As much as left Govt. critics are essentially snookered by the demonstrable “lesser of two evils” scenario, and the 30 year old major party neo liberal consensus–militate for change we must.
Benefit (Job Seeker Allowance) 13 week stand down period for Forest industry workers displaced by International virus blowback is not going to be shifted according to Mr Robertson.
Floods or droughts see millions in largesse for the farming community, but working class people living week to week get no consideration under Labour’s hard neo liberal approach to welfare–dating back to Helen Clark’s punitive “Jobs Jolt”.
“Work will set you free” is still WINZ/MSD sadistic approach. Even though the nature of 21st Century work has totally changed since the 1964 Social Security Act and there is little non precarious, viable work! Yes, I have seen the Labour “Future of Work” talk fest documents and they are full of it. We need UBI now. In the interim no stand downs or sanctions or abatements for any beneficiary. Carmel Sepuloni is another apologist that should hang her head in shame.
When Labour comes knocking very shortly for votes they should think about growing the working class vote rather appeasing middle class welfare recipients such as neo rentiers.
Who does Robertson think he is impressing really? The answer I guess has been known for years.
Not advocating welfare be ended with introduction of some form of UBI.
Do support making Govt. payments/tax adjustments unique to holder regardless of relationships, and dropping the abatement rate poverty traps. And it would be nice to see the top echelons of WINZ/MSD reapply for their jobs, and sent packing.
The problem is that all the NZ UBI models are based around no welfare or haven't solved the welfare issue, and when people start talking about UBI it tends to get left out of the conversation.
Agreed that so many things are wrong with how MSD/WINZ are doing welfare, lots needs sorting out there.
Fair enough point. There is no universally agreed UBI definition (no pun etc.) for what people mean by the term. Welfare absolutely should be retained–but benefit stigma and appalling treating of disabled and long term ill in particular should cease.
A difficult problem to solve while private landlords run riot and utility costs rise. Fare free public transport and free Wi-fi nationwide and a massive public housing build would provide a better setting for a discussion on UBI/Welfare/Superannuation! But what Govt. would go there just yet.
I've got a post on UBI nearly ready to go up. I don't go into the housing crisis, but it's definitely the thing that's makes all other problems very hard to solve.
The 13 weeks is a maximum applying to people that have recently been in work and have left for reasons that do not satisfy WINZ/MSD. But, if you are taking a personal grievance etc. for say claimed unjustified dismissal, stand downs may be waived.
I based my comment on the The Forest Industry Contractors Assn call on the Minister.
Dealing with WINZ/MSD is a fraught process for most that encounter it. Because something is in the legislation does not mean it will necessarily applied to individuals.
I am pointing to the difference between automatic verbal assurances for Farmers in weather events and the the recalcitrance here. Robertson just has to say–“no one out of work due to Covid 19 related reasons will be stood down or denied a benefit” there, not so hard is it?
The 13 week period came from the mouth of Shane Jones. I bet it is not 13 weeks, and these people are now getting a taste of reality for many – officious asshats who act like you are a criminal for having needs. These mongrels are still thick on the ground in WINZ despite the call for kindness. Maybe these workers do need an advocate, as they've thrown their toys out of the cot at round one. Got the media involved, Shane’s there… I see no reason to make blanket reassurances we have no idea of the length and scope of the virus epidemiology yet.
i had a very abusive boss once in NZ, the guy got taken weekly to the employment court and i am not joking here. when i went to winz to ask what would happen if i would quit my employment with this person i was told that i would be stood down for 12 weeks as a boss who is a known bully – inclusive sexual and racist abuse – was no reason for anyone to quit a job.
So yes, this it not something Shane Jones makes up (even if it might fit the narrative that all the fuck ups ofthe kinder gentler bullshit goverment currently running the show is the fault of NZ First), this is something that everyone who loses their employment or wants to quit for reasons not acceptable by our Tory leader ship (again, blue, green, red, nary a difference) needs to keep in mind.
So you might want to consider what you are betting on.
They may use 'may', but generally speaking do not quit your job unless you have enough resources to last 15 weeks, no matter how abusive your work place, how dangerous, how fucked up. Because you.will.be.stood.down. And the current lot Red/Green/Black has done absolutly nothing to change that. Kinder, gentler, bullshit.
