“…because it’s actually a radically socialist idea in many ways when it’s implemented universally.”
Some righties like the idea of a UBI because it gives cover for things like abolishing the minimum wage, hours flexibility (zero hours contracts), and eliminating large parts of government departments that administer welfare.
[I moved this to Open Mike so we could have threading and reply buttons again. Original conversation and background is here – weka]
Yep. That’s how I took MW’s comment. That a UBI could be RW or LW depending on how it was designed. Morgan’s one doesn’t look particularly LW to me, although I do think he has good intentions with regards to fairness. It’s just that the kaupapa isn’t about fairness, it’s about economic rationing. Fairness is an add-on.
In Morgan’s case I think you’ll find that he thinks economic rationing is fair. He’s a classically trained economist after all and thinks that capitalism and rich people are the solution and not the problem that they are.
It appears to be $200 on top of what you already have, so for women on the DPB for instance, it’s massive. I don’t understand all the tax/WFF stuff though, so I’m 100% sure of what it would mean in reality.
It’s not a UBI though. It’s a substantial benefit targeted for young families for the first 3 years of the child’s life. As people have been pointing out, it’s going to cause confusion about what a UBI is, and if TOP manage to gain some power it will set the scene for a RW UBI not a LW one.
Fwiw, I do think that Morgan wants to create a fairer society. I think he just doesn’t understand how to do that, or he thinks some people are expendable, or he thinks people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps if his proposals don’t work for those individuals (but they’re best for society!). Not sure which, and I’m sceptical that someone with the resources he has couldn’t solve the top-up issue.
The policy is suggesting an Unconditional (not Universal) Basic Income for some clearly defined sections of society.
If the policy is any way adopted by a Lab/Green government, why would they legislate for what you allege to be the precursor for a right wing universal basic income?
And on what basis are you claiming it’s a right wing policy in the first place?
Given that the TOP policy platform is highly redistributive, any claim that one component of it right wing is just odd or plain daft.
Where (in the policy) is the evidence of ‘expendability’?
“If the policy is any way adopted by a Lab/Green government, why would they legislate for what you allege to be the precursor for a right wing universal basic income?”
Consider a L/NZF govt, or a National one. Lots of potential there.
(although I am very curious that you now consider Labour left wing 😉 )
“And on what basis are you claiming it’s a right wing policy in the first place?”
See Matthew’s comments over the past few days. It’s a RW positioning that is the problem, for all the reasons already laid out. But sure, I could be wrong, maybe Morgan is a leftie in disguise and when it comes to developing other policy he won’t really remove all topups or want pensioners to take out mortgages on their houses to pay asset taxes etc. Maybe he’s resiled from those positions and ideas. Maybe they’re not RW at all (they’re not LW either though), and he’s off on a new tangent. Good on him, but his ideas are still up for scrutiny.
“Where (in the policy) is the evidence of ‘expendability’?”
As you know from the other convo, I am looking at TOP’s UBI proposals in the context of The Big Kahuna, because Morgan himself is currently using it as the reference point for the bigger picture plan. It doesn’t make sense to me personally, because there appear to be major discrepancies between The Big Kahuna and the TOP UBI policy, but that’s just another reason to be raising an eyebrow at him being in parliament (which actually I don’t give a fuck about, but I do if it costs the left the election).
To be fair to Morgan, I think he is after everyone getting used to the idea of a UBI, and wealth taxes, before it can be fully implemented.
There are both cost and electoral credibility reasons against going immediately to a full and livable UBI.
However a return to a UBI for children, the old universal family benefit, and elderly, is a good start. I have a problem with how he wants to do his, “hardship” topup for pensioners. To me that rewards tax dodgers and hits PAYE workers hardest, but then so does the present system.
I have issues with Morgans financial wizard view of the world, but he is not alone in viewing things in terms of his own specialty.
I have no problem with a stand alone policy, or introducing a UBI in stages. Nor do I have a problem with having a Thriving Families Policy, e.g. getting a big chunk of extra cash into low income young families is great (although I do have some problems with the detail, like cutting Super to give extra money to young families that aren’t in particular need).
In the above conversation (and the ones over the past few days) I’ve been critiquing the bigger picture issues, namely how TOP would implement a UBI over time, and the risk of them costing the left the election.
I’m also thinking through Matthew’s point about how you introduce a UBI and the political positioning of that i.e. the starting point will determine what kind of system we end up with. The more I think about this the more critical it seems.
Miles likes the UBI, but not the policy on sustainable economic growth:
Another issue worth mentioning is Morgan’s response to my question around the sustainability of a growth-based economy.
Morgan seems to think that a growth-based economy is sustainable if it was coupled with the right ecological investments.
This view is at odds with the opinion of Professor Tim Jackson who, only last month, stood on the same stage to deliver a lecture on prosperity without growth.
Professor of Sustainable Development at the University of Surrey, Jackson refers to Morgan’s idea about the sustainability of a growth-based economy, as “wishful” and “magical” thinking.
Jackson explains “prosperity isn’t just about earning more and having more, it consists in our ability to participate meaningfully in the life of society.”
…
There at the club, an attendee asked Morgan to describe, in 5 words only, what he had that would make us vote for his party on the election day.
Morgan said he would say it in 3 words: “A Business Case.”
I wish he had used his 5 words and said: A Social Case For Change.
I don’t consider Labour to be left wing… they embrace liberal economics…and I didn’t say they were. I asked why you thought a Labour/Green government would implement policy that would usher in a right wing environment.
To be clear about Universal Basic Income in relation to right wing economic theorists…in their scenario, the UBI replaces all state welfare provisions…health care, schooling…everything – which then becomes ‘obtained’ by individuals making rational choices in a free market. And I don’t see any evidence of that kind of direction from this unconditional basic income proposal.
And you’re still peddling nonsense around removal of all topups or wanting pensioners to take out mortgages on their houses to pay asset taxes etc. even though it’s been pointed out and links provided, that these arm waving claims you’re making are false and contradict the published policies.
Scrutiny is good. Peddling falsehoods and fear in spite of available evidence isn’t.
“And you’re still peddling nonsense around removal of all topups or wanting pensioners to take out mortgages on their houses to pay asset taxes etc. even though it’s been pointed out and links provided, that these arm waving claims you’re making are false and contradict the published policies.
Scrutiny is good. Peddling falsehoods and fear in spite of available evidence isn’t”
Oh, I agree. So here’s my link, just so we know that I am not telling lies but responding to Morgan at source (this is for other people’s benefit as I know you’ve already seen this),
On topups, Morgan’s original UBI proposal,
However, you would no longer be able to get Work and Income to pay your phone bill or power bill, for example. “Top up” payments like Hardship Grants would no longer be available. So with the freedom to live your life as you choose, comes the responsibility to handle any financial obligations yourself (but with the help of budget advisers, family and community groups)
and, from Morgan on his FB page on release of the TOP UBI policy earlier in the week,
“In the first sentence of the landing page the book “The Big Kahuna” is mentioned. Have a read for a long term view of where we see things ending up. It’s fully costed, and the most recent iteration has been audited by NZIER, but like I said this stuff is expensive and we need to start somewhere”.
Now it’s true I am going off the website not the book, and it’s true that there are odd discrepancies between The Big Kahuna and the mini or first phase UBI TOP policy from this week, and as I have said, I am happy to be corrected and would love it if Morgan not longer believes in The Big Kahuna. But it appears that he does and is in fact using it as the background document for TOP’s policies.
If you have explained those things in the other convo, I’ve missed it, although I got that you personally are going off the TOP alone and don’t want to contextualise it within The Big Kahuna.
You can call my opinion a falsehood, I’ll just keep posting the references. Someone that wants to respond to the actual opinion and back up that I posted, have at it.
A parent or guiding or back-ground document written in the past and that informs a policy to one degree or another is not a policy. And when we’re talking of political parties and elections, it’s their actual policies and the details of those policies that matter.
What you are doing is akin to stacking Labour Party policies from the 1920s against Das Kapital or some such (a background doc that served to inspire early iterations of Labour Parties) and then running arguments against policy based on a deliberate elevation of Das Kapital.
Different links back to policy were provided by both Red and myself and you responded to those comments. So no, you didn’t “miss” those explanations in the other thread. You just choose to deliberately ignore them.
You want to critique a book from 5 years ago and the ideas it contains? That’s all fine and good. You want to critique a political party’s policy? That’s also fine and good too. You want to mix and match from those sources and in a way that suits your personal agenda? That sits somewhere between being disingenuous and being dishonest.
If there are differences between a stated policy and a background idea formulated in the past, then common sense dictates that the policy and the thought around the policy generally supersedes the thoughts or reasoning that went into formulating the older document.
Does that render the older document obsolete? No. But it has a much lesser status than the details set out in current policy documents.
No Bill, what Weka’s doing is akin to holding Bill to his statements about refugees until he withdraws them.
Gareth is a political figure now, whether he likes what that entails, or not. That means his public opinions in the past are relevant to discussion of his policies, and he may sometimes have to clarify that something is no longer in his long-term plan if he’s changed his mind, or that it’s up for re-consideration.
What’s not fair is holding him to it 100%, but that’s not what Weka’s doing. She’s assuming that he will have a similar approach to the one he personally authored in the future until proven otherwise.
Morgan doesn’t conceive of himself as right-wing, and to be fair, overall I think his sympathies are with the left and with liberals. But his take on a UBI is a slightly more moderate version of the kind of UBI proposals that libertarians love: it reduces income taxes while not providing much more in the way of actual welfare. (of course, they pay for it with capital taxes, but for high-income liberatarians as opposed to exceedingly wealthy ones, that’s actually a good bargain)
TOP’s current welfare policy is centre-right as well. It cuts super in favour of beefing up WFFs and adding in a child benefit, while making no actual significant moves on welfare reform, and no attempts to adjust starvation-level benefits.
$200 to all families with young children (whether in work or out of work) plus $72 for those on a low income (whether in work or not) plus free early childhood education is a bit more than “beefing up wff” Matthew.
And since everything TOPs proposes to ‘put on the table’ will be considered by more major parties in accord with their priorities and (at least with regards the Greens) commitments to social justice, the opportunity is there to have policies formulated that encapsulate the best of all worlds.
And as I said previously, if we’re looking at Lab/Green with TOP on the side, Labour can’t shut the Greens down on talk of welfare reform. The conversation will be had.
If Morgan had bene-bashed, then I’d agree the lens should be applied to policy. But he didn’t, and ideas are forever evolving or becoming better refined.
And again – everything he has will be subject to Lab/Green modification…reformulated with Lab and or Green priorities in mind.
So putting a fiscally neutral wealth tax on the table could produce some really good stuff. There is no need for a government that decides to run with it to keep it neutral or incorporate a flat tax.
$272 extra per week is huge for low income families. I’m not clear how much of that they get though. Is that in the hand, or is there a trade off with one of the tax/income policies like WFF? i.e. is it on top of what someone is getting today, or does some of it replace one of the other benefits?
I don’t understand the need to cut Super either. I don’t have too much of a problem with removing parts of the universal entitlement, if it was done through a LW lens. But TOP appear to be cutting the low end as well. WINZ say the current single rate is $20,000/yr, TOP want that to be $17,500.
And I still have concerns about means/asset testing all elderly people and taxing their home if they own it. Yes, TOP want to offer a mortgage via IRD so that that tax is only paid on sale, but I’d like to see some analysis of how that would actually work for elderly people. It also sets a precedent for taxing everyone’s homes. Again, I think there are better solutions if these policies were being developed in LW contexts (or social democratic ones). For the sake of not having another argument, let’s not call Morgan RW, but he does see this as a business issue not a social justice one. That’s the problem with the framing.
You think his position would support the Greens pulling Labour left on welfare. I think that assuming we don’t end up with a L/NZF/TOP govt, that TOP would pull the Greens towards the centre 🙁
Low-income families with children (under 17) – an additional $72 pw ($3,744 pa) instead of in-work tax credit, no hours test required. Of course they remain eligible for the other current welfare payments (unemployment, disability, sole parent, illness etc).
On the $200 –
all families with very young children (under 3, or under 6 if adopted or fostered) – $200 per family per week. This replaces paid parental leave
That reads to me as removing the highly discriminatory policies that Labour put in place … the “worthy” and “unworthy” poor as defined by whether 20 hours of paid employment is being undertaken or not.
Edit. TOPs want that paid for from Super. And at least they aren’t trying to raise the retirement age (Ten times the hit of $2000 p.a. for everyone for every year retirement is pushed back). And just because TOPs have worked this out in a neutral fashion, there is nothing preventing any future government from funding things differently.
It also sets a precedent for taxing everyone’s homes.
It isn’t setting a precedent. Taxing homes is a stated policy. Home owners will be taxed on the notional wealth generated from home ownership (I’m thinking the return – the amount that attracts a tax – is taken to be around 5% of total value.) And income tax will be reduced in concert with that – the idea being that a reduction in income tax compensates for the outgoings associated with a wealth tax… for most people.
Meanwhile, some ‘as yet to be negotiated’ initial level of wealth will be exempt from the tax. That could be $100 000 or $200 000 or whatever a government agrees to.
Low-income families with children (under 17) – an additional $72 pw ($3,744 pa) instead of in-work tax credit, no hours test required. Of course they remain eligible for the other current welfare payments (unemployment, disability, sole parent, illness etc).
Except:
1) There is no path for TOP into parliament with their current electoral strategy and polling, so thus,
2) We shouldn’t even be talking about TOP’s proposals in the context of “things that might be negotiated in Parliament,” they’re ideas like any citizens’ group could propose. And they’re dangerous ideas because they’re talking about targetting welfare spending with the wrong priorities. Don’t get me wrong, struggling families need their fair bit of help, but a child benefit like TOP proposes isn’t exactly the priority issue in welfare reform. I’d love to have one if we’re not headed straight for a UBI, but it’s much further down the wishlist than TOP puts it, and I wouldn’t gut Super in order to do it. We’re about to have a lot of retiring Boomers and even if they’ve done pretty well out of politics, they still deserve to have Super if we can manage to keep it for everyone.
That said, you are right that I was being dismissive of the difference it would make for families. I was being dismissive because there are much better ways to target low-income families for assistance than a generic child benefit worth $10k p/a that goes to even wealthy families. Would you have given John Key $30,000 to raise Max Key? I wouldn’t have. All low-income families in particular get is the $72 topup, when they should be getting the entire budget for any sort of family assistance program.
if anyone here believes that after a UBI or similar is installed that there are still other benefits available to them, i have several one laned bridges in Northland to sell.
I don’t have anything against a UBI, but if that ‘holy grail’ does not cover even the most basic thing humans need to survive, shelter, then its just a load of good feel, do nothing bullshit ment to rake in votes.
like that beautiful heathcare thats gonna get everyone covered
or
or
brighter futures for everyone and wage parity with OZ.
We have the hard right UBI (Roger Douglas in the 80s)
We have the centrist UBI (Morgan, I’ll give him a concession there and call him centrist rather than RW)
We have a centre left UBI (Labour, who essentially want it because of job losses due to automation, and who are not really in any way looking at improving welfare)
We have left/orthogonally positioned (Greens, who basically want a caring social security net and see the potential for a UBI to be *part of that).
We have a hard left one (not sure who that is, but I assume it exists).
We could put Standardistas into that spectrum too 😉
you take a UBI of 20.000$ a year (hopfully untaxed) and you deduct 18.200$ a year annual rent for housing (median 380$) pw – and you realize that you hopefully don’t only have that UBI at your disposition .
If the UBI does not cover min living costs it can’t work unless you have top ups and then you are again at the stage where you need a WINZ and you go back to having a ‘poor’ person to look after.
Immediately in then next few years quite a few things could be done to help the working and non working poor or financially stressed.
a. remove tax from the first 25.000$ of earning (this would equal 52 weeks of 480$ rent/mortgage)
b. tax rebates on public transport especially for commuters.
c. remove GST from Food/Electricity/Water
d. increase existing benefits to meet rising costs and facilitate access to all services.
e. make the Kiwi Safer available after every 6 years or so, cause sometimes people upgrade or have expenses and such.
I am even ambivalent with teh ‘we are gonna loose all our jobs’ scenario, as already currently we have the scenario where services that used to be paid work are now run by volunteers, such as reception desks in small hospitals.
We could actually hire a few guys and get these berms taken care of, build more public facilities, not close down our libraries, etc etc etc.
Its not as if we did not have the work to do, its just that no – one wants to pay for it.
