am

      The Herald specialises in reporting on the various outrages being perpetrated against the entitled Kens and Karens of our world, usually well groomed white middle class professional types with the ear of some reporter or another, who are shocked that they can't game the MIQ system or do as they please due the pandemic's suspension of the normal rules that advantage their wealth, class, privilege and connections.

      That people who refuse to deal with the new reality would allow that denial to lead them to take a cruise is hardly surprising, but it is grimly funny.

  4. Dennis Frank 4
    13 November 2020 at 7:43 am

    Green Party co-leader James Shaw says the Government needs to use the levers it has to stop further over-heating in the housing market. He said these levers could be taxes on capital gains and wealth.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300156854/james-shaw-says-its-time-to-tax-capital-gains-and-wealth-to-cool-the-housing-market

    A subtle signal that he no longer believes in neoliberalism? Oft criticised here due to his corporate image, he has not advocated any economic ideology as far as I've seen.

    Labour will no doubt respond with organised hand-wringing. The PM did declare herself unhappy with the market whoosh but carefully avoided any statement of intent to rectify the situation. Grant will be tempted to declare TINA as usual but then think that could be waving the red flag at the leftist bull so better to lay low say nuffin.

    Shaw’s comments were very careful. They avoided direct criticism of what the Reserve Bank was doing, but said it was the Government’s job to rise to the occasion to mitigate the unwanted consequences of the central bank’s actions.

    Govt actually do something? The notion is likely to ruffle complacent Labour feathers. Meanwhile the prospect of the Greens & Labour doing ritualised virtue-signalling at each other will have rightists salivating.

    “We’ll be talking with Labour about what we can do to take the heat off the housing market, particularly now NZ First is not in the tent to slow or stop progressive policies that will improve the lives of New Zealanders,” he said.

    Shaw’s comments join those from the National Party and ACT, which have gone further and criticised the Reserve Bank’s decisions and the rules that it uses to make them.

    Puts the pressure on Labour to provide steerage to the economy, eh? To regulate or not to regulate. The threat: escalating media firestorm in direct proportion to emerging housing market stats increasing inequality.

    • Nic the NZer 4.1
      13 November 2020 at 8:41 am

      I still believe all the focus on CGT is rather missing the mark however. Plenty of countries which have long standing CGT policies well before 2008 also had (or have) housing bubbles. A CGT policy does not therefore correct the price of housing. The LVR policy seemed to be doing something, however the recent data suggests that an increase in first home buyers was the biggest mover during the most recent period.

      Overall I think that the problem is actually a low incomes issue. The policy preference of using monetary policy over fiscal policy has an effect of surpressing incomes and other goods price increases better than house price increases. What used to occur was that the house price increases vanished during 4-6% inflation years which were added to wages. These days that no longer occurs.

      • Anker 4.1.1
        13 November 2020 at 9:10 am

        agree sanctuary. Sick of 99% of these complaints. The Karen’s and Kens expecting bau.

        and blah blah there was a fire alarm and people were mixing with people from managed isolation……

        move yourself out of the way then.

        [Fixed error in e-mail address]

      • Dennis Frank 4.1.2
        13 November 2020 at 9:13 am

        You're in good company with that focus on the question-mark over CGT efficacy. We need the govt to produce a well-designed solution. Sophisticated thinking, crowd-sourced, to give it a viable consensus base for leveraging. Experts who normally fly solo, get em flying in formation…

        • mikesh 4.1.2.1
          14 November 2020 at 4:48 pm

          In the campaign the government did promise some measures to help people into homes: rent-to-own arrangements come to mind, as well as joint ownership arrangements, though I don't know the details of either.

          These may help people into houses but won’t stop house prices rising.

      • Anker 4.1.3
        13 November 2020 at 9:14 am

        Correct me if I am wrong but don’t we already have some form of Capital Gains tax? John key brought it in and labour extended it to five years.
        mid so I wonder how much revenue it’s collected.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.1.3.1
          13 November 2020 at 4:06 pm

          We do, yes, and it was around before John Key. The problem is that it is, and always has been, nearly impossible to enforce.

        • Andre 4.1.3.2
          13 November 2020 at 4:16 pm

          There's been one that long predated Key. For as long as I've had any interest in tax in NZ, any asset purchased with an intent to make a capital gain by selling it at some future date should be paying tax on the profit in that sale. Even if it wasn't the primary intent.

          Of course, just about everybody that should have paid that tax easily evaded it by the simple expedient of saying the purchase intent was for the income stream and the thought of selling it for a gain in the future was never considered, honest. Even for negatively geared investments, which only make sense if you're expecting a huge capital gain.