Did the forestry workers quit their jobs? Big difference to being laid off or put on hold. Shane pulled the largest 13 week figure out from the documentation, I still see no evidence this is the actual case.
Sorry about your nasty boss. most of us have worked for a mongrel or three. You need unions involved with bad bosses or you're on your own, unfortunately.
I watched Robinson say the other day that they would try repurpose (my word but that was th general drift) forestry workers who have been stood down . And I I thought fuck you . Your a fucking labour party . How about forcing the forestry industry to gaurentee workers wages for 52 weeks of the year you gutless cunt.
Atleast national are honest we know they hate the working man.
To me this strongly depends on the implementation Robertson is thinking about. The govts tree planting program could use some capable labour.
Ultimately I don't think that any business can guarantee work for all its employees full time. There will be periods when available work is insufficient for all who want to be employed. To resolve this the govt should implement a job guarantee. We already implement a similar buffer stock policy actually through treasury and RBNZ unemployment rate targets but instead of maintaining the work skills of those who endup without work we let their willing contributions go to waste.
You show me another fulltime employment industry where the bosses can just shut the gates and send you home with your last paycheck while expecting you to come back as soon as things pick up .
I agree with everything you're saying about benefits and a UBI but saw an opportunity to say something about the draconian, unfair, but legal 13-week stand down.
There's no automatic 13-week stand down for forestry workers or anyone else affected by job-loss caused by coronavirus. The 13-week stand down only applies if the person, any person applying for the equivalent of the unemployment benefit (whatever it’s called right now) leaves their job without good and sufficient reason or is sacked for misconduct. This is what the Act says, but I accept the practice is different.
Good and sufficient reason must take account of the person's circumstances, such as child care responsibilities, transport difficulties, whether the employment relationship breaks down and the person resigns: anything that affects the person's ability to continue in the employment. Good and sufficient isn't about the subjective views of the decision-maker, which unfortunately too many decisions are based on.
Similarly, misconduct means gross misconduct. It doesn't simply mean being sacked because an employer wants to do that, or thinks the reason for the dismissal is justified. In other words, it's not the opinion of the employer that's relevant to whether a stand down is imposed. And contrary to popular belief, a PG does not have to be taken in order for a benefit to be paid in instances where the person has lost their job because of misconduct, despite MSD staff often insisting that it must.
Stand-downs are a bit like current benefit levels: frittering around the edges makes life better for some people, but really we need to lock minimum benefit levels to a fair proportion of median income and get rid of stand-downs altogether.
t's important to remember that bad implementations of UBI are possible, and in fact more likely than good ones under current conditions. It is a tool not an end in itself. Oops, answer to weka at 2.1
Any UBI implementation provides more income to those who are in work as well as those on welfare. But if the intention is to bolster the income of people on welfare then just improving the welfare rates and associated regressive policies seems to be better targeted.
A job guarantee is a technically better policy, as it helps with some of the difficulties caused to people finding a job without a solid employment history.
Its also worth acknowledging that the unemployment rate is always an artifact of official govt policy.
Any UBI implementation provides more income to those who are in work as well as those on welfare.
Not if you adjust PAYE tax rates to balance things out at the same time. I agree with AB that bad implementations are perfectly possible, indeed in general it's way easier to fuck things up than get them right, but the principle of universality is a good one worth aiming for.
At the moment we still treat welfare as something you have to 'deserve', and then intrusively impose bureaucratic judgements that most people find debilitating and destructive in the long run. It's fundamentally counterproductive.
In pragmatic terms I'm open to the idea of introducing a UBI very incrementally. There is no reason why it could be be initially set at quite a low number like $5kpa as a sort of 'tax free income threshold' while retaining much of the existing system. Then over a period of a decade or so we could annually move the UBI up and slowly adapt the existing systems to incorporate it, until eventually we reduced targeted benefits to the minimum judged necessary. It would be a process, not an event.
This would allow the economy time to rebalance, discover any bugs, and create the opportunity to mitigate any issues that arose.
When I mentioned that a UBI helps those in work and out I was indicating those on low income vs existing welfare. Creating a more steep income step between welfare and work seems problematic to me.