We can have the discussion about a UBI anytime, but first we should establish just what we are aiming to achieve. And then we can throw Dollar signs at it.
And this is my beef with the TOP, and Mr. Morgan, there is just the throwing about some feel good numbers but very little what the intended outcome is. A bit like his cat policy,
1. lets get rid of cats,
2, how?
3. Dunno, and surely not with my money
He had all these years of pontificating and comes up with something that is neither here nor there.
Having the Basic Income part of the UBI system be untaxed is essentially the same thing as saying “we won’t tax the first $X of income.” Similar to welfare payments, there’s no point taxing a basic income, as it’s double-handling. Set it to the amount you actually want people to get net and save yourself the time. Taxes on benefits were only introduced as a stealth way to cut benefits.
You could absolutely exempt income even further than the basic income amount, but then you’re beginning to run into the situation where you’re not proposing a UBI system that simplifies the tax system with it, but rather a UBI with a full-on progressive tax system that would likely lose some of the efficiencies the program promises. That could be a good thing if the extra revenue compensates for it, or it could be a bad thing if you lose too much efficiency for a barely-more-progressive tax system. A UBI already solves a lot of the “incentive to work” issue by making the transition from basic income to paid income smoother, so it’s probably better to invest the available funds in increasing the basic income rather than providing a further tax-free area.
What we’re trying to achieve implementing a UBI is a universal and unconditional income that gives people financial security if they can live a modest life, even if they’re not currently in paid employment for whatever reason. That’s what the settings should be tuned to in the long term, although in the short-term it may be beneficial to start out a bit below that level and work your way up as the savings kick in. (as long as it is “a bit” rather than “a lot.” TOP (at $10k BI) and Labour (at $12.5k BI) propose far too small a Basic Income)
when that man puts his money where his large mouth is, i.e. fund desexing /trap/neuter programs for feral cats to just begin with we might have a talk.
when that man starts putting his unproductive empty rental properties on the market then we might have a talk.
Until then i am too fucking poor to give Gareth Morgan and any of this ‘economists’ my vote.
so again, unless that wanker and his mates put their money where their mouth and their ideas are they can go climb on a bike and ride across mongolia.
Indeed, those are the dangers, but those things are always dangers when right-wingers take control of government. That’s actually why it’s important to have a left-wing implementation of a UBI first, so that people know the difference and recognise the tinkering for what it is, and as Weka says, Morgan’s model is basically the right-wing version. Having him into the conversation adds nothing to this issue from a left-wing perspective because he’s outright advocating a very regressive version of a UBI.
My dad, who is an ex-Labour Party staffer and ex-Treasury, likes to remind me whenever I talk to him about UBIs that Roger Douglas wanted one, but David Lange shot it down. I can only imagine Douglas’ was worse than Morgan’s.
In contrast, the version I modelled assuming generous (ie. very left-wing) settings assumed basic income levels on-par with the maximum payment from NZ Super, (ie. $20k p/a) a two-tier income tax of 45% for income under $80k p/a and 55% for income over $80k p/a and capital gains, and had some pessimistic “make it hard to work” assumptions like people working less as a result of the UBI, more people qualifying than were taxpayers in 2015, and no efficiencies modelled in from WINZ or IRD becoming leaner departments, or savings on health costs, etc… as it was supposed to prove you could fund a UBI until those long-term benefits from reduced poverty and increased labour mobility started kicking in.
Not factoring in tax exemptions, this system was better for anyone earning under $61k p/a, so it would probably be an improvement on WFFs for kiwi battlers, and a huge liberator for anyone else on low earned incomes.
All you have to do from there is make sure any adjustment to conditional benefits (ie. not jobseeker support) are relatively generous, and implement a change of culture to a help-our-customers model at WINZ, and you have a pretty healthy social support system set up, with a fair tax system to boot.
Most left-wing fans who are keen on the idea insist that if we’re going to do it, we get a left wing government to do it first thing in their first or maybe second terms, so that people can have 2-3 years of a generous UBI before they have to vote on it, increasing the chances they’ll start to benefit from a lot of the medium-term benefits of one and then recognise right-wing tinkering to the policy as very dangerous.
I wondered if you were of that Whitehead family.
Thank you plural for your service.
UBI sounds just terrrrrriffic under a left government.
But if it’s only going to be misused, distorted, and effectively turned into a big data-hoovering net and population-wide disciplinary instrument under a future government, it’s not worth it. I think that’s a very high risk.
The next Labour-led government may or may not be trustworthy with it. Who knows. Little and Ardern have already signaled in multiple ways that the existing benefits regime and reforms aren’t going to change much, and NZSuper not at all.
Before they lose their heads on huge social welfare ideas that have no nationwide benchmark anywhere in the world, I would want to see the next Labour-led government prove they have the chops just on housing, which will take most of a term. It’s the most appropriate place to spend one terms’ worth of political capital.
I can’t imagine that Labour would go near a UBI until a solid second term.
Focussing on housing as a priority makes sense.
Beneficiaries will continue to be stigmatised and left to it. It wouldn’t be that hard to roll back the worst of the Bennett reforms, but I don’t see Labour or the Greens talking about that.
they don’t need to talk about it, they need to do it.
I can see why both parties focus on core issues, Housing – which is hardest for the very poor if we are honest, and the environment – which also affects our poorest in different ways.
I do believe that both Greens/Labour will be able to create some good policies. But i can understand both parties to focus on what is on everyones mind, housing.
And then the election is in winter, and if this winter is similar to last we will be talking a lot about beneficiaries, children, disabled and their needs for good, decent, warm housing and the lack there of.
Life on a benefit is made that much harder because of WINZ, the culture of bashing, and the Bennett reforms. So yep, I support tackling housing as urgent. But ignoring welfare is basically saying you lot over there, we’ll help with this bit but the rest is tough shit because you’re a third class citizen.
There is only one reason Labour and the Greens won’t touch welfare and that’s votes. Which is an indictment of the country we have become.
we have become or maybe always have been a hard country. In saying that, we fix the fundamentals first and for all – unite people behind what they need all and that is how we start – Housing, Health Care, Education, etc. Beneficiaries need all of the above and more then most.
You can’t undo 9 years with five slogans. I actually have faith in both parties when it comes to this.
Hence why i am careful with a UBI, i dont want it to be the one and all easy and cheap solution that some would love to make it.
The problem of is that 65% of Kiwis own their own house so for the majority of Kiwi’s that is not their biggest issue of the election…. you need more than 50% of votes to win…
That was the mistake Labour made last time….
If you want change on housing you need a change of government, so blindly following an issue like housing shortages that doesn’t effect enough people and thinking it does, because politicians and lobby groups want it too, just doesn’t work.
There’s a reason there is a housing crisis and that is due to demand of housing due to immigration. Do the Math. Incoming, outgoing…
Nobody wants to tackle outright the immigration ugly debate, but the left need to get out of ideology and get into reality. Apparently we are one of the richest countries per capita, (due to high home ownership no doubt), so not everyone is feeling the pinch… but I do think that the Natz have got too greedy and corrupt and even the farmers (and even Havlock North folks) are not happy, let alone middle NZ who have zero job security and are going backwards financially (apart from their houses).
If Labour want to use housing they need to broaden it past, just the rental market – especially as many younger renters believe all the neoliberal ideology they have heard all their lives such as it’s beneficiaries fault, all politicians are the same, etc and don’t vote.
Look at people losing their houses due to climate change, high charges of rates and insurance, interest rates, state house sell offs, government stealing water and assets, taking over councils and ECAN etc
Unlike renters, if someone loses their house in an earthquake or flood, they can’t just move on to a better residence – they get stuck in limbo – sometimes for years fighting council, EQC and their insurers and have no roof over their heads, while still having to pay rates and mortgages… and rents while they wait.
If a home owner loses their job or gets relocated, their hours cut, they also have the same issues.
Sorry to be blunt, but I for one don’t want Labour and Greens to blow their election chances yet again, on a narrow issue, by focusing on a third of the NZ population that does not capture enough voters to win the next election of which many do not even vote.
Labour’s housing policy is also pretty similar on the face of it to National’s – the main difference is that they are not selling off the state houses. However Labour can not build enough houses any way for the amount of people coming in and local people on low wages can’t afford to buy them (aka 100,000 over 10 years and affordable being $500,000) .
Yeah, it’s those Whiteheads, although it’s mainly my father and the younger of my elder sisters (she now goes by her married name of course) with a public profile, and he’s the only one in public service. (he’s mostly out now, he’s the chief-executive version of retired where he’s doing some oversight work and consulting on Data Futures, which is the expert group that’s trying to get the government to be a bit more sensible about big data. If you look up their stuff, it’s actually very much in line with what people over here would expect big data should be used for, it’s just the government isn’t entirely listening yet) But yeah, he has a lot to be proud of in public service, especially in getting the Labour government to get Treasury working for them rather than distrusting it. (Labour should be treating them a bit like the Parliamentary Library- they’re not always going to give them the info they want, but by and large they can be a resource, especially if engaged with firmly but positively)
That said, I plan to join the two of them eventually, but in fiction writing, so look out for me on Amazon at some point as “M. J. Whitehead.” 🙂
There’s no reason a UBI should be a data hoovering net, we simply attach it to IRD numbers. That requires no additional data and lets you handle tax and basic income at the same time, and anyone can opt out by not getting an IRD number if they don’t like the requirements, or they’re an ACToid who objects to government payments. It will also make it harder for National to hold such a program hostage to big data in the future the way they can arguably justify with NGO funding, as attaching data collection to IRD numbers is a Big Thing.
Little and Ardern have signalled Labour’s policy. Remember, there will be negotiations with the Greens and NZF, and those negotiations will probably include some welfare reform, and research and trials for a UBI if the Green Party gets its entire wishlist in that area. Trialling it in a small town of a few thousand people to see how it would work in New Zealand, and even trialing it with several different settings, would be an excellent way to gather data.
I agree that if Labour and the Greens get into government in 2017, Term 1 needs to prioritise housing affordability reforms over anything else. That won’t mean there’s no time for anything else, of course, and in fact certain measures on welfare reform and tax that Labour have been reluctant to agree to (CGT CGT CGT) could possibly help the situation a lot if the Greens were to insist on them in coalition..
Matthew, as I understand it, Roger’s proposal was for a guaranteed minimum income. Anyone who earned less than the minimum would get topped up to the minimum. ie 100% marginal tax rate up to the guaranteed minimum, so anyone trying to work their way into the workforce by taking on small stretches of low-paid employment got absolutely no benefit from doing so.
A guaranteed minimum income without conditions is a UBI. 🙂 A lot of UBI proposals want it administered by the local equivalent to IRD, which makes a lot of sense, because they can calculate net tax owed or net UBI owed and either make a payment to you, or bill your employer for PAYE if you’re a net taxpayer.
But yeah, a marginal taxrate of 100% below the minimum income arguably makes it a bit of a different creature. Part of the reason most UBI trials have been good for getting people into work is that they only abate through income tax, so there’s a real financial incentive to taking work and getting both your paycheck and some fraction of the UBI, less income taxes.
The UBI model most attractive to me is some government agency pays every recipient their UBI (with need-based extras) separately from any tax considerations. Whether it’s the IRS, or MSD or something else doesn’t really matter, the idea is it’s a separate transaction to any income tax considerations. To reinforce that idea that it’s a right, not something somehow conditional or related to earning.
Then couple it with a flat income tax, for horizontal and vertical equity considerations (though I’m not averse to a punitive surtax on absolutely ridiculous pay rates, say over $200k pa). Currently dealing with the IRS and PAYE is enough of an obstacle that it’s an incentive to avoid the hassle. Whether it’s by just not employing someone, or going black market. Simplifying income taxes back to a flat rate may improve that.
Plus a capital gains tax, to plug that glaring hole in our system.
Functionally anyone signed up for PAYE would be paid net either way, it’d just be a matter of whether they had it deducted from their paycheck or their UBI payment, so no big issue there. The main advantage of paying a UBI-less-income-tax to people who are net beneficiaries is that it decreases the temporary financial burden on the government for people whose paychecks aren’t as frequent as the UBI payment would be, but that’s a minor policy issue IMO and it could easily be done either way. I agree there’s some philosophical benefits to simply paying the UBI out gross to anyone has an IRD number and provides a relevant bank account or other secure payment method.
And yeah, a CGT is basically necessary to run a UBI, because you can’t fund one without it.
I’d love to see a write up of that Matthew. The things that still stand out for me are the benefit/income top-ups, and what to do about housing and/or Accommodation Supplement.
I know you think $20,000 is liveable, but it doesn’t take into account rent/mortgage, nor individual circumstances. The one good thing about WINZ, and even better when Special Benefit was on place, was that individual circumstances were what counted and theoretically if you can argue your case within the rules you get extra assistance. If you take that away, and say every single person can live on $20,000 then you are saying that every single person’s circumstances are the same (they’re not) or that those who can’t manage should suck it up.
I’m assuming that the $20,000 is for people that can top-up via working. So we need another system for those that can’t.
So there will be variation in income need because of disability/illness/parenting etc.
And then in housing. Rents vary hugely across the country and the current WINZ system takes that into account.
I agree there will always need to be a topup system for the items/circumstances you mention, even with a generous UBI (and I doubt we will get anything like $20k from any govt to begin with).
Yeah, I would be really keen to look into that, but I can’t make guarantees I’ll make time for it soon. It’s really good to have a basic costing when people say “this is impractical” to throw in their face so they actually have to find holes.
The major one people would attack my current model for is that it’s a bit mean to the wealthy in terms of a 55% tax rate for all actual capital gains and for all personal income over $80k.
$20k p/a is roughly $8-10k p/a over most annual benefit payment levels. That should cover you for rent of up to $200 per week. It’s absolutely possible to do a more generous UBI than $20k, I had the same reaction when I looked at the $12.5k UBI proposals, I just got a bit wigged out when I looked at adding on even another $2k or $5k per annum on how much tax that would require. (twice as much net cost in non-income taxes for $5k, basically)
My model actually assumes no reduction to any benefits other than Jobseeker Support, which it assumes will be replaced by the UBI. This is part of my trying to be pessimistic with my assumptions- I assume at least some reduction to conditional benefits would be practical, because you’ll get the UBI too, so even with a siginicant reduction it should work out to a drastic raise in the overall transfer for most beneficiaries.
And yeah, I think we’d want to look into offer a conditional benefit for people with high housing costs with some of the money offset from those benefit reductions. (the tricky thing is trying to get numbers on specific benefit types, both in terms of overall transfer costs and number of people on each benefit. MSD doesn’t make it very accessible, so I may need to OIA them for the figures I’d need to run the numbers) The other option would be to calculate those likely savings, and then feed them back into the basic income level, and see if it comes out giving a bit more breathing room to renters. The advantage of that approach is that it encourages people to leave for the regions to live more affordably, if they can.
$20k per annum works out to $392.15 or so per week. That means you need to fit rent, food, power, and any other costs into that amount. $20k is “generous” in that it will actually cover those costs under some reasonable assumptions, but it won’t cover every adult. Two adults living together on $784.30 per week could probably do quite well for themselves, but it would be difficult for a single person to live that way without either very cheap living conditions, (and flatmates) some conditional assistance, and/or some minor income other than the UBI. I would probably get by, but I’m reasonably frugal when I need to be.
To be clear, I can find MSD’s information on how many people fall into various categories of benefit. But I have yet to locate anything like “we payout $X for Jobseeker support in total.” The only thing I can locate dollar amounts for is hardship payments.
I’m sure somebody somewhere has asked this but was Peter Thiel made a New Zealand citizen because he had to be a citizen by law to access certain data or attend certain meetings? And it was easier to make him a citizen rather than change the law? I’m thinking something along the lines of accessing security data – don’t GCSB ads require you to be a citizen?
And I think the secretary of the Treasury has to be a New Zealand Citizen.
Spying is not a military operation. Both Sis and GCSB operate under civil law with warrants and authorizations. That is is what the the legislation is all about.
Obviously a lot of their technology is developed by private companies, which is true of most things with government.
Private firms build schools and provide educational equipment. Pharmaceutical companies supply drugs and medical equipment firms provide surgical equipment. Aircraft manufacturers build transport and combat planes, etc, etc.
So it is not surprising the same happens in the intelligence world. The staff in GCSB inevitably use software and hardware developed by others.
Spying has it’s own chapter in The Art Of War. The GCSB was until recently a part of the NZDF.