    • RedBaronCV 4.2
      13 November 2020 at 9:18 am

      FWIW the ASB has slapped a 30% LVR on investment borrowers while the RB drags its feet.

    • Cricklewood 4.3
      13 November 2020 at 6:09 pm

      Get the feeling the Greens have signed up to being part of a govt thats going to see inequality and poverty explode with no real power to do anything about it.

      Urgent action is going to be needed to get a lid on house prices and leveraging and sadly I dont think Labour is interested in taking on that fight given the landord property owning class will fight tooth and nail.

      Watch the waiting list for state housing continue to grow rapidly, rents to march upward leading to a big rise in accomodation suplements which in reality represent a massive wealth transfer to the landlord class from tax payers.

      I guess though when you are a wealthy politician with a nice house or houses gaining in value far faster than the avg wage with no tax to pay is there really an incentive to make change….

      Much easier to hand wring and say the right things…

  5. Sanctuary 5
    13 November 2020 at 7:46 am

    God I can't stand the Greens sanctimony sometimes.

    The Greens wouldn't shut the fuck up about taxes during the election campaign when National were strenuously trying to pin a tax scare moral panic on the government and their political idiocy on the matter of wealth/CGT taxes virtually forced Jacinda Ardern to stake her political reputation on NOT implementing any sort of tax.

    Now the sanctimonious pricks are all "wah wah wah the government won't do anything about wealth taxes" – something they made impossible by shooting their mouths off about it before the election.

    All they had to do was to exercise some message discipline before the election and then brought it up after the election for discussion. The Greens continually portray themselves as political ingenues, unable to see past their own self-righteousness.

    • Sabine 5.1
      13 November 2020 at 7:54 am

      +1

      edit: also, the government could simply close some loopholes (some – i feel generous today so not all) and collect a bit of revenue that way. You know all the money that the rich pricks (inclusive the critters in parliament) avoid paying in taxes with the steady aid of government created loopholes and good accountants. I wonder when James Shaw will advocate for that?

      • arkie 5.1.1
        13 November 2020 at 1:27 pm
        • A broad-based tax system should include taxes on personal and business income, consumption and expenditure, pollution, and environmental resource use.
        • People with the least ability to pay tax should pay the least as a proportion of their income, while those who can pay more should do so to contribute to the welfare of society.
        • Taxes should discourage speculative investment in non-productive assets. A capital gains tax should be applied to property investment, excluding family homes.
        • Ecological tax reform should shift taxes away from income and enterprise and towards resource use, waste, and pollution.
        • Internationally, Aotearoa New Zealand should actively work to develop a financial transactions tax.

        https://www.greens.org.nz/economic_policy

        • Sabine 5.1.1.1
          14 November 2020 at 12:03 pm

          i asked about 'closing loopholres'.

          Not a statement on taxes.

          Also if should, would could we all be speculating and gambling.

          So when Shaw advocates for 'closing current existing loopholes' that are 'currently' used to avoid paying taxes (something that will raise its head in news papers every other year – and i have linked to these articles on more then one occasion ) so that people who don’t pay taxes thanks to all the loopholes such as Gareth Morgan – who btw is also quite vocal about the fact tha the and his son don't pay taxes you can link to that. But you don’t? And that is telling, cause Shaw is not doing such a thing.

          But to post this truly useless feel good statement currently is just i don't know, boring? Useless? Meaningless? Feel good for the faithful members which i am not?

          And agian,

          Would, could, should never paid taxes, Workers however who have their wages “docked or garnished” by the IRD DO pay taxes because its done before they ever lay hand on their money.

    • Phillip ure 5.2
      13 November 2020 at 8:15 am

      It was green party policy for the election…I seem to remember it was the media that focussed on that…sensing some conflict…but the greens forced ardern to do her (shooting her own foot) over-my-dead-body call..eh..?…heh..!…that's a bit of a stretch tiger…blaming the greens for arderns' totally unnecessary wrong-call…and of course a capital gains/wealth tax goes against the neoliberal polices ardern/robertson so cling to ..so tiger…what should be done..?..just more neoliberal incrementalism..?

      • Sabine 5.2.1
        13 November 2020 at 10:17 am

        What should be done? enforce that the current taxes that are levied are actually collected rather tehn written of thanks to generous loop holes provided by government.

        How about that? or would that not sexy enough, not progressive enough, not grandstanding enough, and above all do-able. We don't need new taxes, we need the ones that we have collected from those that traditionally pay expensive accountants a huge amount to avoid paying any taxes over 70.000$ NZD per year. And that is costing us and has done so for years now.

        So yeah, what ever.