And the intro of a tax free threshold doesn't help anybody with no income. All the UBI proposals I have seen discussed are talking about replacing benefit regimes (so to make them universal and unregressive) here but it seems that concept should be discarded as a part now?
As far as i can see its obvious how to resolve the issues with welfare regimes, but not so for any UBI proposals.
Creating a more steep income step between welfare and work seems problematic to me.
One of the great virtues of a UBI is it can eliminate that 'step' altogether. Ideally you want the settings to work so that everyone has access to the base UBI, and any income earned above this is taxed at a smooth and reasonable rate.
One of the big intractable issues with targeted welfare is that inevitably as a person earns even a small amount, it's necessary to claw back their benefit at very high marginal tax rates. This creates a huge disincentive.
And the intro of a tax free threshold doesn't help anybody with no income.
Well as I explicitly said, a low UBI of say $5kpa is only 'sort of' like a tax free income band, but with the added bonus that it helps everyone regardless of whether they have an income or not.
All the UBI proposals I have seen discussed are talking about replacing benefit regimes (so to make them universal and unregressive) here but it seems that concept should be discarded as a part now?
While most UBI advocates argue for a technically clean system for the sake of argument, reality is messy and it's probably not desirable to impose purity for just ideological reasons. I'm open to keeping a targeted benefit system during an extended transition period, and hopefully finishing up with the best of both approaches in the long run.
Why would you want to eliminate that step?
I guess this is one of the major differences between left and right. The right always are going to believe that paid work should be significantly better paid than welfare. Not just in respect of the costs of work (travel, food, etc) but also to show the work is more beneficial to both society and the individual.
If the only benefit is pay, then the work isn't beneficial to people. The money is.
The right think that people need to be bullied into work, so people not in work should live in hardship.
The left know that if there is work in a good team with a competent boss who treats them with respect, people will want to do it.
Additionally, when the economy is structured around maintaining a level of unemployment to avoid inflation, unemployed people are victims of that structural feature.
Apologies … I expressed that too cryptically and I think you misunderstood.
The problem I was referring to was the well known poverty trap that occurs when a beneficiary starts to move back into paid work, often part time or casual.
Their new income isn't enough to live on, so they still need some state support. Typically what happens though is that support is taxed at very high marginal rates, otherwise you would finish up in the inequitable position that someone working full time alongside them might easily finish up on a lower net income.
Then you get the impact of stand-down periods if the new job doesn't work out for some reason. Or you have to shift for family reasons. And the very low partner qualifying income in this country also works against families.
The overall problem is that while benefits are damned miserable in this country, the median wage isn't much better. And this makes transitioning from one to the other problematic. You can easily find yourself working 20 or 30 hours a week, and by the time you take the costs and lost opportunity into account, you aren't much better off. This is the disincentive I was mentioning.
Essentially a decently designed UBI eliminates issues at root.
The mythical incentive gap is completely beside the point Wayne. Due to errors (inefficiencies if you like) in the Govts economic policy handling there are just not regularly enough of the kinds of jobs such that everyone is employed. Only govt policy could possibly reliably solve that but instead we leave it to the market with occasional nudges to monetary and fiscal policy (for better or sometimes worse).
The policy which maintains this is a blight. Its also the single biggest source of waste in the economy.
I agree workers should be compensated and not so insignificantly they're comparable to benefits. But also, benefits are meant to bridge a gap in employment not drive people into poverty. So both minimum wage and benefits need to be increased.
The right always are going to believe that paid work should be significantly better paid than welfare. Not just in respect of the costs of work (travel, food, etc) but also to show the work is more beneficial to both society and the individual.
True. In a similar vein, what is the rationale for returns on capital being better rewarded than paid work?
I don't think we are quite discussing the income step in equivalent terms. I am suggesting there are 3 regimes being discussed, 1) welfare & work (present) 2) UBI & work and 3) UBI & welfare & work. Of these 2 can be problematic because those out of work will be on the UBI only and that will be too low to live on by itself. 3 will be less problematic but relative to 1 the difference between welfare and work will be whatever income is shifted out of welfare to the universal UBI payments. This seems to be making people in welfare significantly worse off from a bad starting point. This is also the nature of the UBI proposals I have seen. Simply making the benefit regime universally available to the unemployed would get that solved relatively simply on the other hand.