The whole point of spying is to make wars shorter and less likely. That’s the only reason they can get away with it. Domestic surveillance by police etc. is not the same as stealing other countries secrets, no matter how much sophistry you employ.
It’s a military operation with a valid humanitarian purpose. Anything else is just stealing.
I’m not sure Sun Tzu has much standing in the annals of international jurisprudence.
Stealing other countries’ secrets is only a bit of it – often the most interesting bit, but also refer to the CIA World Fact Book for examples of opensource data collated in a useful way.
One nation’s personnel committing an illegal act in another nation is not in itself an act of war, or even a military act. Stealing crop data before it’s released is not a military act.
The point of spying is to give your nation an advantage over the nation being spied upon. It has nothing to do with avoiding war. China, for example, has been accused of using its intelligence services for state-sponsored industrial espionage. How would that make wars shorter, or even be a military act?
Not all guns are military weapons.
Not all spies are military spies.
AoW is a military text. It is not a text on the history of all espionage, nor on diplomacy.
Espionage is illegal – pretty much every nation has laws against unregistered agents of other powers working within their borders. It just isn’t always (even mostly) military.
Getting the eastern European order of battle for someone is military intelligence.
Getting the text of Nikita Khrushchev’s speech denouncing Joseph Stalin was not military intelligence, although it was diplomatic intelligence.
But hostile doesn’t equal military. Walking out of the General Assembly when the Iranian or Israeli ambassador is about to make an address is “hostile”. Expelling half the embassy staff from your country is “hostile”.
Briefing and debriefing tourists who travel to a certain region, asking them for details about crops or the health of the populace, has produced valuable intelligence for various agencies, and if the tourists’ tasks had been known to the nations they were visiting it would have resulted in spying charges. Was that “military”, or even “hostile”?
You get lots of hits for “tourist arrested for spying”, but most of those seem to be bargaining chips rather than spies.
But yeah, It’s mentioned in “Every Spy a Prince” (book about Israeli intelligence services) that the Israelis did it, and I Also read somewhere about the yanks and British doing it during the cold war. Usually just “geez, it’d be real helpful if you remember but don’t write down xyz, or any comments from locals, how full the stores are, that sort of thing”. Maybe in some readings about Gehlen I had to do at one stage.
As for your “soldiers” line, nope. Not in the armed forces, not armed, no rank, no pay. Just patriots, misled or otherwise.
It just wasn’t military. It had zero military value. There were bragging rights, sure, but that’s political value. It didn’t affect the military situation anywhere in the world.
‘Tiger Mountain’ observed here yesterday that Peter Thiel was on the CIA plane seen on the Wellington tarmac at the time of the Warners/Hobbit Affair”. That was 2010. Thiel was fast-tracked to citizenship status in 2011.
I’ve submitted a guest post on this and related topics coming from the perspective of time-lines which would be an ideal place to discuss in more depth. Trouble is, it was a rushed job so probably needs a bit of tinkering… maybe too much tinkering. 🙁
I know you (and your family) have to pass a thorough security vetting to become Secretary. I’m not certain if you actually need to be a citizen, as I know Gabriel was only in New Zealand for about a year before he was appointed, but he might have already been a citizen before he came back to NZ or something. I can ask his predecessor if you’re really interested. 😉
I expect it would be enough to have the right to work in New Zealand, to pass security vetting, and have no conflict of interest overseas.
Oh, he just got back to me. Gabriel was already keen to apply for NZ Citizenship anyway, and the implication is that he had been approved by the time he was actually Secretary.
There is apparently no explicit requirement that the SecTres be a kiwi, but the level of necessary security clearance may functionally make it mandatory. I think personally that it’s a good idea not to legislate hard requirements that public servants have to be citizens and that this is the right approach- if ever someone who’s qualified wants to do the job and isn’t yet a citizen, they can try to clear the security hurdle without applying for citizenship first.
Anyone following the leak of a phone call by US Speaker of the House Paul Ryan pre the last elections, saying he wouldn’t support Trump? It was published by Breitbart, media organ of Donald Trump.
The theory is that there is power struggle going on between Trump and his team and Paul Ryan and the Republican establishment.
Allegedly the leak was instigated by Trump to attack Ryan whom Trump thinks is purposely failing in his attempts to get the healthcare package through in an attempt to destablise Trump’s Presidency to the point where it is ineffective.
His PVV gained a bunch of seats though, at the expense of their right wing party National equivalent (VVD).
Also, interestingly the vote for their equivalent of Labour (PvdA) totally collapsed in favour of what looks like a centre-right party (CDA, also picked up votes from VVD), the social democrats (D66) and the socialists. I guess that’s what happens to your core voters when a Labour party goes into coalition with National…
No it’s what happens when the centrists who were tempted to VVD do the smart thing and vote tactically. Lots of good vox pops from voters coming out of the polls over on the European media at the moment.
Interesting developments with proposed new CYFS law. Tolley going back to the drawing board after taking flak from Maori groups over the principle to place child safety above placing the child with immediate or extended family.
There’s a lot to unpack with this one. Child welfare authorities (administered by central govt / iwi / NGOs) are always trying to identify family members who can take the children. A lot are rejected for a range of safety-related reasons. Those that do pass muster often find themselves subject to lip-service support from those authorities. Not much fun when the kids are experiencing all kinds of trauma-related behaviour or are born with conditions that have contributed to the abuse (fetal alcohol syndrome etc) and whanau / foster parents have little knowledge about how to manage these ongoing issues.
Raybon Kan – best read in the herald! … on Nick Smith and water rights…
“We don’t have to be greenies. Let’s be greedies. Where’s the state-owned water bottling company? Why aren’t we the country where the police drive Lamborghinis?
Why aren’t we the country where nobody pays a cent of tax, because we be rich, baby!
We’d be better off if Jed Clampett from the Beverly Hillbillies was in charge. He at least knows gold when he sees it. (Black gold. Texas tea.)
Water is the new gold. Water is the new oil. And it’s our dumb luck to have billions upon billions of litres of it. Let’s not spit in the face of luck. Luck works. Luck made Donald Trump rich, at birth. We’ve been rich this whole time. This is Antiques Roadshow, and we just found something valuable in the cellar.
Have you seen the world recently? Billionaires are buying NZ citizenship, to avoid the apocalypse. High-decile, modern parts of the world, don’t drink their tap water. Let’s take the advice of One Direction, and know that we’re beautiful.
Smith said: what next, air? Well, there are laws governing airspace. Councils tell you how high you can build. Airlines take big detours around certain countries.
Our country, our rules. The Government just redefined ‘swimmable’ as fresh water where the turds aren’t the size of legal snapper.
So let’s just declare that they – we – own underground water. You want it? Round these parts, we charge by the barrel. You think the Saudis have a problem with owning the oil under their ground? Do they say: Nobody owns oil! Know what they don’t have? Water.”
Does this sound like affordable housing or selling cheap to private developers and cronies to increase Auckland’s unaffordability???
Multi-million dollar Hobsonville project announced
“Willis Bond is buying 1.8 hectares of state-owned land for the scheme, due to settle in stages in the next three years, he said. But he refused to say how much his business was paying for the Government-owned land.”
So you are happy for the Men and Women of NZDF, Civilians, personal from other government department’s and foreign nationals to fly around in 50 year old plus aircraft or the Navy to breached UN environment laws from 2018 with its single hull tanker and OPV’s heading down south because its ice strengthen hulls won’t be spec from 2018?
Or you and are happy for the NZDF to deployed in Peacekeeping role ill equip and under strength like it did during INTERFET (East Timor 1999) or in HDAR role?
Like all Government Departments since 91 NZDF has asset stripped big time through equipment and manning and each time it’s had to step up its been found wanting in all areas over the last 30yrs and some more chickens are starting to come home like the C130’s, P3’s and now OPV’s which were brought under Labour.
I’ve told all 3 services are barely achieving its government mandated outputs because a lack of manpower, equipment and trying to preserve hours or days on equipment so it can squeeze a few years out it.
However, we all have wish-lists and can all bring out the violin. Unfortunately, we can only spend what we can afford. Therefore, things have to be prioritised, including our defence spend.
The RNZAF airlift problems could’ve have been in part solve under the last labour government when the last National government put in a option for 8 C-130 J models on the back of the Australia order. But no they didn’t but lets squeeze another 10-15yrs out of them with a upgrade which almost fell over if it wasn’t for SAFE Air and it went budget as well. Then the issue of the OPV’s and again the labour didn’t listen to the RNZN advice about future requirements to operate in the southern ocean and now stuck with 2 ships that won’t be spec after 2018.
National and Labour both like to avoid making hard decisions when it comes to NZDF and its not just new equipment, its also pay and conditions. Like all pollies they are too worried about the next election to give a stuff about NZDF.
All equipment Defence equipment etc, have a 30 year life span +/- 10yrs depending on how hard its been used and going over this increases the risk of failure.
Like you I have never voted national in my life and never will ( I remember the 90’s), on the same token I’ll never vote green as well.
hi xkf,
that is a lot of sausage sizzles.
i do support free education for all,
i do support mental health budget increasing,
i do not support the many billions of dollars allocated to gcsb.
if you want more $ look there at your spy colleagues, not at education or health budgets.
Frankly, I think Little fell into the trap of making it a false competition.
Hell, even the GCSB has some functions that need to be done, such as keeping on top of threats to government communications infrastructure, even if one thinks that gentlemen don’t read the mail of other gentlemen.
But maritime surveillance and the disaster response capabilities fulfilled by the NZDF have been demonstrated as being essential several times in the last few years.
Education and health cuts are no longer an issue. They’ve already been cut to unsustainable levels. We need massive injections into all sectors of government, from NZDF and cops through to CYF/Health/Education.
Sometimes compared to Canada’s youthful prime minister, Justin Trudeau, Klaver, who has a Moroccan father and a mother of Indonesian descent, said on polling day that the left’s answer to the far right’s rise in Europe was to stand up for its ideals.
“What I would say to all my leftwing friends in Europe: don’t try to fake the populace,” he said. “Stand for your principles. Be straight. Be pro-refugee. Be pro-European. We’re gaining momentum in the polls. And I think that’s the message we have to send to Europe. You can stop populism.”
“Questions are being asked after a lucrative water consent attached to a former wool scouring plant in Christchurch went on the market.
Newshub reported tonight the Kaputone wool scouring plant in Belfast is about to be sold off and, with it, a water consent allowing the extraction of more than 4.3 million litres of water a day – the equivalent of 50 one-litre bottles a second.
The only cost is $100 – if inspected – and the consent does not expire until 2032.
[…]
Meanwhile, Newshub reported those behind the sale of Kaputone – owner Cavalier Carpets and its shareholder Direct Capital – would not reveal who the prospective buyers are.
Several workers told the broadcaster they believed Chinese interests are involved.
The site is under five hectares and not considered sensitive land so it is unlikely the sale will need to go through the Overseas Investment Office.”
That is why the cost of living in NZ is getting so high under this neoliberal regime. They put a private expensive ‘service’ charge on top of a free public service, again and again.
So the result is, that private company makes a killing and often pays little to zero tax, the sick person or their family (and all their visitors) have to pay for getting sick and ultimately it makes hospital care not free any more.
I paid $125 at A& E for a ‘free’ blood test form to check we did not have measles before flying. Next time I might think twice about checking.
Hi asleep, I too have had a bee in my bonnet over hospital parking fees.
It is wrong in so many ways, and can only be justified in a narrow financial view.
Effectively it is a decrease in income for those hospital staff who use private vehicles to get to work.
It inconveniences local residents and places an unfair burden on families and friends of ill people.
But it gets our local dhb an extra $450,000 annually.
Greedy and cruel.
it seems to me a lot comes down to not understanding our electoral system, or how their votes do make an impact, including when they vote for small or medium sized parties.
I don’t think the not wanting to stand in line is the main reason. If people cared about their vote having an impact, the small lines that can occur at NZ booths would not be a deterrent.
In fact, online voting might encourage voting without putting much thought into it.
More political education in schools might help. Plus more young people being involved in mainstream politics. Clear out some of the old guard candidates, and bring in more younger ones.
Among the many other problems associated with Musk/DOGE sending a fleet of teenage and twenty-something cultists to remove, copy and appropriate federal records like social security, medicaid and other supposedly protected data is the fact that the youngsters doing the data-removal, copying and security protocol and filter code over-writing have ...
Jokerman dance to the nightingale tuneBird fly high by the light of the moonOh, oh, oh, JokermanSong by Bob Dylan.Morena folks, I hope this fine morning of the 7th of February finds you well. We're still close to Paihia, just a short drive out of town. Below is the view ...
It’s been an eventful week as always, so here’s a few things that we have found interesting. We also hope everyone had a happy and relaxing Waitangi Day! This week in Greater Auckland We’re still running on summer time, but provided two chewy posts: On Tuesday, a guest ...
Queuing on Queen St: the Government is set to announce another apparently splashy growth policy on Sunday of offering residence visas to wealthy migrants. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāLong stories short, the top six things in our political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Friday, February 7:PM Christopher ...
The fact that Waitangi ended up being such a low-key affair may mark it out as one of the most significant Waitangi Days in recent years. A group of women draped in “Toitu Te Tiriti” banners who turned their backs on the politicians’ powhiri was about as rough as it ...
Hi,This week’s Flightless Bird episode was about “fake seizure guy” — a Melbourne man who fakes seizures in order to get members of the public to sit on him.The audio documentary (which I have included in this newsletter in case you don’t listen to Flightless Bird) built on reporting first ...
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Karin Kirk The 119th Congress comes with a price tag. The oil and gas industry gave about $24 million in campaign contributions to the members of the U.S. House and Senate expected to be sworn in January 3, 2025, according to a ...
Early morning, the shadows still long, but you can already feel the warmth building. Our motel was across the road from the historic homestead where Henry Williams' family lived. The evening before, we wandered around the gardens, reading the plaques and enjoying the close proximity to the history of the ...
Thanks folks for your feedback, votes and comments this week. I’ll be making the changes soon. Appreciate all your emails, comments and subscriptions too. I know your time is valuable - muchas gracias.A lot is happening both here and around the world - so I want to provide a snippets ...
Data released today by Statistics NZ shows that unemployment rose to 5.1%, with 33,000 more people out of work than last year said NZCTU Te Kauae Kaimahi Economist Craig Renney. “The latest data shows that employment fell in Aotearoa at its fastest rate since the GFC. Unemployment rose in 8 ...
The December labour market statistics have been released, showing yet another increase in unemployment. There are now 156,000 unemployed - 34,000 more than when National took office. And having thrown all these people out of work, National is doubling down on cruelty. Because being vicious will somehow magically create the ...
Boarded up homes in Kilbirnie, where work on a planned development was halted. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāLong stories short, the top six things in our political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Wednesday, February 5 are;Housing Minister Chris Bishop yesterday announcedKāinga Ora would be stripped of ...
This week Kiwirail and Auckland Transport were celebrating the completion of the summer rail works that had the network shut or for over a month and the start of electric trains to Pukekohe. First up, here’s parts of the press release about the shutdown works. Passengers boarding trains in Auckland ...
Through its austerity measures, the coalition government has engineered a rise in unemployment in order to reduce inflation while – simultaneously – cracking down harder and harder on the people thrown out of work by its own policies. To that end, Social Development Minister Louise Upston this week added two ...
This year, we've seen a radical, white supremacist government ignoring its Tiriti obligations, refusing to consult with Māori, and even trying to legislatively abrogate te Tiriti o Waitangi. When it was criticised by the Waitangi Tribunal, the government sabotaged that body, replacing its legal and historical experts with corporate shills, ...
Poor old democracy, it really is in a sorry state. It would be easy to put all the blame on the vandals and tyrants presently trashing the White House, but this has been years in the making. It begins with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and the spirit of Gordon ...
The new school lunches came in this week, and they were absolutely scrumptious.I had some, and even though Connor said his tasted like “stodge” and gave him a sore tummy, I myself loved it!Look at the photos - I knew Mr Seymour wouldn’t lie when he told us last year:"It ...
The tighter sanctions are modelled on ones used in Britain, which did push people off ‘the dole’, but didn’t increase the number of workers, and which evidence has repeatedly shown don’t work. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāLong stories short, the top six things in our political economy around housing, ...
Catching you up on the morning’s global news and a quick look at the parallels -GLOBALTariffs are backSharemarkets in the US, UK and Europe have “plunged” in response to Trump’s tariffs. And while Mexico has won a one month reprieve, Canada and China will see their respective 25% and 10% ...