    • Anne 5.4
      13 November 2020 at 9:42 am

      All they had to do was to exercise some message discipline before the election and then brought it up after the election for discussion.

      That's exactly what I – and many others – were thinking pre-election.

      I voted for them too because they have a valuable contribution to make, but there are times when I wish they would exercise a little more political nous.

      • Phillip ure 5.4.1
        13 November 2020 at 1:17 pm

        So they should have kept the policy secret…and then sprung it after the election..?..yeah..that would have gone down well..eh..?

        • Anne 5.4.1.1
          13 November 2020 at 3:08 pm

          Read the quote I included! "Discussions" happen all the time among allied political parties… thrash it out behind closed doors and hopefully come to an agreed solution. And read what Sanctuary said @ 5.

          Frightening the horses just before an election is downright stupid.

          James Shaw is right. But you have to wait for the ignorant and gullible (half the voters at any one time) to catch up before you can progress a policy like CGT.

          • Phillip ure 5.4.1.1.1
            13 November 2020 at 4:21 pm

            I would prefer an openess about policies….so does the nz electorate..you could argue the presentation/explanation should be clear as possible..so voters are not driven by uninformed ignorance..but blaming the greens for the timidity of our incrementalist-in-chief is a tad rich..

    • Ad 5.5
      13 November 2020 at 10:25 am

      Look back three weeks and I bet no one can now remember a single policy this election was fought over (which should give us some pause for the substance of the entire process).

      Even Ardern recognised that their manifesto cupboard was bare.

      So that's what they're delivering.

      • Sabine 5.5.1
        13 November 2020 at 11:00 am

        that is true that nothing much was fought over, considering that every one was afraid of the women and that party that would not even be elected dog catcher. Thus the Labour Party got no scrutiny from anyone, and anyone daring to against the grain was hounded of the page in one way or another.

        Ardern and her crew will deliver nothing more then what they must. They did that the first round and they will do exactly the same on the second round. Willingly lame duck if you like. Kinder, gentler and lame as.

  6. Descendant Of Smith 6
    13 November 2020 at 8:08 am

    Just bring stamp duty back that Key removed. Simple to work out, collected at sale, not complicated at all. Make it 5% at least and if you really want to slow things down 10% or higher.

  7. xanthe 7
    13 November 2020 at 8:08 am

    Its called polarisation , its how the greens campaign, its destructive, sad, and stops good stuff from happening.

    Edit… response to #5 this tablet wont “reply” for some reason

    • Bearded Git 7.1
      13 November 2020 at 9:32 am

      Polarisation or principles xanthe?

      Maybe the Greens actually want to do something about poverty by reversing the massive redistribution of asset wealth to the top 5% that has taken place in the last 40 years.

      • xanthe 7.1.1
        13 November 2020 at 5:15 pm

        polarization! Its a campaign strategy, nothing to do with principles.

        It is also unethical and destructive.

        • Phillip ure 7.1.1.1
          13 November 2020 at 6:27 pm

          One of the major (justified) complaints against the greens over the years has been their timidity…their trying to be all things to all people…and trying not to offend anyone…… Your claim they have a policy of polarisation is laugh-out-loud factually incorrect…

          • xanthe 7.1.1.1.1
            13 November 2020 at 7:42 pm

            LOL

            • Phillip ure 7.1.1.1.1.1
              13 November 2020 at 8:09 pm

              As just one example..they have policies of financial support for farmers to transition from the environment-visigoths that so many of them are ..how is that polarising..?….care to share a couple of examples of what you clearly see as polarising policies..?

  8. PsyclingLeft.Always 8
    13 November 2020 at 8:29 am

    Orchardists/Vineyards still dont get it…(well, its in their DNA, so never)

    'Mr Tibble said the industry was the primary leader in finding workers and developing a future sustainable workforce'

    https://www.odt.co.nz/rural-life/horticulture/ministry-responds-labour-shortages

    $3.8 Billion Exports…and $18.90 pay offered

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/kiwi-fruit-pickers-have-simple-message-growers-cry-labour-pay-us-more

  9. ianmac 9
    13 November 2020 at 9:12 am

    Isn't there a law against with-holding mail from rightful recipients.

    Kylie Atwood: New: A stack of messages from foreign leaders to President-elect Joe Biden are sitting at the State Department but the Trump admin is preventing him from accessing them, sources say. Traditionally State supports all communications for the President-elect.

  10. Treetop 10
    13 November 2020 at 9:37 am

    Would it help the housing market if a person could only borrow again once the loan for a home had been paid in full?

  11. anker 11
    13 November 2020 at 10:18 am

    I think the Greens will be taking the opportunity to show their supporters that they are not silenced by their agreement with Labour by shouting about CGT would do much at this stage.