Sadly the fact remains that ALL the solutions are long term and the patience (within the electorate) is not there….we have created a substantial pool of individuals who are not only not productive but will be negatively productive for some considerable period…..a UBI will not turn that around, especially one at any sort of affordable level….when one considers what determines our purchasing power internationally.
Not consigning this group to perpetual poverty would be a good start
The two main UBI advocates, that I know of, are Gareth Morgan and Keith Rankin. Both advocate coupling it wit a flat tax rate – Morgan, 30%, and Rankin, 35%. Morgan suggested a UBI of $11,000 pa, while Rankin suggested $200 pw. The main difference between the two was Morgan saw a UBI as largely replacing welfare, while Rankin would keep the welfare system intact.
Taking Morgans suggestions one sees that someone on an income of $50,000 pa would pay $15,000 in tax but would be receiving $11,000 UBI from the government; so his net payment to the government would be $4,000 which, on an income of $50,000, is equivalent to a tax rate of 8%. On the other hand someone on $20,000 would pay $6,000 in tax and receive $11,000 by way of UBI. Therefore he/she is receiving a net payment from the government of $5,000 – he is, in effect, benefiting from the equivalent of a negative income tax.
Similar calculations at other income levels would show that a UBI coupled with a flat tax is equivalent to a progressive tax system.
We have a UBI now for old people. It's called NZS and plenty of them choose to work or not and we pull some of that money back through the tax system due to the higher earnings they earn on top of their super. They have absolute freedom to choose to work or not.
We could start by reducing the NZS age back to 60 and lifting the top tax rate a little to help pay for it.
The miracle of metamorphosis from whence a bludger is reborn as a deserved and revered taxpayer that currently exists at 65 could be even more useful at 60 – especially for those – often Maori – who don't reach 65.
The removal of cheap labour through a UBI would also mean more investment in high quality jobs, robotics, etc. to increase New Zealand's productivity.
We don't need more low paid jobs e.g. cafes and restaurants, picking fruit, shop assistants, tourism, etc.
The biggest emerging factor is in my view the inherent racism in the labour market. New Zealand has an older declining European workforce and an increasing young Maori workforce.
If we want to be successful in the future we have to be investing in young Maori. No ifs, no buts.
To do that we have to address the poverty issue and quickly.
To do that we should at least put benefit rates back to the same rate as NZS- immediately and without any fuss. Get rid of the youth rate as well.
For those who don't believe the rates were the same here's the rates from 1976.
UB 18+ unmarried $28-75
NZS unmarried person $28-75
Today it is
UB 18+ single at home $145-98
UB 18 – 24 single not at home $182-47
UB 25+ single at home $218-98
NZS single living alone $411-15
NZS sharing $379-52
It is completely disgusting that we have gone from 100% equivalence to having such a wide disparity in the way we treat our most vulnerable.
Wayne's notion of keeping a gap between benefits and wages in order to encourage people to work reinforces how much of a lie it was that giving tax cuts to employers would mean they would be able to pay workers more. One of the many big economic lies. If they had passed those tax cuts onto workers then benefits would not need to have been kept so low.
It as big a lie as increased productivity leads to more work/jobs. Increased productivity can only lead to less jobs – if you had 10 people making widgets and they increased their output then you wouldn't need 10 people. Increased productivity will make you more efficient and competitive and be able to produce things at a lower cost but this is all in vain if you can't actually sell more product. It like orchardists planting heaps more apple trees and having no markets to sell them in.
Companies that stay around and are big innovate – not just rely on low wages to make the bottom line look better.
There is no rational reason to keep benefit rates low really. It actually stifles productivity and innovation and maintains rubbish employers.
do the numbers….there are roughly 4 million kiwis over the age of 18. If you are not going to reduce the income of super annuitants then you have a gross annual out going of around 85 billion pa for a UBI…current total tax take is around 93 billion
Umm I was suggesting only four things. Increasing benefit rates to the NZS rates, dropping NZS down to 60 again and increasing the tax rate at the top to get more of the NZS back for those for whom NZS+work equals a high income.
Didn't suggest a UBI for everyone.
Tell me why do most NZS recipients work – because A they have to or B – because they want to.
The "most" referred to of those that work why do most do so, rather than suggesting that the majority of all NZS recipients work.