This post by Nicolas Reid was originally published on Linked in. It is republished here with permission. Gondolas are often in the news, with manufacturers of ropeway systems proposing them as a modern option for mass transit systems in New Zealand. However, like every next big thing in transport, it’s hard ...
This is a re-post from The Climate BrinkBoth 2023 and 2024 were exceptionally warm years, at just below and above 1.5C relative to preindustrial in the WMO composite of surface temperature records, respectively. While we are still working to assess the full set of drivers of this warmth, it is clear that ...
Hi,I woke up feeling nervous this morning, realising that this weekend Flightless Bird is going to do it’s first ever live show. We’re heading to a sold out (!) show in Seattle to test the format out in front of an audience. If it works, we’ll do more. I want ...
From the United-For-Now States of America comes the thrilling news that a New Zealander may be at the very heart of the current coup. Punching above our weight on the world stage once more! Wait, you may be asking, what New Zealander? I speak of Peter Thiel, made street legal ...
Even Stevens: Over the 33 years between 1990 and 2023 (and allowing for the aberrant 2020 result) the average level of support enjoyed by the Left and Right blocs, at roughly 44.5 percent each, turns out to be, as near as dammit, identical.WORLDWIDE, THE PARTIES of the Left are presented ...
Back in 2023, a "prominent political figure" went on trial for historic sex offences. But we weren't allowed to know who they were or what political party they were "prominent" in, because it might affect the way we voted. At the time, I said that this was untenable; it was ...
I'm going, I'm goingWhere the water tastes like wineI'm going where the water tastes like wineWe can jump in the waterStay drunk all the timeI'm gonna leave this city, got to get awayI'm gonna leave this city, got to get awayAll this fussing and fighting, man, you know I sure ...
Waitangi Day is a time to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi and stand together for a just and fair Aotearoa. Across the motu, communities are gathering to reflect, kōrero, and take action for a future built on equity and tino rangatiratanga. From dawn ceremonies to whānau-friendly events, there are ...
Subscribe to Mountain Tūī ! Where you too can learn about exciting things from a flying bird! Tweet.Yes - I absolutely suck at marketing. It’s a fact.But first -My question to all readers is:How should I set up the Substack model?It’s been something I’ve been meaning to ask since November ...
Here’s the key news, commentary, reports and debate around Aotearoa’s political economy on politics and in the week to Feb 3:PM Christopher Luxon began 2025’s first day of Parliament last Tuesday by carrying on where left off in 2024, letting National’s junior coalition partner set the political agenda and dragging ...
The PSA have released a survey of 4000 public service workers showing that budget cuts are taking a toll on the wellbeing of public servants and risking the delivery of essential services to New Zealanders. Economists predict that figures released this week will show continued increases in unemployment, potentially reaching ...
The Prime Minister’s speech 10 days or so ago kicked off a flurry of commentary. No one much anywhere near the mainstream (ie excluding Greens supporters) questioned the rhetoric. New Zealand has done woefully poorly on productivity for a long time and we really need better outcomes, and the sorts ...
President Trump on the day he announced tariffs against Mexico, Canada and China, unleashing a shock to supply chains globally that is expected to slow economic growth and increase inflation for most large economies. Photo: Getty ImagesLong stories short, the top six things in our political economy around housing, climate ...
Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on UnsplashHere’s what we’re watching in the week to February 9 and beyond in Aotearoa’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty:Monday, February 3Politics: New Zealand Government cabinet meeting usually held early afternoon with post-cabinet news conference possible at 4 pm, although they have not been ...
Trump being Trump, it won’t come as a shock to find that he regards a strong US currency (bolstered by high tariffs on everything made by foreigners) as a sign of America’s virility, and its ability to kick sand in the face of the world. Reality is a tad more ...
A listing of 24 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, January 26, 2025 thru Sat, February 1, 2025. This week's roundup is again published soleley by category. We are still interested in feedback to hone the categorization, so if ...
What seems to be the common theme in the US, NZ, Argentina and places like Italy under their respective rightwing governments is what I think of as “the politics of cruelty.” Hate-mongering, callous indifference in social policy-making, corporate toadying, political bullying, intimidation and punching down on the most vulnerable with ...
If you are confused, check with the sunCarry a compass to help you alongYour feet are going to be on the groundYour head is there to move you aroundSo, stand in the place where you liveSongwriters: Bill Berry / Michael Mills / Michael Stipe / Peter Buck.Hot in the CityYesterday, ...
Shane Jones announced today he would be contracting out his thinking to a smarter younger person.Reclining on his chaise longue with a mouth full of oysters and Kina he told reporters:Clearly I have become a has-been, a palimpsest, an epigone, a bloviating fossil. I find myself saying such things as: ...
Warning: This post contains references to sexual assaultOn Saturday, I spent far too long editing a video on Tim Jago, the ACT Party President and criminal, who has given up his fight for name suppression after 2 years. He voluntarily gave up just in time for what will be a ...
Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. This fact brief was written by Sue Bin Park from the Gigafact team in collaboration with members from our team. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline. Is global warming ...
Our low-investment, low-wage, migration-led and housing-market-driven political economy has delivered poorer productivity growth than the rest of the OECD, and our performance since Covid has been particularly poor. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāLong stories short, the top six things in our political economy around housing, climate and poverty this ...
..Thanks for reading Frankly Speaking ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.As far as major government announcements go, a Three Ministers Event is Big. It can signify a major policy development or something has gone Very Well, or an absolute Clusterf**k. When Three Ministers assemble ...
One of those blasts from the past. Peter Dunne – originally neoliberal Labour, then leader of various parties that sought to work with both big parties (generally National) – has taken to calling ...
Completed reads for January: I Am Legend, by Richard Matheson The Black Spider, by Jeremias Gotthelf The Spider and the Fly (poem), by Mary Howitt A Noiseless Patient Spider (poem), by Walt Whitman August Heat, by W.F. Harvey Charlotte’s Web, by E.B. White The Shrinking Man, by Richard Matheson ...
Do its Property Right Provisions Make Sense?Last week I pointed out that it is uninformed to argue that the New Zealand’s apparently poor economic performance can be traced only to poor regulations. Even were there evidence they had some impact, there are other factors. Of course, we should seek to ...
Richard Wagstaff It was incredibly jarring to hear the hubris from the Prime Minister during his recent state of the nation address. I had just spent close to a week working though the stories and thoughts shared with us by nearly 2000 working people as part of our annual Mood ...
Odd fact about the Broadcasting Standards Authority: for the last few years, they’ve only been upholding about 5% of complaints. Why? I think there’s a range of reasons. Generally responsible broadcasters. Dumb complaints. Complaints brought under the wrong standard. Greater adherence to broadcasters’ rights to freedom of expression in the ...
And I said, "Mama, mama, mama, why am I so alone"'Cause I can't go outside, I'm scared I might not make it homeWell I'm alive, I'm alive, but I'm sinking inIf there's anyone at home at your place, darlingWhy don't you invite me in?Don't try to feed me'Cause I've been ...
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts’ star is on the rise, having just added the Energy, Local Government and Revenue portfolios to his responsibilities - but there is nothing ambitious about the Government’s new climate targets. Photo: SuppliedLong stories short, the top six things in our political economy around housing, climate ...
It may have been a short week but there’s been no shortage of things that caught our attention. Here is some of the most interesting. This week in Greater Auckland On Tuesday Matt took a look at public transport ridership in 2024 On Thursday Connor asked some questions ...
The East Is Red: Journalists and commentators are referring to the sudden and disruptive arrival of DeepSeek as a second “Sputnik moment”. (Sputnik being the name given by the godless communists of the Soviet Union to the world’s first artificial satellite which, to the consternation and dismay of the Americans, ...
Hi,Back on inauguration day we launched a ridiculous RFK Jr. “brain worms” tee on the Webworm store, and I told you I’d be throwing my profits over to Mutual Aid LA and Rainbow Youth New Zealand. Just to show I am not full of shit, here are the receipts. I ...
The podcast above of the weekly ‘Hoon’ webinar for paying subscribers on Thursday night features co-hosts & talking about the week’s news with regular and special guests, including: on the week in geopolitics, including the latest from Donald Trump over Gaza and Ukraine.Health expert and author David Galler ...
In an uncompromising paper Treasury has basically told the Government that its plan for a third medical school at Waikato University is a waste of money. Furthermore, the country cannot afford it. That advice was released this week by the Treasury under the Official Information Act. And it comes as ...
Back in November, He Pou a Rangi provided the government with formal advice on the domestic contribution to our next Paris target. Not what the target should be, but what we could realistically achieve, by domestic action alone, without resorting to offshore mitigation. Their answer was startling: depending on exactly ...
Photo by Mauricio Fanfa on UnsplashKia oraCome and join us for our weekly ‘Hoon’ webinar with paying subscribers to The Kākā for an hour at 5 pm today.Jump on this link on YouTube Livestream for our chat about the week’s news with myself , plus regular guest David Patman and ...
I don't like to spend all my time complaining about our government, so let me complain about the media first.Senior journalistic Herald person Thomas Coughlan reported that Treasury replied yeah nah, wrong bro to Luxon's claim that our benighted little country has been in recession for three years.His excitement rose ...
Back in 2022, when the government was consulting internally about proactive release of cabinet papers, the SIS opposed it. The basis of their opposition was the "mosaic effect" - people being able to piece together individual pieces of innocuous public information in a way which supposedly harms "national security" (effectively: ...
With The Stroke Of A Pen:Populism, especially right-wing populism, invests all the power of an electoral/parliamentary majority in a single political leader because it no longer trusts the bona fides of the sprawling political class among whom power is traditionally dispersed. Populism eschews traditional politics, because, among populists, traditional politics ...
I’ve spent the last week writing a fairly substantial review of a recent book (“Australia’s Pandemic Exceptionalism: How we crushed the curve but lost the race”) by a couple of Australian academic economists on Australia’s pandemic policies and experiences. For all its limitations, there isn’t anything similar in New Zealand. ...
Mr Mojo Rising: Economic growth is possible, Christopher Luxon reassures us, but only under a government that is willing to get out of the way and let those with drive and ambition get on with it.ABOUT TWELVE KILOMETRES from the farm on the North Otago coast where I grew up stands ...
You're nearly a good laughAlmost a jokerWith your head down in the pig binSaying, 'Keep on digging.'Pig stain on your fat chinWhat do you hope to findDown in the pig mine?You're nearly a laughYou're nearly a laughBut you're really a crySongwriter: Roger Waters.NZ First - Kiwi Battlers.Say what you like ...
This is a re-post from the Climate Brink by Andrew Dessler Climate denial is dead. Renewable energy denial is here. As “alternative facts” become the norm, it’s worth looking at what actual facts tell us about how renewable energy sources like solar and wind are lowering the price of electricity. As ...
SIR GEOFFREY PALMER is worried about democracy. In his Newsroom website post of 27 January 2025 he asserts that “the future of democracy across the world now seems to be in question.” Following a year of important electoral contests across the world, culminating in Donald Trump’s emphatic recapture of the ...
The Government hasn’t stopped talking about growth since the Prime Minister made his “yes” speech at the Auckland Chamber of Commerce last week. But so far, the measures announced would seem hardly likely to suddenly pitch New Zealand into the fast-growth East Asian league. The digital nomad announcement hardly deserved ...
It's election year for Wellington City Council and for the Regional Council. What have the progressive councillors achieved over the last couple of years. What were the blocks and failures? What's with the targeting of the mayor and city council by the Post and by central government? Why does the ...
Someone defames you anonymously online. Can you find out who it is? Maybe. There are legal avenues to seek a court order that an internet host reveal the identity of the person. One of them is called a Norwich Pharmacal order, but as Hugh Tomlinson KC points out, it only ...
The results of the 2025 Mood of the Workforce survey have been released, with working people revealing deep concerns regarding their work lives, housing, health care, and perceptions of the coalition government in Aotearoa New Zealand.Christopher Luxon has signalled that National may campaign on asset sales in the next election, ...
Te Whatu Ora Chief Executive Margie Apa leaving her job four months early is another symptom of this government’s failure to deliver healthcare for New Zealanders. ...
The Green Party is calling for the Prime Minister to show leadership and be unequivocal about Aotearoa New Zealand’s opposition to a proposal by the US President to remove Palestinians from Gaza. ...
The latest unemployment figures reveal that job losses are hitting Māori and Pacific people especially hard, with Māori unemployment reaching a staggering 9.7% for the December 2024 quarter and Pasifika unemployment reaching 10.5%. ...
Waitangi 2025: Waitangi Day must be community and not politically driven - Shane Jones Our originating document, theTreaty of Waitangi, was signed on February 6, 1840. An agreement between Māori and the British Crown. Initially inked by Ngā Puhi in Waitangi, further signatures were added as it travelled south. ...
Despite being confronted every day with people in genuine need being stopped from accessing emergency housing – National still won’t commit to building more public houses. ...
The Green Party says the Government is giving up on growing the country’s public housing stock, despite overwhelming evidence that we need more affordable houses to solve the housing crisis. ...
Before any thoughts of the New Year and what lies ahead could even be contemplated, New Zealand reeled with the tragedy of Senior Sergeant Lyn Fleming losing her life. For over 38 years she had faithfully served as a front-line Police officer. Working alongside her was Senior Sergeant Adam Ramsay ...
Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson will return to politics at Waitangi on Monday the 3rd of February where she will hold a stand up with fellow co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick. ...
Te Pāti Māori is appalled by the government's blatant mishandling of the school lunch programme. David Seymour’s ‘cost-saving’ measures have left tamariki across Aotearoa with unidentifiable meals, causing distress and outrage among parents and communities alike. “What’s the difference between providing inedible food, and providing no food at all?” Said ...
The Government is doubling down on outdated and volatile fossil fuels, showing how shortsighted and destructive their policies are for working New Zealanders. ...
Green Party MP Steve Abel this morning joined Coromandel locals in Waihi to condemn new mining plans announced by Shane Jones in the pit of the town’s Australian-owned Gold mine. ...
The Green Party is calling on the Government to strengthen its just-announced 2030-2035 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement and address its woeful lack of commitment to climate security. ...
Today marks a historic moment for Taranaki iwi with the passing of the Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill in Parliament. "Today, we stand together as descendants of Taranaki, and our tūpuna, Taranaki Maunga, is now formally acknowledged by the law as a living tūpuna. ...
Labour is relieved to see Children’s Minister Karen Chhour has woken up to reality and reversed her government’s terrible decisions to cut funding from frontline service providers – temporarily. ...
It is the first week of David Seymour’s school lunch programme and already social media reports are circulating of revolting meals, late deliveries, and mislabelled packaging. ...
The Green Party says that with no-cause evictions returning from today, the move to allow landlords to end tenancies without reason plunges renters, and particularly families who rent, into insecurity and stress. ...
The Government’s move to increase speed limits substantially on dozens of stretches of rural and often undivided highways will result in more serious harm. ...
In her first announcement as Economic Growth Minister, Nicola Willis chose to loosen restrictions for digital nomads from other countries, rather than focus on everyday Kiwis. ...
The Green Party is calling on the Government to stand firm and work with allies to progress climate action as Donald Trump signals his intent to pull out of the Paris Climate Accords once again. ...
The Government’s commitment to get New Zealand’s roads back on track is delivering strong results, with around 98 per cent of potholes on state highways repaired within 24 hours of identification every month since targets were introduced, Transport Minister Chris Bishop says. “Increasing productivity to help rebuild our economy is ...
The former Cadbury factory will be the site of the Inpatient Building for the new Dunedin Hospital and Health Minister Simeon Brown says actions have been taken to get the cost overruns under control. “Today I am giving the people of Dunedin certainty that we will build the new Dunedin ...
From today, Plunket in Whāngarei will be offering childhood immunisations – the first of up to 27 sites nationwide, Health Minister Simeon Brown says. The investment of $1 million into the pilot, announced in October 2024, was made possible due to the Government’s record $16.68 billion investment in health. It ...
New Zealand’s strong commitment to the rights of disabled people has continued with the response to an important United Nations report, Disability Issues Minister Louise Upston has announced. Of the 63 concluding observations of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), 47 will be progressed ...
Resources Minister Shane Jones has launched New Zealand’s national Minerals Strategy and Critical Minerals List, documents that lay a strategic and enduring path for the mineral sector, with the aim of doubling exports to $3 billion by 2035. Mr Jones released the documents, which present the Coalition Government’s transformative vision ...