    This surely must be a bubble.

    I wondered if another substantial rent freeze could help, banning ghost houses, banning investors from the market.????

    I am no expert, but surely more can be done?

    • Sabine 11.1
      13 November 2020 at 10:42 am

      Rent Freeze and a tax on any secondary house that is rentable and not rented. Yes. That would be a good start. But above all a Rent Freeze. People on no income, one income or the drags of benefits can not keep up, and feel good phrases with no support pay no bills.

  12. Treetop 12
    13 November 2020 at 12:24 pm

    I think the government need to make sure that there will be enough ministers around over the holidays and top health staff to manage whatever Covid will present. I cannot see a duty minister being adequate.

    2pm on TV 1 today the latest on Covid.

    • Peter 12.1
      13 November 2020 at 12:58 pm

      There are things called video conferences and phones and all sorts. Should we have all Ministers sitting in Wellington 'just in case'?

      • Incognito 12.1.1
        13 November 2020 at 1:31 pm

        Should we have all Ministers sitting in Wellington 'just in case'?

        I think Treetop’s comment was quite clear, read it again.

        Since we’re still in the middle of a pandemic crisis I think that Ministers and Ministries’ top officials/managers who are involved in it need to be on deck most of the time. Leadership and crisis management cannot be done by Zoom and e-mail only, IMHO.

        They got a mandate to lead.

        • greywarshark 12.1.1.1
          13 November 2020 at 2:25 pm

          The Royal Family stayed on in England while the country was being bombed in WW2, actually at Buckingham Palace. In our trying times we expect the government to show an adequate interest in the country and a team should be on the job in Wellington.

          The King [George VI) and Queen stayed at Buckingham Palace during World War Two, leaving the Palace during the evenings to spend them with their daughters, Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret, who had been moved to Windsor Castle for safety.

          • The Al1en 12.1.1.1.1
            13 November 2020 at 2:49 pm

            As the majority of bombing raids weren't carried out in daylight, especially after October 1940 when air superiority had been won by the RAF, spending nights in the country 'visiting the kids' isn't as laudable as you might think it was.

      • Treetop 12.1.2
        13 November 2020 at 6:43 pm

        I emphasize the word enough as there is usually only a duty minister.

        And

        When a minister is on leave and they are required can they decline a video conference or a phone call?

        I doubt that ministers will be holidaying overseas, however they may be required if Covid gets out of control.

  13. greywarshark 13
    13 November 2020 at 1:24 pm

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/430515/sealord-faces-criticism-over-hiring-process-for-staff-on-trawlers

    One of the conditions it needed to fulfil before it was allowed to take on foreign crews, was advertising the positions here and showing that no New Zealanders were available to do these jobs.

    An ad in October told prospective employees on the two Russian trawlers, they would be doing "the same repetitive task" the "entire time" they were out at sea.

    They would need to be able to cope with the "continuous workload" that happened from the minute they left port to when they returned, and repeated the fact they would be at sea for six months, with no mention of any time off.

    That reminds me of the sudden interest that the USA I think, took in the health and strength of its young male population when they called men up to go to war. So many were unfit, to go and fight (for freedom, and capitalism!).

    If our government had any brains it would advertise for young men who would join a group which might be called Backbone of New Zealand or some other meaningful and rousing title; does BONZ mean anything rude in current slang? They would be in a state of readiness for a job, would be paid well and expected to go to gym regularly, take polytech courses in down time, and generally be ready for what came up. They wouldn't be on the streets getting into trouble otherwise they would be bounced off the BONZ team. It wouldn't be something that a determined bloke or blokess would do. They would be ensured of a good wage, free transport, etc. and have an advocate looking after them making sure that they weren't being fleeced, and also the reverse. They would form teams of choice who got on well and were on a league-table as to their reliability, standards etc. Some of the teams might be hapu based. So all the cuzzies could work together and keep an eye on each other so as to not go down in their ratings. Less fodder for the gangs and more proud young men aware of their own value and setting standards for themselves – less domestic violence.

    Then Sealord or other wants good workers, the answer would be we have a team ready to go.

    Why not? Has anyone up there got the gumption to set this up? Someone with some pull and vision and practicality. It could even be run by a clued-up tribe like Ngai Tahu appears to be. And it would be multi-racial, with any jibes beyond some normal jostling being firmly dealt with, probably with out. And no possibility of someone getting paid millions for voicing their own prejudices – no folly like that!