While looking around you isn’t a good way of measuring things nearly all the people I know on super working don’t have to. The ones that do are generally raising their grandchildren and in general are Maori.
I'd like to know how long the family had been there and when the present owners bought the property.
It matters because by the look of it that is a troubled family requiring significant support. If they had been living in that property for many years with the previous owner and the Tuffleys bought it and kicked them out immediately that suggests an absence of duty of care. People with high needs like that can’t just up-sticks and go find another rental.
We hear from landlords all the time what a kind, caring social service they provide the country's poorest but if the situation I have described above is true then that doesn't fit.
The Tuffleys look like developers to me rather than landlords (the clue is in the company name) and the 'no cause' legislation is designed to make sure landlords and developers do follow a duty of care to their vulnerable tenants which has not been the case for decades now.
Time for landlords to show themselves to be what they claim they are.
We have a similar (although not quite as bad) tenant for the past 10 years. The property manager routinely asks that we invoke the 90 day eviction, and we probably should have. The place is going to cost us a bomb to fix when the day of reckoning arrives. Probably several years worth of rent.
We also had a similar case where one tenant is a block of three began disturbing the other two neighbours. We lost three good tenants before we were able to finally get her to move on, again a costly and frustrating exercise. And all this was before the proposed legislation that will make the process even harder.
While it's all very well and good to stand up for the rights of the weak and dysfunctional, but very often their failures have consequences for everyone else around them that cannot be ignored.
In this case the Tuffleys are planning to demolish the existing end of life building and replace it with four new townhouses … and increasing the supply of homes in the area. But instead of being supported in this, they're somehow made into the villans.
As for the existing tenants; I've always been 100% crystal clear on this … around 10-15% of the population simply need social housing. Period.
The Tuffleys in that article are not being made into villains, they are clearly pictured as the victims.
Not arguing against knocking down that house and building townhouses – that is a good thing.
But, the difficulty in this case seems to be a failure in the court and tribunal system rather than the legislation itself. If you are going to be a developer you can't cry about not being able to afford a lawyer to action existing pro-landlord rules! That seems weird to me.
As far as I can see the new legislation would require three instances of adverse behaviour to be lodged then the 90 day order can be applied. Pretty simple I would have thought.
As is stands now no proof of adverse behaviour is required – no reason at all.
The other thing I hope the new law will do is for landlords who are kicking their tenants out for whatever reason to explore their duty of care.
Finally, in your first example you say it’s going to cost several years worth of rent to fix the house. National median rent for 1-2 bedrooms is $390/week so “several years” (3.5 to be generous) is $70,000.
If you are going to be a developer you can't cry about not being able to afford a lawyer to action existing pro-landlord rules!
Not all developers are wealthy people and are by definition almost always short of cash; especially on your first few projects.Good lawyers are very expensive; $10,000 can get gobbled up without blinking.
There is no doubt in my mind these tenants have totally abused the property, they have abused the process and no-one, not even the taxpayer, can be blamed for not wanting give them have a house they will almost certainly wreck. High needs or not, they pretty much have themselves to blame for the mess they're literally in.
As far as I can see the new legislation would require three instances of adverse behaviour to be lodged then the 90 day order can be applied.
That is almost exactly the process we went through with the paranoid tenant I mentioned above. We gave her multiple chances over the period of two years, but each time she backslid and caused another tenant to leave.
We are not social workers, and we have no capacity to determine a person's state of mind, and gathering evidence of adverse behaviour, when often it's covert and the perpetrator denies it vehemently, is also fraught. Most people want nothing to do with this kind of crap and just move on as soon as they can. You get a verbal complaint from them, but getting them to write something down and sign it is much harder. They don’t want to get involved because.
In the end it took us over two years from the first doubts, through multiple attempts at exercising our 'duty of care', to finally evicting her. We absolutely did not enjoy the process as we also had considerable empathy for her position; yet in the end we could not tolerate her persistent interference with other tenants. Issuing a 90 day notice without reason was our last resort, but necessary. Imagining any of this is 'easy' is only possible if you haven't been in this position.
(Incidentally here in Australia as tenants ourselves we were on the receiving end of a similarly paranoid neighbour who caused my partner a lot of stress. By contrast to NZ we had recourse to a very efficient Court process that allowed us to make a formal complaint about the behaviour without dumping the problem onto the landlord. It worked very well I have to say.)