Firstly I want to thank OceanaGold for hosting our event today. Your operation at Waihi is impressive. I want to acknowledge local MP Scott Simpson, local government dignitaries, community stakeholders and all of you who have gathered here today. It’s a privilege to welcome you to the launch of the ...
Racing Minister, Winston Peters has announced the Government is preparing public consultation on GST policy proposals which would make the New Zealand racing industry more competitive. “The racing industry makes an important economic contribution. New Zealand thoroughbreds are in demand overseas as racehorses and for breeding. The domestic thoroughbred industry ...
Business confidence remains very high and shows the economy is on track to improve, Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis says. “The latest ANZ Business Outlook survey, released yesterday, shows business confidence and expected own activity are ‘still both very high’.” The survey reports business confidence fell eight points to +54 ...
Enabling works have begun this week on an expanded radiology unit at Hawke’s Bay Fallen Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital which will double CT scanning capacity in Hawke’s Bay to ensure more locals can benefit from access to timely, quality healthcare, Health Minister Simeon Brown says. This investment of $29.3m in the ...
The Government has today announced New Zealand’s second international climate target under the Paris Agreement, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says. New Zealand will reduce emissions by 51 to 55 per cent compared to 2005 levels, by 2035. “We have worked hard to set a target that is both ambitious ...
Nine years of negotiations between the Crown and iwi of Taranaki have concluded following Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/the Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill passing its third reading in Parliament today, Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith says. “This Bill addresses the historical grievances endured by the eight iwi ...
As schools start back for 2025, there will be a relentless focus on teaching the basics brilliantly so all Kiwi kids grow up with the knowledge, skills and competencies needed to grow the New Zealand of the future, Education Minister Erica Stanford says. “A world-leading education system is a key ...
Housing Minister Chris Bishop and Associate Agriculture Minister Mark Patterson have welcomed Kāinga Ora’s decision to re-open its tender for carpets to allow wool carpet suppliers to bid. “In 2024 Kāinga Ora issued requests for tender (RFTs) seeking bids from suppliers to carpet their properties,” Mr Bishop says. “As part ...
Associate Education Minister David Seymour has today visited Otahuhu College where the new school lunch programme has served up healthy lunches to students in the first days of the school year. “As schools open in 2025, the programme will deliver nutritious meals to around 242,000 students, every school day. On ...
Minister for Children Karen Chhour has intervened in Oranga Tamariki’s review of social service provider contracts to ensure Barnardos can continue to deliver its 0800 What’s Up hotline. “When I found out about the potential impact to this service, I asked Oranga Tamariki for an explanation. Based on the information ...
A bill to make revenue collection on imported and exported goods fairer and more effective had its first reading in Parliament, Customs Minister Casey Costello said today. “The Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill modernises the way in which Customs can recover the costs of services that are needed ...
Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden says the Department of Internal Affairs [the Department] has achieved significant progress in completing applications for New Zealand citizenship. “December 2024 saw the Department complete 5,661 citizenship applications, the most for any month in 2024. This is a 54 per cent increase compared ...
Reversals to Labour’s blanket speed limit reductions begin tonight and will be in place by 1 July, says Minister of Transport Chris Bishop. “The previous government was obsessed with slowing New Zealanders down by imposing illogical and untargeted speed limit reductions on state highways and local roads. “National campaigned on ...
Finance Minister Nicola Willis has announced Budget 2025 – the Growth Budget - will be delivered on Thursday 22 May. “This year’s Budget will drive forward the Government’s plan to grow our economy to improve the incomes of New Zealanders now and in the years ahead. “Budget 2025 will build ...
For the Government, 2025 will bring a relentless focus on unleashing the growth we need to lift incomes, strengthen local businesses and create opportunity. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon today laid out the Government’s growth agenda in his Statement to Parliament. “Just over a year ago this Government was elected by ...
Associate Education Minister David Seymour welcomes students back to school with a call to raise attendance from last year. “The Government encourages all students to attend school every day because there is a clear connection between being present at school and setting yourself up for a bright future,” says Mr ...
The Government is relaxing visitor visa requirements to allow tourists to work remotely while visiting New Zealand, Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis, Immigration Minister Erica Stanford and Tourism Minister Louise Upston say. “The change is part of the Government’s plan to unlock New Zealand’s potential by shifting the country onto ...
The opening of Kāinga Ora’s development of 134 homes in Epuni, Lower Hutt will provide much-needed social housing for Hutt families, Housing Minister Chris Bishop says. “I’ve been a strong advocate for social housing on Kāinga Ora’s Epuni site ever since the old earthquake-prone housing was demolished in 2015. I ...
Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClay will travel to Australia today for meetings with Australian Trade Minister, Senator Don Farrell, and the Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum (ANZLF). Mr McClay recently hosted Minister Farrell in Rotorua for the annual Closer Economic Relations (CER) Trade Ministers’ meeting, where ANZLF presented on ...
A new monthly podiatry clinic has been launched today in Wairoa and will bring a much-needed service closer to home for the Wairoa community, Health Minister Simeon Brown says.“Health New Zealand has been successful in securing a podiatrist until the end of June this year to meet the needs of ...
The Judicial Conduct Commissioner has recommended a Judicial Conduct Panel be established to inquire into and report on the alleged conduct of acting District Court Judge Ema Aitken in an incident last November, Attorney-General Judith Collins said today. “I referred the matter of Judge Aitken’s alleged conduct during an incident ...
Students who need extra help with maths are set to benefit from a targeted acceleration programme that will give them more confidence in the classroom, Education Minister Erica Stanford says. “Last year, significant numbers of students did not meet the foundational literacy and numeracy level required to gain NCEA. To ...
Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has announced three new diplomatic appointments. “Our diplomats play an important role in ensuring New Zealand’s interests are maintained and enhanced across the world,” Mr Peters says. “It is a pleasure to announce the appointment of these senior diplomats from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and ...
Ki te kahore he whakakitenga, ka ngaro te Iwi – without a vision, the people will perish. The Government has achieved its target to reduce the number of households in emergency housing motels by 75 per cent five years early, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka says. The number of households ...
The opening of Palmerston North’s biggest social housing development will have a significant impact for whānau in need of safe, warm, dry housing, Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka says. The minister visited the development today at North Street where a total of 50 two, three, and four-bedroom homes plus a ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters has announced the new membership of the Public Advisory Committee on Disarmament and Arms Control (PACDAC), who will serve for a three-year term. “The Committee brings together wide-ranging expertise relevant to disarmament. We have made six new appointments to the Committee and reappointed two existing members ...
Ka nui te mihi kia koutou. Kia ora, good morning, talofa, malo e lelei, bula vinaka, da jia hao, namaste, sat sri akal, assalamu alaikum. It’s so great to be here and I’m ready and pumped for 2025. Can I start by acknowledging: Simon Bridges – CEO of the Auckland ...
The Government has unveiled a bold new initiative to position New Zealand as a premier destination for foreign direct investment (FDI) that will create higher paying jobs and grow the economy. “Invest New Zealand will streamline the investment process and provide tailored support to foreign investors, to increase capital investment ...
Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Judith Collins today announced the largest reset of the New Zealand science system in more than 30 years with reforms which will boost the economy and benefit the sector. “The reforms will maximise the value of the $1.2 billion in government funding that goes into ...
Turbocharging New Zealand’s economic growth is the key to brighter days ahead for all Kiwis, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says. In the Prime Minister’s State of the Nation Speech in Auckland today, Christopher Luxon laid out the path to the prosperity that will affect all aspects of New Zealanders’ lives. ...
The latest set of accounts show the Government has successfully checked the runaway growth of public spending, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. “In the previous government’s final five months in office, public spending was almost 10 per cent higher than for the same period the previous year. “That is completely ...
The Government’s welfare reforms are delivering results with the number of people moving off benefits into work increasing year-on-year for six straight months. “There are positive signs that our welfare reset and the return consequences for job seekers who don't fulfil their obligations to prepare for or find a job ...
Jon Kroll and Aimee McCammon have been appointed to the New Zealand Film Commission Board, Arts Minister Paul Goldsmith says. “I am delighted to appoint these two new board members who will bring a wealth of industry, governance, and commercial experience to the Film Commission. “Jon Kroll has been an ...
Finance Minister Nicola Willis has hailed a drop in the domestic component of inflation, saying it increases the prospect of mortgage rate reductions and a lower cost of living for Kiwi households. Stats NZ reported today that inflation was 2.2 per cent in the year to December, the second consecutive ...
Two new appointed members and one reappointed member of the Employment Relations Authority have been announced by Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden today. “I’m pleased to announce the new appointed members Helen van Druten and Matthew Piper to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) and welcome them to ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dee Ninis, Earthquake Scientist, Monash University Greece’s government has just declared a state of emergency on the island of Santorini, as earthquakes shake the island multiple times a day and sometimes only minutes apart. The “earthquake swarm” is also affecting other ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne The Western Australian state election will be held on March 8. A Newspoll, conducted January 29 to February 4 from a sample ...
She’s back behind the wheel, and this time, she wants to find out what it is that makes us tick. This is an excerpt from our weekly pop culture newsletter Rec Room. Sign up here. After a prolific career on stage and screen, 83-year-old Miriam Margolyes is on the road again. ...
A new poem by Jordan Hamel. Real Poet Every word earned its place and so did he, so should you. Real poet lives in the capital but writes himself into the Mackenzie country golden hour, man of the paper land, he neglects to mention his pollen ...
The only published and available best-selling indie book chart in New Zealand is the top 10 sales list recorded every week at Unity Books’ stores in High St, Auckland, and Willis St, Wellington.AUCKLAND1 Understanding Te Tiriti by Roimata Smail (Wai Ako Press, $25) No better time to get ...
The committee has published this list to inform the public about its work, and to give clarity to submitters who have contacted the committee asking if they will be invited to make an oral submission. ...
Alex Casey and Gabi Lardies dissect their Laneway 2025 experience. Gabi Lardies: Hi Alex :))))))) Congratulations on not getting sunburnt. Everyone I talked to at Laneway yesterday was braving the sun for one thing. Charli XCX. How was your brat experience?Alex Casey: We will talk about the rest of ...
The US President's suggestion, which sparked enormous debate globally, has been labelled as a threat, not a proposal, by the Federation of Islamic Associations. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine McCarthy, Senior Lecturer in Interior Architecture, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington Interior of Auckland South Men’s Prison.Getty Images Prisons are not colourful places. Typically, they are grey or some variation of a monochrome colour scheme. But increasingly, ...
FICTION1Tree of Nourishment (Kāwai 2) by Monty Soutar (David Bateman, $39.99)Interesting to note that the author of the biggest-selling New Zealand novel in Waitangi Week is Māori (Ngāti Porou, Ngāti Awa, Ngāi Tai, and Ngāti Kahungunu).2 Kāwai: For Such a Time as This (Kāwai 1) by Monty Soutar (David ...
Remembering the renowned New Zealand writer, who died on February 5, 2025. The Stopover When the trout rise like compassion It is worth watching when the hinds come down from the hills with a new message it will be as well to listen. – Brian Turner Poet, environmentalist, sportsman, journalist, ...
Survivors can choose to have former High Court judge Paul Davison assess their individual claims to tailor payments to their personal circumstances. ...
Are we too modest when it comes to celebrating our putrid plant life?She’s beauty. She’s grace. She smells like a decaying corpse and lurks in the backrooms of Auckland Zoo, wallowing tragically in a bucket. In recent weeks an Australian corpse plant named Putricia has captured the noses and ...
Politicians from the coalition government received a frosty reception at Waitangi this year, but Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka says the pōwhiri that received so much attention was just one part of many events throughout the week. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jenny Allen, Postdoctoral research associate, Griffith University A humpback whale mother and calf on the New Caledonian breeding grounds.Mark Quintin All known human languages display a surprising pattern: the most frequent word in a language is twice as frequent as ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justin Keogh, Associate Dean of Research, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University Jordan Mailata is an Australian-born NFL star who plays for the Philadelphia Eagles as an offensive left tackle. This position favours very tall, heavy and strong athletes who ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nigel Tucker, Research Associate in Environment and Sustainability, James Cook University TREAT volunteers planting treesTREAT Like ferns and the tides, community conservation groups come and go. Many achieve their goal. Volunteers restore a local wetland or protect a patch of urban ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karyn Healy, Honorary Principal Research Fellow in Psychology, The University of Queensland Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock The start of the school year means new classes, routines, after-school activities and sometimes even a new school. This can be a really exciting time for ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kerrie Sadiq, Professor of Taxation, QUT Business School, and ARC Future Fellow, Queensland University of Technology The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) released a discussion paper this week on investment tax breaks. The study looks at whether tax incentives, such as instant ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Naomi Zouwer, Visual Artist and Lecturer in Teacher Education, University of Canberra Galleries and art museums can be intimidating and alienating even for adults. Imagine it from a child’s point of view. Stern security guards in uniforms stationed the doors, bags checked, ...
The clock is ticking in the great chain chase. 2025 is an election year in New Zealand. Not the general variation, obviously, but the local form. If you’re thinking of running, nominations open in just five months, and your chances are good – about 50% across the various races; in ...
Political aspects of Waitangi week may be moved in 2026, writes Anna Rawhiti-Connell for The Bulletin.To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here. Celebration and on-the-ground politics For the third year in a row, I have returned from Waitangi full of food and deep regrets about not ...
Arriving at Ōnuku Marae, it was easy to see why Prime Minister Christopher Luxon chose the venue to mark Waitangi Day.Kayakers paddled around Akaroa Harbour under clear blue skies, with the marae barely a stone’s throw from the shore.Luxon’s decision to skip traditional events at the Waitangi Treaty Grounds this ...
Thanks to increased operating costs and new fare structures, many public transport users in Auckland are now paying more for trains, buses and ferries. Shanti Mathias explains what’s behind the changes. Schools are back around the country, but in Auckland, kids aren’t the only ones to have returned to a ...
In a special Waitangi edition of Gone By Lunchtime, Ātea editor Liam Rātana and politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith recap a politically charged few days at the Treaty Grounds. Our Waitangi 2025 coverage is possible because of the 13,000-plus Spinoff members who regularly pay to support our work. If you aren’t a member ...
Analysis: Waitangi Day belongs to Māori first, as mana motuhake and tino rangatiratanga take centre stage.Our Waitangi 2025 coverage is possible because of the 13,000-plus Spinoff members who regularly pay to support our work. If you aren’t a member yet, now is the time.Walking around the treaty grounds, te reo Māori ...
Analysis: The international rules-based order has come under increasing stress and strain over the last decade and looks likely to continue on the same rocky path for the foreseeable future. In the Pacific, political tensions and competition between powerful states – the United States and its allies, and China – ...
Analysis: Growth trumps everything was the message from Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s recent state of the nation address. His declaration came on the heels of similar announcements calling for growth at all costs from the new president of the USA and from many other world leaders. As usual news media ...
“…because it’s actually a radically socialist idea in many ways when it’s implemented universally.”
Some righties like the idea of a UBI because it gives cover for things like abolishing the minimum wage, hours flexibility (zero hours contracts), and eliminating large parts of government departments that administer welfare.
[I moved this to Open Mike so we could have threading and reply buttons again. Original conversation and background is here – weka]
Yep. That’s how I took MW’s comment. That a UBI could be RW or LW depending on how it was designed. Morgan’s one doesn’t look particularly LW to me, although I do think he has good intentions with regards to fairness. It’s just that the kaupapa isn’t about fairness, it’s about economic rationing. Fairness is an add-on.
In Morgan’s case I think you’ll find that he thinks economic rationing is fair. He’s a classically trained economist after all and thinks that capitalism and rich people are the solution and not the problem that they are.
Thanks, that’s what it looks like. The disturbing bit is that he is placing the rationing unfairly on the low end.
but then, that is no his concern now ? He ain’t on that end of the scale, and could not be further from it?
I do find it lovely tho, how generous he is, i mean 200 bucks who hoo, that will not even rent you a dog kennel or chicken cage anywhere in NZ.
It appears to be $200 on top of what you already have, so for women on the DPB for instance, it’s massive. I don’t understand all the tax/WFF stuff though, so I’m 100% sure of what it would mean in reality.
It’s not a UBI though. It’s a substantial benefit targeted for young families for the first 3 years of the child’s life. As people have been pointing out, it’s going to cause confusion about what a UBI is, and if TOP manage to gain some power it will set the scene for a RW UBI not a LW one.