    Oh what a great thing it could be. I wish. A combination of social investment from the government in paying the guys and girls when not working without the creepiness so often seen of stand-downs, claw-backs, and managed as a robust nation-wide body of skilled, intelligent, onto-it people with tech ability but specialising in the hands-on jobs that we humans need to do to keep our society going. Not giving it up to them, the tech wizards who get fat bums from sitting, or who stand up and work because their thoughts of their own health and safety rules their lives.

    More physical work may save our society. Less energy poured into mountain biking and other land ruining activities, or running marathons. Why? Go and have working holidays helping in poor countries where activity has a point of real value. Or help clean up after the latest weather emergency in NZ and see goodwill and trees blossom from your effort!

    • Stuart Munro 13.1
      13 November 2020 at 3:22 pm

      Your solution, and many others, could have worked, but for two things.

      The fishing companies don't want it to work.

      And the government is too lazy and too spineless to require them to obey the law.

      They are totally onboard with foreign slave crews and every other scam to screw NZ workers. Complain and they will turn around and cry racism. That trick has stopped working for them however, so they're back to pretending it isn't happening.

      • greywarshark 13.1.1
        13 November 2020 at 5:08 pm

        No emperor's clothes. They can't still rely on that legerdemain, now are they really that shameless? It must be time at last for honesty – to quote the bible verity –

        1 Corinthians 13:12 King James Version

        12 For now we see through a glass, darkly;
        but then face to face:
        now I know in part;
        but then shall I know even as also I am known.

  14. greywarshark 14
    13 November 2020 at 2:19 pm

    What a great 'development' for Fiji.

    A proposed development project featuring what could be the country's first casino, has been launched in Fiji.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/430527/multi-million-dollar-development-including-casino-set-for-fiji

  15. greywarshark 15
    13 November 2020 at 3:07 pm

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/430499/new-climate-report-with-concerning-findings-already-being-challenged-by-scientists

    The study's authors, Jorgen Randers and Ulrich Goluke of the Norwegian Business School in Oslo, used a reduced complexity earth system model (ESCIMO) to study the effect of different greenhouse gas emission reductions on changes in the global climate from 1850 to 2500 and created projections of global temperature and sea level rises.
    "The purpose of this article is to report that we have identified a point-of-no-return in our climate model ESCIMO – and that it is already behind us," the authors said…

    But prominent scientists from around the world, including Victoria University of Wellington's head of school of geography, environment and earth sciences, professor James Renwick, have already challenged the report's conclusions…
    Renwick said the results presented in the paper were interesting but at odds with the science community's understanding of how the climate was changing.

    "The latest round of climate model simulations, run in support of the 6th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, show that if greenhouse gas emissions were to stop immediately, there is likely to be very little further increase in temperatures and no sign of warming resuming in future," [Professor James] Renwick – who was a lead author for the IPCC 6th Assessment Report – said…

    "If greenhouse gas emissions are reduced in line with the Paris Agreement, the climate would stabilise over the coming century. Some things, notably sea level rise and ice melt, would continue for longer, but at a reducing rate."

    Although the title of the paper implied a full "earth system model" was used, the paper was actually based on a "low complexity model" that captured only the broadest features of the climate system, Renwick said.

    • mango 15.1
      13 November 2020 at 4:04 pm

      This kind of bad science really annoys me and does a lot of harm. The fact it came from a business school should raise alarm bells anyway. This is the main takeaway from James Renwick. "In short, the results presented in this paper are very implausible and should not be seen as cause for alarm."

      • greywarshark 15.1.1
        13 November 2020 at 5:03 pm

        Yes confusing and not everyone would think about the likely mixed motives of a business school. Which in a matter as vital to us as this, shows a non existent set of values, or a keen desire to win brownie points that has cut across discretion and probity.

  16. PsyclingLeft.Always 16
    13 November 2020 at 4:25 pm

    Australian SaS….atrocities in Afghanistan.

    'A four-year-long investigation into "extremely serious" actions by Australian troops in Afghanistan is reported to recommend prosecutions or sanctions against more than 15 people.'

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/430073/deeply-troubling-afghanistan-war-crimes-report-given-to-australia-s-defence-chief

    Wonder if it was some of the fuckers here?. Flyin' the swastika

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-14/photo-shows-nazi-flag-flown-over-australian-army-vehicle/9859618

    Shits……….

  17. Ad 17
    13 November 2020 at 5:01 pm

    I'm looking forward to the Auckland Council meeting in which they discuss why their debt has been placed waaay over the current rate, sucking an estimated $1.4b of expenditure out of Council.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/auckland-council-loses-14-billion-in-interest-rate-bet/EJ4XGSXMJDVUYLGMRPIYBTINKE/

    I suspect the government is simply going to have to bail them out.