Let me clear. Of the roughly 50 tenants who have rented our homes in the past 20 years, exactly 5 of them … ie 10% … have created significant problems. This is about industry average over that period. Ultimately this is why property owners are increasingly turning to professional managers who dispassionate and efficient in dealing with these issues. It's also partly why your rent keeps going up.
No I am not. It has been my own choice to be transparent about my personal interest and stake in this debate over many years now … but what you say about your position is entirely up to you.
Yes I can see this new rule could be a problem especially where there is a block of 3 flats joined and the middle tenant likes wild parties and has unsavoury people turning up at all hours. The front and back tenants are more likely to just move on ASAP than get involved in having to make complaints etc to landlord and the landlord will likely lose two good tenants (and have trouble replacing them).
Well yes. Landlords do have an obligation to ensure the tenant has 'quiet enjoyment' of their home. But how to handle this when other tenants compromise this? It can rapidly become very messy.
Of the 50 odd tenants in our experience, we have used the 90 day order on one of them, and will eventually need to on another. That's 4% of all our tenants and similar to the 3% of all tenants who are issued eviction notices annually. It's reasonable to think a majority of evictions are done for good and proper reasons.
No reasonable person enjoys being on either end of the process, but one of the hard lessons we've been slow to learn is that when the landlord/tenant relationship goes south for whatever reason, it's usually best to get to a clean break earlier rather than later.
There is no doubt in my mind these tenants have totally abused the property.
Perhaps, but my original point was did the Tuffleys know this when they bought the property. Reading between the lines it looks like they are recent purchasers, while that family has been there some time. They would have known what they bought.
Afraid I just don't buy the 'we were going to move in there before they wrecked it' line which has been fed the writer of the article and to us, the public. They are "Tuffley Developments" after all.
Afraid I just don't buy the 'we were going to move in there before they wrecked it'
I can easily imagine just this happening. For a period of five years we lived in the worst of our units while we were doing up the other three in the group (and while I worked a more than full-time job).
Developing is not just a matter of clearing the land and plonking up some houses. It typically takes around 18 – 36 months of planning, permitting, funding and organising before so much as a spade gets looked at. It's entirely plausible the Tuffley's were intending to live in the old house to minimise their cash flow until they could start building. It's what I'd likely do.
And it's my reading of the story that while it was a definitely a mess before they bought it, the tenants made an extra effort to trash the place after the eviction process started. That's always the big reason why landlords often don't evict when unless they really have to … the frequency of vengeful tenants taking it out on the property while not especially high, is not zero either.
There is no reasonable expectation the tenant has a right to live in an end of life house indefinitely. It was time to demolish it and replace it with something better.
The tenants made an extra effort to trash the place after the eviction process started.
Which line in the article leads you to believe this? Is it this from Leanne Tuffley:
She said damage to the house had reduced it to below land value.
Umm. Anyone looking at those pictures will not believe that 'an effort to trash the place' dragged the value of the house down anymore than it was already.
Also, how do these statements match up? From the writer of the article:
They bought the four-bedroom house with the intention to demolish it and build townhouses.
and from Adrian Tuffley:
Adrian Tuffley said they had planned to move in but could not do so.
And here is Leanne again:
It (is) clear to the couple why people would not want to be residential landlords.
But they weren't being residential landlords in this case, they were being developers who kicked high needs, long term tenants out on the street. And they bought the house with full knowledge of the state of it.
Look at the pictures, that didn't happen since October 2019.
The article is just horror-tenant-porn for consumption by the land-owning class. Not saying Susan Edmunds doesn’t about bad landlords, she does, but this one is pure sneering at vulnerable people.
I would guess the old owner had decided that the house was end of life and no longer economic to bring up to current standards and decided to sell.
The new owners clearly never intended to rent it out; but because the sale came with the tenants in-place they were forced into the role as landlords, at least temporarily, while the 90 day order was implemented. This is a novice mistake, no experienced developer would make because of exactly this kind of hazard. And the sort of problem real landlords like myself do have to confront. The idea that it's some kind of made up horror-tenant-porn is bullshit.