Fwiw, I do think that Morgan wants to create a fairer society. I think he just doesn’t understand how to do that, or he thinks some people are expendable, or he thinks people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps if his proposals don’t work for those individuals (but they’re best for society!). Not sure which, and I’m sceptical that someone with the resources he has couldn’t solve the top-up issue.
The policy is suggesting an Unconditional (not Universal) Basic Income for some clearly defined sections of society.
If the policy is any way adopted by a Lab/Green government, why would they legislate for what you allege to be the precursor for a right wing universal basic income?
And on what basis are you claiming it’s a right wing policy in the first place?
Given that the TOP policy platform is highly redistributive, any claim that one component of it right wing is just odd or plain daft.
Where (in the policy) is the evidence of ‘expendability’?
“If the policy is any way adopted by a Lab/Green government, why would they legislate for what you allege to be the precursor for a right wing universal basic income?”
Consider a L/NZF govt, or a National one. Lots of potential there.
(although I am very curious that you now consider Labour left wing 😉 )
“And on what basis are you claiming it’s a right wing policy in the first place?”
See Matthew’s comments over the past few days. It’s a RW positioning that is the problem, for all the reasons already laid out. But sure, I could be wrong, maybe Morgan is a leftie in disguise and when it comes to developing other policy he won’t really remove all topups or want pensioners to take out mortgages on their houses to pay asset taxes etc. Maybe he’s resiled from those positions and ideas. Maybe they’re not RW at all (they’re not LW either though), and he’s off on a new tangent. Good on him, but his ideas are still up for scrutiny.
“Where (in the policy) is the evidence of ‘expendability’?”
As you know from the other convo, I am looking at TOP’s UBI proposals in the context of The Big Kahuna, because Morgan himself is currently using it as the reference point for the bigger picture plan. It doesn’t make sense to me personally, because there appear to be major discrepancies between The Big Kahuna and the TOP UBI policy, but that’s just another reason to be raising an eyebrow at him being in parliament (which actually I don’t give a fuck about, but I do if it costs the left the election).
To be fair to Morgan, I think he is after everyone getting used to the idea of a UBI, and wealth taxes, before it can be fully implemented.
There are both cost and electoral credibility reasons against going immediately to a full and livable UBI.
However a return to a UBI for children, the old universal family benefit, and elderly, is a good start. I have a problem with how he wants to do his, “hardship” topup for pensioners. To me that rewards tax dodgers and hits PAYE workers hardest, but then so does the present system.
I have issues with Morgans financial wizard view of the world, but he is not alone in viewing things in terms of his own specialty.
I have no problem with a stand alone policy, or introducing a UBI in stages. Nor do I have a problem with having a Thriving Families Policy, e.g. getting a big chunk of extra cash into low income young families is great (although I do have some problems with the detail, like cutting Super to give extra money to young families that aren’t in particular need).
In the above conversation (and the ones over the past few days) I’ve been critiquing the bigger picture issues, namely how TOP would implement a UBI over time, and the risk of them costing the left the election.
I’m also thinking through Matthew’s point about how you introduce a UBI and the political positioning of that i.e. the starting point will determine what kind of system we end up with. The more I think about this the more critical it seems.
Carolyn posted this,
Interesting post on the Daily Blog by Donna Miles, on a Gareth Morgan public meeting and TOP.
Miles likes the UBI, but not the policy on sustainable economic growth:
https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-16032017/#comment-1310618
I don’t consider Labour to be left wing… they embrace liberal economics…and I didn’t say they were. I asked why you thought a Labour/Green government would implement policy that would usher in a right wing environment.
To be clear about Universal Basic Income in relation to right wing economic theorists…in their scenario, the UBI replaces all state welfare provisions…health care, schooling…everything – which then becomes ‘obtained’ by individuals making rational choices in a free market. And I don’t see any evidence of that kind of direction from this unconditional basic income proposal.
And you’re still peddling nonsense around removal of all topups or wanting pensioners to take out mortgages on their houses to pay asset taxes etc. even though it’s been pointed out and links provided, that these arm waving claims you’re making are false and contradict the published policies.
Scrutiny is good. Peddling falsehoods and fear in spite of available evidence isn’t.
“And you’re still peddling nonsense around removal of all topups or wanting pensioners to take out mortgages on their houses to pay asset taxes etc. even though it’s been pointed out and links provided, that these arm waving claims you’re making are false and contradict the published policies.
Scrutiny is good. Peddling falsehoods and fear in spite of available evidence isn’t”
Oh, I agree. So here’s my link, just so we know that I am not telling lies but responding to Morgan at source (this is for other people’s benefit as I know you’ve already seen this),
On topups, Morgan’s original UBI proposal,
However, you would no longer be able to get Work and Income to pay your phone bill or power bill, for example. “Top up” payments like Hardship Grants would no longer be available. So with the freedom to live your life as you choose, comes the responsibility to handle any financial obligations yourself (but with the help of budget advisers, family and community groups)
https://garethsworld.com/kahuna/are-you-a-client-of-work-and-income/
and, from Morgan on his FB page on release of the TOP UBI policy earlier in the week,
“In the first sentence of the landing page the book “The Big Kahuna” is mentioned. Have a read for a long term view of where we see things ending up. It’s fully costed, and the most recent iteration has been audited by NZIER, but like I said this stuff is expensive and we need to start somewhere”.
https://www.facebook.com/garethmorgannz/posts/1433644913344009?comment_id=1433652383343262&reply_comment_id=1433675593340941&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D
Now it’s true I am going off the website not the book, and it’s true that there are odd discrepancies between The Big Kahuna and the mini or first phase UBI TOP policy from this week, and as I have said, I am happy to be corrected and would love it if Morgan not longer believes in The Big Kahuna. But it appears that he does and is in fact using it as the background document for TOP’s policies.
If you have explained those things in the other convo, I’ve missed it, although I got that you personally are going off the TOP alone and don’t want to contextualise it within The Big Kahuna.
You can call my opinion a falsehood, I’ll just keep posting the references. Someone that wants to respond to the actual opinion and back up that I posted, have at it.
A parent or guiding or back-ground document written in the past and that informs a policy to one degree or another is not a policy. And when we’re talking of political parties and elections, it’s their actual policies and the details of those policies that matter.
What you are doing is akin to stacking Labour Party policies from the 1920s against Das Kapital or some such (a background doc that served to inspire early iterations of Labour Parties) and then running arguments against policy based on a deliberate elevation of Das Kapital.
Different links back to policy were provided by both Red and myself and you responded to those comments. So no, you didn’t “miss” those explanations in the other thread. You just choose to deliberately ignore them.
You want to critique a book from 5 years ago and the ideas it contains? That’s all fine and good. You want to critique a political party’s policy? That’s also fine and good too. You want to mix and match from those sources and in a way that suits your personal agenda? That sits somewhere between being disingenuous and being dishonest.
If there are differences between a stated policy and a background idea formulated in the past, then common sense dictates that the policy and the thought around the policy generally supersedes the thoughts or reasoning that went into formulating the older document.
Does that render the older document obsolete? No. But it has a much lesser status than the details set out in current policy documents.
No Bill, what Weka’s doing is akin to holding Bill to his statements about refugees until he withdraws them.
Gareth is a political figure now, whether he likes what that entails, or not. That means his public opinions in the past are relevant to discussion of his policies, and he may sometimes have to clarify that something is no longer in his long-term plan if he’s changed his mind, or that it’s up for re-consideration.
What’s not fair is holding him to it 100%, but that’s not what Weka’s doing. She’s assuming that he will have a similar approach to the one he personally authored in the future until proven otherwise.
Morgan doesn’t conceive of himself as right-wing, and to be fair, overall I think his sympathies are with the left and with liberals. But his take on a UBI is a slightly more moderate version of the kind of UBI proposals that libertarians love: it reduces income taxes while not providing much more in the way of actual welfare. (of course, they pay for it with capital taxes, but for high-income liberatarians as opposed to exceedingly wealthy ones, that’s actually a good bargain)
TOP’s current welfare policy is centre-right as well. It cuts super in favour of beefing up WFFs and adding in a child benefit, while making no actual significant moves on welfare reform, and no attempts to adjust starvation-level benefits.
$200 to all families with young children (whether in work or out of work) plus $72 for those on a low income (whether in work or not) plus free early childhood education is a bit more than “beefing up wff” Matthew.
And since everything TOPs proposes to ‘put on the table’ will be considered by more major parties in accord with their priorities and (at least with regards the Greens) commitments to social justice, the opportunity is there to have policies formulated that encapsulate the best of all worlds.
And as I said previously, if we’re looking at Lab/Green with TOP on the side, Labour can’t shut the Greens down on talk of welfare reform. The conversation will be had.
If Morgan had bene-bashed, then I’d agree the lens should be applied to policy. But he didn’t, and ideas are forever evolving or becoming better refined.
And again – everything he has will be subject to Lab/Green modification…reformulated with Lab and or Green priorities in mind.
So putting a fiscally neutral wealth tax on the table could produce some really good stuff. There is no need for a government that decides to run with it to keep it neutral or incorporate a flat tax.
$272 extra per week is huge for low income families. I’m not clear how much of that they get though. Is that in the hand, or is there a trade off with one of the tax/income policies like WFF? i.e. is it on top of what someone is getting today, or does some of it replace one of the other benefits?
I don’t understand the need to cut Super either. I don’t have too much of a problem with removing parts of the universal entitlement, if it was done through a LW lens. But TOP appear to be cutting the low end as well. WINZ say the current single rate is $20,000/yr, TOP want that to be $17,500.
And I still have concerns about means/asset testing all elderly people and taxing their home if they own it. Yes, TOP want to offer a mortgage via IRD so that that tax is only paid on sale, but I’d like to see some analysis of how that would actually work for elderly people. It also sets a precedent for taxing everyone’s homes. Again, I think there are better solutions if these policies were being developed in LW contexts (or social democratic ones). For the sake of not having another argument, let’s not call Morgan RW, but he does see this as a business issue not a social justice one. That’s the problem with the framing.
You think his position would support the Greens pulling Labour left on welfare. I think that assuming we don’t end up with a L/NZF/TOP govt, that TOP would pull the Greens towards the centre 🙁
From the policy summary page.
On the $72 –
Low-income families with children (under 17) – an additional $72 pw ($3,744 pa) instead of in-work tax credit, no hours test required. Of course they remain eligible for the other current welfare payments (unemployment, disability, sole parent, illness etc).
On the $200 –
all families with very young children (under 3, or under 6 if adopted or fostered) – $200 per family per week. This replaces paid parental leave
That reads to me as removing the highly discriminatory policies that Labour put in place … the “worthy” and “unworthy” poor as defined by whether 20 hours of paid employment is being undertaken or not.
Edit. TOPs want that paid for from Super. And at least they aren’t trying to raise the retirement age (Ten times the hit of $2000 p.a. for everyone for every year retirement is pushed back). And just because TOPs have worked this out in a neutral fashion, there is nothing preventing any future government from funding things differently.
It also sets a precedent for taxing everyone’s homes.
It isn’t setting a precedent. Taxing homes is a stated policy. Home owners will be taxed on the notional wealth generated from home ownership (I’m thinking the return – the amount that attracts a tax – is taken to be around 5% of total value.) And income tax will be reduced in concert with that – the idea being that a reduction in income tax compensates for the outgoings associated with a wealth tax… for most people.
Meanwhile, some ‘as yet to be negotiated’ initial level of wealth will be exempt from the tax. That could be $100 000 or $200 000 or whatever a government agrees to.
On the $72 –
Low-income families with children (under 17) – an additional $72 pw ($3,744 pa) instead of in-work tax credit, no hours test required. Of course they remain eligible for the other current welfare payments (unemployment, disability, sole parent, illness etc).
That doesn’t answer the question though.
Except:
1) There is no path for TOP into parliament with their current electoral strategy and polling, so thus,
2) We shouldn’t even be talking about TOP’s proposals in the context of “things that might be negotiated in Parliament,” they’re ideas like any citizens’ group could propose. And they’re dangerous ideas because they’re talking about targetting welfare spending with the wrong priorities. Don’t get me wrong, struggling families need their fair bit of help, but a child benefit like TOP proposes isn’t exactly the priority issue in welfare reform. I’d love to have one if we’re not headed straight for a UBI, but it’s much further down the wishlist than TOP puts it, and I wouldn’t gut Super in order to do it. We’re about to have a lot of retiring Boomers and even if they’ve done pretty well out of politics, they still deserve to have Super if we can manage to keep it for everyone.
That said, you are right that I was being dismissive of the difference it would make for families. I was being dismissive because there are much better ways to target low-income families for assistance than a generic child benefit worth $10k p/a that goes to even wealthy families. Would you have given John Key $30,000 to raise Max Key? I wouldn’t have. All low-income families in particular get is the $72 topup, when they should be getting the entire budget for any sort of family assistance program.
if anyone here believes that after a UBI or similar is installed that there are still other benefits available to them, i have several one laned bridges in Northland to sell.
I don’t have anything against a UBI, but if that ‘holy grail’ does not cover even the most basic thing humans need to survive, shelter, then its just a load of good feel, do nothing bullshit ment to rake in votes.
like that beautiful heathcare thats gonna get everyone covered
or
or
brighter futures for everyone and wage parity with OZ.
I think there is a spectrum.
We have the hard right UBI (Roger Douglas in the 80s)
We have the centrist UBI (Morgan, I’ll give him a concession there and call him centrist rather than RW)
We have a centre left UBI (Labour, who essentially want it because of job losses due to automation, and who are not really in any way looking at improving welfare)
We have left/orthogonally positioned (Greens, who basically want a caring social security net and see the potential for a UBI to be *part of that).
We have a hard left one (not sure who that is, but I assume it exists).
We could put Standardistas into that spectrum too 😉
let me put it this way Weka
you take a UBI of 20.000$ a year (hopfully untaxed) and you deduct 18.200$ a year annual rent for housing (median 380$) pw – and you realize that you hopefully don’t only have that UBI at your disposition .
If the UBI does not cover min living costs it can’t work unless you have top ups and then you are again at the stage where you need a WINZ and you go back to having a ‘poor’ person to look after.
Immediately in then next few years quite a few things could be done to help the working and non working poor or financially stressed.
a. remove tax from the first 25.000$ of earning (this would equal 52 weeks of 480$ rent/mortgage)
b. tax rebates on public transport especially for commuters.
c. remove GST from Food/Electricity/Water
d. increase existing benefits to meet rising costs and facilitate access to all services.
e. make the Kiwi Safer available after every 6 years or so, cause sometimes people upgrade or have expenses and such.
I am even ambivalent with teh ‘we are gonna loose all our jobs’ scenario, as already currently we have the scenario where services that used to be paid work are now run by volunteers, such as reception desks in small hospitals.
We could actually hire a few guys and get these berms taken care of, build more public facilities, not close down our libraries, etc etc etc.
Its not as if we did not have the work to do, its just that no – one wants to pay for it.
We can have the discussion about a UBI anytime, but first we should establish just what we are aiming to achieve. And then we can throw Dollar signs at it.
And this is my beef with the TOP, and Mr. Morgan, there is just the throwing about some feel good numbers but very little what the intended outcome is. A bit like his cat policy,
1. lets get rid of cats,
2, how?
3. Dunno, and surely not with my money
He had all these years of pontificating and comes up with something that is neither here nor there.
Having the Basic Income part of the UBI system be untaxed is essentially the same thing as saying “we won’t tax the first $X of income.” Similar to welfare payments, there’s no point taxing a basic income, as it’s double-handling. Set it to the amount you actually want people to get net and save yourself the time. Taxes on benefits were only introduced as a stealth way to cut benefits.
You could absolutely exempt income even further than the basic income amount, but then you’re beginning to run into the situation where you’re not proposing a UBI system that simplifies the tax system with it, but rather a UBI with a full-on progressive tax system that would likely lose some of the efficiencies the program promises. That could be a good thing if the extra revenue compensates for it, or it could be a bad thing if you lose too much efficiency for a barely-more-progressive tax system. A UBI already solves a lot of the “incentive to work” issue by making the transition from basic income to paid income smoother, so it’s probably better to invest the available funds in increasing the basic income rather than providing a further tax-free area.
What we’re trying to achieve implementing a UBI is a universal and unconditional income that gives people financial security if they can live a modest life, even if they’re not currently in paid employment for whatever reason. That’s what the settings should be tuned to in the long term, although in the short-term it may be beneficial to start out a bit below that level and work your way up as the savings kick in. (as long as it is “a bit” rather than “a lot.” TOP (at $10k BI) and Labour (at $12.5k BI) propose far too small a Basic Income)
@ Matthew Whitehead.
i am too poor for that richs mans folly.
when that man puts his money where his large mouth is, i.e. fund desexing /trap/neuter programs for feral cats to just begin with we might have a talk.
when that man starts putting his unproductive empty rental properties on the market then we might have a talk.
Until then i am too fucking poor to give Gareth Morgan and any of this ‘economists’ my vote.
so again, unless that wanker and his mates put their money where their mouth and their ideas are they can go climb on a bike and ride across mongolia.
Indeed, those are the dangers, but those things are always dangers when right-wingers take control of government. That’s actually why it’s important to have a left-wing implementation of a UBI first, so that people know the difference and recognise the tinkering for what it is, and as Weka says, Morgan’s model is basically the right-wing version. Having him into the conversation adds nothing to this issue from a left-wing perspective because he’s outright advocating a very regressive version of a UBI.
My dad, who is an ex-Labour Party staffer and ex-Treasury, likes to remind me whenever I talk to him about UBIs that Roger Douglas wanted one, but David Lange shot it down. I can only imagine Douglas’ was worse than Morgan’s.
In contrast, the version I modelled assuming generous (ie. very left-wing) settings assumed basic income levels on-par with the maximum payment from NZ Super, (ie. $20k p/a) a two-tier income tax of 45% for income under $80k p/a and 55% for income over $80k p/a and capital gains, and had some pessimistic “make it hard to work” assumptions like people working less as a result of the UBI, more people qualifying than were taxpayers in 2015, and no efficiencies modelled in from WINZ or IRD becoming leaner departments, or savings on health costs, etc… as it was supposed to prove you could fund a UBI until those long-term benefits from reduced poverty and increased labour mobility started kicking in.
Not factoring in tax exemptions, this system was better for anyone earning under $61k p/a, so it would probably be an improvement on WFFs for kiwi battlers, and a huge liberator for anyone else on low earned incomes.
All you have to do from there is make sure any adjustment to conditional benefits (ie. not jobseeker support) are relatively generous, and implement a change of culture to a help-our-customers model at WINZ, and you have a pretty healthy social support system set up, with a fair tax system to boot.
Most left-wing fans who are keen on the idea insist that if we’re going to do it, we get a left wing government to do it first thing in their first or maybe second terms, so that people can have 2-3 years of a generous UBI before they have to vote on it, increasing the chances they’ll start to benefit from a lot of the medium-term benefits of one and then recognise right-wing tinkering to the policy as very dangerous.
I wondered if you were of that Whitehead family.
Thank you plural for your service.
UBI sounds just terrrrrriffic under a left government.
But if it’s only going to be misused, distorted, and effectively turned into a big data-hoovering net and population-wide disciplinary instrument under a future government, it’s not worth it. I think that’s a very high risk.
The next Labour-led government may or may not be trustworthy with it. Who knows. Little and Ardern have already signaled in multiple ways that the existing benefits regime and reforms aren’t going to change much, and NZSuper not at all.
Before they lose their heads on huge social welfare ideas that have no nationwide benchmark anywhere in the world, I would want to see the next Labour-led government prove they have the chops just on housing, which will take most of a term. It’s the most appropriate place to spend one terms’ worth of political capital.
I can’t imagine that Labour would go near a UBI until a solid second term.
Focussing on housing as a priority makes sense.
Beneficiaries will continue to be stigmatised and left to it. It wouldn’t be that hard to roll back the worst of the Bennett reforms, but I don’t see Labour or the Greens talking about that.
they don’t need to talk about it, they need to do it.
I can see why both parties focus on core issues, Housing – which is hardest for the very poor if we are honest, and the environment – which also affects our poorest in different ways.
I do believe that both Greens/Labour will be able to create some good policies. But i can understand both parties to focus on what is on everyones mind, housing.
And then the election is in winter, and if this winter is similar to last we will be talking a lot about beneficiaries, children, disabled and their needs for good, decent, warm housing and the lack there of.
Life on a benefit is made that much harder because of WINZ, the culture of bashing, and the Bennett reforms. So yep, I support tackling housing as urgent. But ignoring welfare is basically saying you lot over there, we’ll help with this bit but the rest is tough shit because you’re a third class citizen.
There is only one reason Labour and the Greens won’t touch welfare and that’s votes. Which is an indictment of the country we have become.
we have become or maybe always have been a hard country. In saying that, we fix the fundamentals first and for all – unite people behind what they need all and that is how we start – Housing, Health Care, Education, etc. Beneficiaries need all of the above and more then most.
You can’t undo 9 years with five slogans. I actually have faith in both parties when it comes to this.
Hence why i am careful with a UBI, i dont want it to be the one and all easy and cheap solution that some would love to make it.
too true weka. i have some very sad stories i could tell you but can’t for obvious reasons. esp being a woman. 🙁
~ Tui
Yep. And that we can’t tell so many stories is a big sign too.
The problem of is that 65% of Kiwis own their own house so for the majority of Kiwi’s that is not their biggest issue of the election…. you need more than 50% of votes to win…
That was the mistake Labour made last time….
If you want change on housing you need a change of government, so blindly following an issue like housing shortages that doesn’t effect enough people and thinking it does, because politicians and lobby groups want it too, just doesn’t work.
There’s a reason there is a housing crisis and that is due to demand of housing due to immigration. Do the Math. Incoming, outgoing…
Nobody wants to tackle outright the immigration ugly debate, but the left need to get out of ideology and get into reality. Apparently we are one of the richest countries per capita, (due to high home ownership no doubt), so not everyone is feeling the pinch… but I do think that the Natz have got too greedy and corrupt and even the farmers (and even Havlock North folks) are not happy, let alone middle NZ who have zero job security and are going backwards financially (apart from their houses).
If Labour want to use housing they need to broaden it past, just the rental market – especially as many younger renters believe all the neoliberal ideology they have heard all their lives such as it’s beneficiaries fault, all politicians are the same, etc and don’t vote.
Look at people losing their houses due to climate change, high charges of rates and insurance, interest rates, state house sell offs, government stealing water and assets, taking over councils and ECAN etc
Unlike renters, if someone loses their house in an earthquake or flood, they can’t just move on to a better residence – they get stuck in limbo – sometimes for years fighting council, EQC and their insurers and have no roof over their heads, while still having to pay rates and mortgages… and rents while they wait.
If a home owner loses their job or gets relocated, their hours cut, they also have the same issues.
Sorry to be blunt, but I for one don’t want Labour and Greens to blow their election chances yet again, on a narrow issue, by focusing on a third of the NZ population that does not capture enough voters to win the next election of which many do not even vote.
Labour’s housing policy is also pretty similar on the face of it to National’s – the main difference is that they are not selling off the state houses. However Labour can not build enough houses any way for the amount of people coming in and local people on low wages can’t afford to buy them (aka 100,000 over 10 years and affordable being $500,000) .
Yeah, it’s those Whiteheads, although it’s mainly my father and the younger of my elder sisters (she now goes by her married name of course) with a public profile, and he’s the only one in public service. (he’s mostly out now, he’s the chief-executive version of retired where he’s doing some oversight work and consulting on Data Futures, which is the expert group that’s trying to get the government to be a bit more sensible about big data. If you look up their stuff, it’s actually very much in line with what people over here would expect big data should be used for, it’s just the government isn’t entirely listening yet) But yeah, he has a lot to be proud of in public service, especially in getting the Labour government to get Treasury working for them rather than distrusting it. (Labour should be treating them a bit like the Parliamentary Library- they’re not always going to give them the info they want, but by and large they can be a resource, especially if engaged with firmly but positively)
That said, I plan to join the two of them eventually, but in fiction writing, so look out for me on Amazon at some point as “M. J. Whitehead.” 🙂
There’s no reason a UBI should be a data hoovering net, we simply attach it to IRD numbers. That requires no additional data and lets you handle tax and basic income at the same time, and anyone can opt out by not getting an IRD number if they don’t like the requirements, or they’re an ACToid who objects to government payments. It will also make it harder for National to hold such a program hostage to big data in the future the way they can arguably justify with NGO funding, as attaching data collection to IRD numbers is a Big Thing.
Little and Ardern have signalled Labour’s policy. Remember, there will be negotiations with the Greens and NZF, and those negotiations will probably include some welfare reform, and research and trials for a UBI if the Green Party gets its entire wishlist in that area. Trialling it in a small town of a few thousand people to see how it would work in New Zealand, and even trialing it with several different settings, would be an excellent way to gather data.
I agree that if Labour and the Greens get into government in 2017, Term 1 needs to prioritise housing affordability reforms over anything else. That won’t mean there’s no time for anything else, of course, and in fact certain measures on welfare reform and tax that Labour have been reluctant to agree to (CGT CGT CGT) could possibly help the situation a lot if the Greens were to insist on them in coalition..
Matthew, as I understand it, Roger’s proposal was for a guaranteed minimum income. Anyone who earned less than the minimum would get topped up to the minimum. ie 100% marginal tax rate up to the guaranteed minimum, so anyone trying to work their way into the workforce by taking on small stretches of low-paid employment got absolutely no benefit from doing so.
A guaranteed minimum income without conditions is a UBI. 🙂 A lot of UBI proposals want it administered by the local equivalent to IRD, which makes a lot of sense, because they can calculate net tax owed or net UBI owed and either make a payment to you, or bill your employer for PAYE if you’re a net taxpayer.
But yeah, a marginal taxrate of 100% below the minimum income arguably makes it a bit of a different creature. Part of the reason most UBI trials have been good for getting people into work is that they only abate through income tax, so there’s a real financial incentive to taking work and getting both your paycheck and some fraction of the UBI, less income taxes.
The UBI model most attractive to me is some government agency pays every recipient their UBI (with need-based extras) separately from any tax considerations. Whether it’s the IRS, or MSD or something else doesn’t really matter, the idea is it’s a separate transaction to any income tax considerations. To reinforce that idea that it’s a right, not something somehow conditional or related to earning.
Then couple it with a flat income tax, for horizontal and vertical equity considerations (though I’m not averse to a punitive surtax on absolutely ridiculous pay rates, say over $200k pa). Currently dealing with the IRS and PAYE is enough of an obstacle that it’s an incentive to avoid the hassle. Whether it’s by just not employing someone, or going black market. Simplifying income taxes back to a flat rate may improve that.
Plus a capital gains tax, to plug that glaring hole in our system.
Functionally anyone signed up for PAYE would be paid net either way, it’d just be a matter of whether they had it deducted from their paycheck or their UBI payment, so no big issue there. The main advantage of paying a UBI-less-income-tax to people who are net beneficiaries is that it decreases the temporary financial burden on the government for people whose paychecks aren’t as frequent as the UBI payment would be, but that’s a minor policy issue IMO and it could easily be done either way. I agree there’s some philosophical benefits to simply paying the UBI out gross to anyone has an IRD number and provides a relevant bank account or other secure payment method.
And yeah, a CGT is basically necessary to run a UBI, because you can’t fund one without it.
I’d love to see a write up of that Matthew. The things that still stand out for me are the benefit/income top-ups, and what to do about housing and/or Accommodation Supplement.
I know you think $20,000 is liveable, but it doesn’t take into account rent/mortgage, nor individual circumstances. The one good thing about WINZ, and even better when Special Benefit was on place, was that individual circumstances were what counted and theoretically if you can argue your case within the rules you get extra assistance. If you take that away, and say every single person can live on $20,000 then you are saying that every single person’s circumstances are the same (they’re not) or that those who can’t manage should suck it up.
I’m assuming that the $20,000 is for people that can top-up via working. So we need another system for those that can’t.
So there will be variation in income need because of disability/illness/parenting etc.
And then in housing. Rents vary hugely across the country and the current WINZ system takes that into account.
I agree there will always need to be a topup system for the items/circumstances you mention, even with a generous UBI (and I doubt we will get anything like $20k from any govt to begin with).
Yeah, I would be really keen to look into that, but I can’t make guarantees I’ll make time for it soon. It’s really good to have a basic costing when people say “this is impractical” to throw in their face so they actually have to find holes.
The major one people would attack my current model for is that it’s a bit mean to the wealthy in terms of a 55% tax rate for all actual capital gains and for all personal income over $80k.
$20k p/a is roughly $8-10k p/a over most annual benefit payment levels. That should cover you for rent of up to $200 per week. It’s absolutely possible to do a more generous UBI than $20k, I had the same reaction when I looked at the $12.5k UBI proposals, I just got a bit wigged out when I looked at adding on even another $2k or $5k per annum on how much tax that would require. (twice as much net cost in non-income taxes for $5k, basically)
My model actually assumes no reduction to any benefits other than Jobseeker Support, which it assumes will be replaced by the UBI. This is part of my trying to be pessimistic with my assumptions- I assume at least some reduction to conditional benefits would be practical, because you’ll get the UBI too, so even with a siginicant reduction it should work out to a drastic raise in the overall transfer for most beneficiaries.
And yeah, I think we’d want to look into offer a conditional benefit for people with high housing costs with some of the money offset from those benefit reductions. (the tricky thing is trying to get numbers on specific benefit types, both in terms of overall transfer costs and number of people on each benefit. MSD doesn’t make it very accessible, so I may need to OIA them for the figures I’d need to run the numbers) The other option would be to calculate those likely savings, and then feed them back into the basic income level, and see if it comes out giving a bit more breathing room to renters. The advantage of that approach is that it encourages people to leave for the regions to live more affordably, if they can.
$20k per annum works out to $392.15 or so per week. That means you need to fit rent, food, power, and any other costs into that amount. $20k is “generous” in that it will actually cover those costs under some reasonable assumptions, but it won’t cover every adult. Two adults living together on $784.30 per week could probably do quite well for themselves, but it would be difficult for a single person to live that way without either very cheap living conditions, (and flatmates) some conditional assistance, and/or some minor income other than the UBI. I would probably get by, but I’m reasonably frugal when I need to be.
To be clear, I can find MSD’s information on how many people fall into various categories of benefit. But I have yet to locate anything like “we payout $X for Jobseeker support in total.” The only thing I can locate dollar amounts for is hardship payments.
I’m sure somebody somewhere has asked this but was Peter Thiel made a New Zealand citizen because he had to be a citizen by law to access certain data or attend certain meetings? And it was easier to make him a citizen rather than change the law? I’m thinking something along the lines of accessing security data – don’t GCSB ads require you to be a citizen?
And I think the secretary of the Treasury has to be a New Zealand Citizen.
I’ve been asking myself that very same question.
Make no mistake: spying is a military operation. The New Zealand government employs mercenaries.
I wonder whether being a mercenary can trigger any of the provisions outlined here.
Spying is not a military operation. Both Sis and GCSB operate under civil law with warrants and authorizations. That is is what the the legislation is all about.
Obviously a lot of their technology is developed by private companies, which is true of most things with government.
Private firms build schools and provide educational equipment. Pharmaceutical companies supply drugs and medical equipment firms provide surgical equipment. Aircraft manufacturers build transport and combat planes, etc, etc.
So it is not surprising the same happens in the intelligence world. The staff in GCSB inevitably use software and hardware developed by others.
So your post has a fundamentally flawed premise.
Spying has it’s own chapter in The Art Of War. The GCSB was until recently a part of the NZDF.
The whole point of spying is to make wars shorter and less likely. That’s the only reason they can get away with it. Domestic surveillance by police etc. is not the same as stealing other countries secrets, no matter how much sophistry you employ.
It’s a military operation with a valid humanitarian purpose. Anything else is just stealing.
I’m not sure Sun Tzu has much standing in the annals of international jurisprudence.
Stealing other countries’ secrets is only a bit of it – often the most interesting bit, but also refer to the CIA World Fact Book for examples of opensource data collated in a useful way.
One nation’s personnel committing an illegal act in another nation is not in itself an act of war, or even a military act. Stealing crop data before it’s released is not a military act.
The point of spying is to give your nation an advantage over the nation being spied upon. It has nothing to do with avoiding war. China, for example, has been accused of using its intelligence services for state-sponsored industrial espionage. How would that make wars shorter, or even be a military act?
A veneer of legality doesn’t conceal the hostile intent behind such actions.
Sun Tzu may have zero standing in court; The Art Of War is nonetheless required reading at West Point (pdf).
I suspect we may need to agree to disagree.
Not all guns are military weapons.
Not all spies are military spies.
AoW is a military text. It is not a text on the history of all espionage, nor on diplomacy.
Espionage is illegal – pretty much every nation has laws against unregistered agents of other powers working within their borders. It just isn’t always (even mostly) military.
Getting the eastern European order of battle for someone is military intelligence.
Getting the text of Nikita Khrushchev’s speech denouncing Joseph Stalin was not military intelligence, although it was diplomatic intelligence.
Espionage is illegal. When conducted by one nation against another, that counts as hostile in my book.
Acts of hostility can be acts of peace? If you read Sun Tzu, indeed they can. Conflict between nations, eh. Let’s privatise it.
That’ll work /sarc
But hostile doesn’t equal military. Walking out of the General Assembly when the Iranian or Israeli ambassador is about to make an address is “hostile”. Expelling half the embassy staff from your country is “hostile”.
Briefing and debriefing tourists who travel to a certain region, asking them for details about crops or the health of the populace, has produced valuable intelligence for various agencies, and if the tourists’ tasks had been known to the nations they were visiting it would have resulted in spying charges. Was that “military”, or even “hostile”?
Militarily useful. Yep.
More diplomatically useful than militarily. Especially when the countries are still exchanging tourists.
If the sole purview of spies was talking to returning tourists you’d be standing on solid ground.
However, you are standing on broken ground, and that’s why you have to recruit these sophistries.
But the tourists are the spies gathering military intelligence, according to you.
Acts of war committed on a day trip from a cruise liner.
Nope: the tourists in your example just answer questions. The answers only have military potential once they’re collated and entered into a database.
That’s why the spies in your example ask the questions in the first place. cf: Rumsfeld and his unknowns.
And yet they were still briefed in my example (not just debriefed), as well as facing actual legal espionage charges if caught.
Edit: hang on, did you just argue that spying only occurs at the collation phase, not collection?
Ah, so they were asked to break laws “for their country”? Good little soldiers were they?
Edit: Is this a real example? If so please just link. It seems like nitpicking…
You get lots of hits for “tourist arrested for spying”, but most of those seem to be bargaining chips rather than spies.
But yeah, It’s mentioned in “Every Spy a Prince” (book about Israeli intelligence services) that the Israelis did it, and I Also read somewhere about the yanks and British doing it during the cold war. Usually just “geez, it’d be real helpful if you remember but don’t write down xyz, or any comments from locals, how full the stores are, that sort of thing”. Maybe in some readings about Gehlen I had to do at one stage.
As for your “soldiers” line, nope. Not in the armed forces, not armed, no rank, no pay. Just patriots, misled or otherwise.
this looks like someone’s research on the practise:
“Penn DCC Workshop / Alex Hazanov /
Foreign Visitors in the Late Soviet Union, the KGB and the Limits of Surveillance”
You’re saying crimes (eg: espionage) by one nation against another don’t fall into the category of “enemy action”?
Seriously?
Come to my house and steal and we’re going to get into a fight. Think about that on a global level.
Some acts of espionage definitely are “enemy action”, gathering intelligence with a view to military advantage. Others aren’t.
What was the military value of stealing the text of khruschev’s speech?
What was even the “enemy action” in it?
“knowledge of the enemy’s condition”
Not to mention intimidation: I’m in your house and there’s nothing you can do about it.
lol
Laugh all you like: “he who does not laugh does not learn.”
If you think I’m missing something about the theft of Kruschev’s speech please be more explicit.
It has a propaganda value too, no: “Hey look, I was in his house and I found this…”
None of it is friendly action.
I’m not arguing that it was a “friendly” action.
It just wasn’t military. It had zero military value. There were bragging rights, sure, but that’s political value. It didn’t affect the military situation anywhere in the world.
“He was in my house. How many other things did he steal?”
You think that has no effect on military capability? Ok then. Let’s agree to disagree.
“They stole nothing of value, and now I have a rough idea of where they got in and what level of things they have access to”.
‘Tiger Mountain’ observed here yesterday that Peter Thiel was on the CIA plane seen on the Wellington tarmac at the time of the Warners/Hobbit Affair”. That was 2010. Thiel was fast-tracked to citizenship status in 2011.
https://thestandard.org.nz/bye-john/#comment-1310153
I’ve submitted a guest post on this and related topics coming from the perspective of time-lines which would be an ideal place to discuss in more depth. Trouble is, it was a rushed job so probably needs a bit of tinkering… maybe too much tinkering. 🙁
A self-described Libertwit hand in hand with Big Brother. It would be funny if it weren’t such a clear and present danger.
I know you (and your family) have to pass a thorough security vetting to become Secretary. I’m not certain if you actually need to be a citizen, as I know Gabriel was only in New Zealand for about a year before he was appointed, but he might have already been a citizen before he came back to NZ or something. I can ask his predecessor if you’re really interested. 😉
I expect it would be enough to have the right to work in New Zealand, to pass security vetting, and have no conflict of interest overseas.
I would be very interested in the predecessor’s reply.
Mainly because I heard some thing kinda interesting in that space.
I was emailing my dad something else today so I passed on the question. I’ll try and keep this tab open to get back to you if he has any insight.
Oh, he just got back to me. Gabriel was already keen to apply for NZ Citizenship anyway, and the implication is that he had been approved by the time he was actually Secretary.
There is apparently no explicit requirement that the SecTres be a kiwi, but the level of necessary security clearance may functionally make it mandatory. I think personally that it’s a good idea not to legislate hard requirements that public servants have to be citizens and that this is the right approach- if ever someone who’s qualified wants to do the job and isn’t yet a citizen, they can try to clear the security hurdle without applying for citizenship first.
Anyone following the leak of a phone call by US Speaker of the House Paul Ryan pre the last elections, saying he wouldn’t support Trump? It was published by Breitbart, media organ of Donald Trump.
There is a good discussion of it here by The Young Turks – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftLqOHitn6w
But I think this link by a blogger who supports Trump is possibly closest to the truth – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65wnJwSBRs4
The theory is that there is power struggle going on between Trump and his team and Paul Ryan and the Republican establishment.
Allegedly the leak was instigated by Trump to attack Ryan whom Trump thinks is purposely failing in his attempts to get the healthcare package through in an attempt to destablise Trump’s Presidency to the point where it is ineffective.
Bit more general discussion on the subject here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrTGY7yANmI
Nice to see Wilders not get quite the level of seats in Netherlands elections that polls indicated.
Same old coalition talks melee to ensue.
His PVV gained a bunch of seats though, at the expense of their right wing party National equivalent (VVD).
Also, interestingly the vote for their equivalent of Labour (PvdA) totally collapsed in favour of what looks like a centre-right party (CDA, also picked up votes from VVD), the social democrats (D66) and the socialists. I guess that’s what happens to your core voters when a Labour party goes into coalition with National…
No it’s what happens when the centrists who were tempted to VVD do the smart thing and vote tactically. Lots of good vox pops from voters coming out of the polls over on the European media at the moment.
That might explain VVD losing some seats, but doesn’t really explain Labour losing swags of seats, especially with greens picking up heaps of seats.
Interesting developments with proposed new CYFS law. Tolley going back to the drawing board after taking flak from Maori groups over the principle to place child safety above placing the child with immediate or extended family.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/326684/govt-backs-down-over-whanau-first-care
There’s a lot to unpack with this one. Child welfare authorities (administered by central govt / iwi / NGOs) are always trying to identify family members who can take the children. A lot are rejected for a range of safety-related reasons. Those that do pass muster often find themselves subject to lip-service support from those authorities. Not much fun when the kids are experiencing all kinds of trauma-related behaviour or are born with conditions that have contributed to the abuse (fetal alcohol syndrome etc) and whanau / foster parents have little knowledge about how to manage these ongoing issues.
Raybon Kan – best read in the herald! … on Nick Smith and water rights…
“We don’t have to be greenies. Let’s be greedies. Where’s the state-owned water bottling company? Why aren’t we the country where the police drive Lamborghinis?
Why aren’t we the country where nobody pays a cent of tax, because we be rich, baby!
We’d be better off if Jed Clampett from the Beverly Hillbillies was in charge. He at least knows gold when he sees it. (Black gold. Texas tea.)
Water is the new gold. Water is the new oil. And it’s our dumb luck to have billions upon billions of litres of it. Let’s not spit in the face of luck. Luck works. Luck made Donald Trump rich, at birth. We’ve been rich this whole time. This is Antiques Roadshow, and we just found something valuable in the cellar.
Have you seen the world recently? Billionaires are buying NZ citizenship, to avoid the apocalypse. High-decile, modern parts of the world, don’t drink their tap water. Let’s take the advice of One Direction, and know that we’re beautiful.
Smith said: what next, air? Well, there are laws governing airspace. Councils tell you how high you can build. Airlines take big detours around certain countries.
Our country, our rules. The Government just redefined ‘swimmable’ as fresh water where the turds aren’t the size of legal snapper.
So let’s just declare that they – we – own underground water. You want it? Round these parts, we charge by the barrel. You think the Saudis have a problem with owning the oil under their ground? Do they say: Nobody owns oil! Know what they don’t have? Water.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11818830
Does this sound like affordable housing or selling cheap to private developers and cronies to increase Auckland’s unaffordability???
Multi-million dollar Hobsonville project announced
“Willis Bond is buying 1.8 hectares of state-owned land for the scheme, due to settle in stages in the next three years, he said. But he refused to say how much his business was paying for the Government-owned land.”
Be interesting to see how much the government get for 1.8Ha of waterfront land compared to Bayleys for .5 Ha of waterfront land…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11819215
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11819374
GDP comes in 50% below expectations in dec 1/4
Gdp per capita falls by 02.%.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/GDP/GrossDomesticProduct_MRDec16qtr.aspx
Little says if he becomes Prime Minister, spending on housing and education would always take priority over spending on the Defence Force.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201836651/labour-won't-commit-to-$20-billion-defence-force-upgrade
Hear, hear.
Haven’t listened to the audio, but nice one.
So Mr Chairman and others,
So you are happy for the Men and Women of NZDF, Civilians, personal from other government department’s and foreign nationals to fly around in 50 year old plus aircraft or the Navy to breached UN environment laws from 2018 with its single hull tanker and OPV’s heading down south because its ice strengthen hulls won’t be spec from 2018?
Or you and are happy for the NZDF to deployed in Peacekeeping role ill equip and under strength like it did during INTERFET (East Timor 1999) or in HDAR role?
Like all Government Departments since 91 NZDF has asset stripped big time through equipment and manning and each time it’s had to step up its been found wanting in all areas over the last 30yrs and some more chickens are starting to come home like the C130’s, P3’s and now OPV’s which were brought under Labour.
I’ve told all 3 services are barely achieving its government mandated outputs because a lack of manpower, equipment and trying to preserve hours or days on equipment so it can squeeze a few years out it.
No, I’m not happy about that.
However, we all have wish-lists and can all bring out the violin. Unfortunately, we can only spend what we can afford. Therefore, things have to be prioritised, including our defence spend.
The RNZAF airlift problems could’ve have been in part solve under the last labour government when the last National government put in a option for 8 C-130 J models on the back of the Australia order. But no they didn’t but lets squeeze another 10-15yrs out of them with a upgrade which almost fell over if it wasn’t for SAFE Air and it went budget as well. Then the issue of the OPV’s and again the labour didn’t listen to the RNZN advice about future requirements to operate in the southern ocean and now stuck with 2 ships that won’t be spec after 2018.
National and Labour both like to avoid making hard decisions when it comes to NZDF and its not just new equipment, its also pay and conditions. Like all pollies they are too worried about the next election to give a stuff about NZDF.
All equipment Defence equipment etc, have a 30 year life span +/- 10yrs depending on how hard its been used and going over this increases the risk of failure.
Like you I have never voted national in my life and never will ( I remember the 90’s), on the same token I’ll never vote green as well.
hi xkf, if short of funds, run a sausage sizzle.
So do you support poaching in the seas around NZ, South pacific and Southern Ocean?
http://politik.co.nz/en/content/foreignaffairs/1054/NZ-to-attend–Pacific-security-crisis-meeting-with-US-Quadrilateral-Defence-Operational-Working-Group.htm
So you support NZDF not doing HADR missions within NZ or the South Pacific?
Do want the NZDF to undertake Peacekeeping missions like East Timor aka “INTERFET” as a benchmark for future Peacekeeping missions?
So if and when NZ EEZ expands from 3.2millon sq km’s to about 6.4millon sq km’s you support the NZDF staying at its current force levels?
hi xkf,
that is a lot of sausage sizzles.
i do support free education for all,
i do support mental health budget increasing,
i do not support the many billions of dollars allocated to gcsb.
if you want more $ look there at your spy colleagues, not at education or health budgets.
Well I don’t have a toss about the spooks. Sounds like you don’t the like Greens defence policy as well.
Frankly, I think Little fell into the trap of making it a false competition.
Hell, even the GCSB has some functions that need to be done, such as keeping on top of threats to government communications infrastructure, even if one thinks that gentlemen don’t read the mail of other gentlemen.
But maritime surveillance and the disaster response capabilities fulfilled by the NZDF have been demonstrated as being essential several times in the last few years.
Education and health cuts are no longer an issue. They’ve already been cut to unsustainable levels. We need massive injections into all sectors of government, from NZDF and cops through to CYF/Health/Education.
Well said McFlock, all I see is repeat of the 90’s by this National government.
We can stop popularism”
GreenLeft quadruple the number of MP’s
EPA and Monsanto collusion over roundup.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-14/court-docs-prove-monsanto-collusion-epa-kill-cancer-study-admits-cant-say-roundup-do
From no right turn…
“Questions are being asked after a lucrative water consent attached to a former wool scouring plant in Christchurch went on the market.
Newshub reported tonight the Kaputone wool scouring plant in Belfast is about to be sold off and, with it, a water consent allowing the extraction of more than 4.3 million litres of water a day – the equivalent of 50 one-litre bottles a second.
The only cost is $100 – if inspected – and the consent does not expire until 2032.
[…]
Meanwhile, Newshub reported those behind the sale of Kaputone – owner Cavalier Carpets and its shareholder Direct Capital – would not reveal who the prospective buyers are.
Several workers told the broadcaster they believed Chinese interests are involved.
The site is under five hectares and not considered sensitive land so it is unlikely the sale will need to go through the Overseas Investment Office.”
This hospital parking issue has bothered me for awhile.
Dad in this article paid $140/week (!!) to see his son who was born premature.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/90408747/ive-got-to-pay-to-see-my-son–father-launches-petition-against-expensive-hospital-parking-fees
https://www.causes.com/campaigns/106423-change-paid-parking-in-new-zealand-hospitals
+1 AsleepWhileWalking!
That is why the cost of living in NZ is getting so high under this neoliberal regime. They put a private expensive ‘service’ charge on top of a free public service, again and again.
So the result is, that private company makes a killing and often pays little to zero tax, the sick person or their family (and all their visitors) have to pay for getting sick and ultimately it makes hospital care not free any more.
I paid $125 at A& E for a ‘free’ blood test form to check we did not have measles before flying. Next time I might think twice about checking.
Free Public health???
Hi asleep, I too have had a bee in my bonnet over hospital parking fees.
It is wrong in so many ways, and can only be justified in a narrow financial view.
Effectively it is a decrease in income for those hospital staff who use private vehicles to get to work.
It inconveniences local residents and places an unfair burden on families and friends of ill people.
But it gets our local dhb an extra $450,000 annually.
Greedy and cruel.
Trump Travel Ban Blocked Nationwide
Oh Dear! How Sad! Never Mind.
The Judge cites Trump in blocking the new immigration order:
https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/842152320381128704/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
A small number of young people say why they haven’t voted.
it seems to me a lot comes down to not understanding our electoral system, or how their votes do make an impact, including when they vote for small or medium sized parties.
I don’t think the not wanting to stand in line is the main reason. If people cared about their vote having an impact, the small lines that can occur at NZ booths would not be a deterrent.
In fact, online voting might encourage voting without putting much thought into it.
More political education in schools might help. Plus more young people being involved in mainstream politics. Clear out some of the old guard candidates, and bring in more younger ones.
Chris Trotter whacks dairy, hard!
Goodness me! Mr Trotter has been pulling his punches…till now:
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2017/03/new-zealands-non-negotiable-mythology.html