And I'm not quibbling with you about this family being 'high needs'. That is what social housing is for. The real question has to be, why didn't HNZ assist them as soon as the 90 day notice came up?
It's what I hope the new legislation will do. Help encourage landlords to take more of an interest in their tenants' affairs rather than serving up 42 or 90 day notices when they feel like it.
Perhaps this could take the form of them involving HNZ early and helping make the transition for a high needs family less traumatic.
As I said before we do hear a lot about the social service NZ amateur landlord provide for renting Kiwis. I think they need to show it a bit more.
You said before it’s not the job of a landlord to be social worker. Perhaps not but they should show more of an interest than the Tuffleys did.
Edit: Newshub say Tuffley Developments Ltd bought the property in December 2018.
Edit again:
Removed the link to the Newshub article. They have plastered the Tribunal decision at the top of the article. Wankers.
Help encourage landlords to take more of an interest in their tenants' affairs
I hear you; it's a temptation we've fallen into a number of times now and sadly I have to report that it has bitten us firmly on the arse every single damned time. It is very, very difficult to help people until they are willing to take responsibility for their problems.
rather than serving up 42 or 90 day notices when they feel like it.
And while I can only speak directly for myself, I think most landlords are reasonable people and only resort to eviction notices with good reason. If the tenant is paying the rent, looking after the place and there is no adverse behaviour causing problems … then why would you? Far better to keep good people you know in place than taking on new tenants who are an unknown risk. There is simply no sane motivation to do it on an arbitrary or whimsical basis.
Edit: In this case the reason is clear; the house was no longer capable of economically meeting the new rental standards and it was going to be demolished to make way for four new units. That seems reasonable to me.
The flipping of properties is one big reason why they issue eviction notices. Nothing to do with perfectly good tenants and it happens a lot although I assume less so recently with bright line tests and the Asian money out of the market.
This behaviour damages the stability of local communities.
The flipping of properties is one big reason why they issue eviction notices.
Yes I can accept this is a factor, but exactly how to deal with it? I've always maintained there is a real difference between landlords who buy, build or rennovate and hold long term, and investors who I agree are prone to 'flipping'. But determining the difference isn't easy.
How to deal with a landlord who decides on retirement to sell several units they've held for decades to retire their debt? Is this flipping? Or an owner in their 80's who have decided they want out of the business? And so on; people sell for good reasons.
And new owners may well want to develop the potential of the property for all sorts of good reasons, and existing tenants simply don't fit.
Yet the point you make is a decent one; there isn't any reason to evict a good tenant just because of a sale. It should need some justification beyond that. Perhaps one way forward would be to give existing tenants 'first right of refusal' on any new tenancy that arises after a sale.
By contrast to NZ we had recourse to a very efficient Court process that allowed us to make a formal complaint about the behaviour without dumping the problem onto the landlord
Interesting. Is their tenancy law set up quite differently?
National median rent for 1-2 bedrooms is $390/week so “several years” (3.5 to be generous) is $70,000.
What did they do, burn it down?
The house is in a regional town well below that median. Our net cash flow from it after rates, insurance, maintenance and sundries (but before tax and interest) is about $10k pa. As a rough guess we're going to have to spend at least $20k on it to get it back to scratch.
"I'm in two minds about the 90 day notice for rentals especially reading this."
Maybe landlords should give people a decent amount of time to vacate their home, just a thought. Or god forbid, negotiate with the tenants. Lots of places 90 days isn't long enough to find somewhere else suitable. Thanks housing crisis.
I think in this case if the article is correct, even if they had given six months or a years notice by the look of the photos, they were going to have problems.
Out of interest, what do you think a decent notice period would be for a rental?
I think it depends on the tenants and their situation and needs. A family with kids in a local school have a different set of needs than an itinerant worker. Hence my suggestion about negotiating rather than just relying on law.
We haven't heard the side of the story from the tenants in that situation, so there is no way to know how it might have played out differently. My comment was more general.
I suspect that the landlords in that case were getting bad advice about process.
I think it should also depend on the landlord's situation and needs (as well as tenants). So if the tenant is a family with children that have just started attending a local high school, eg. year 9 (old third form) , what do you consider is a reasonable notice period? (I agree 90 days is very short time to up sticks and find replacement) are you thinking more like six months or a year?
True, but then I don't consider someone wanting to buy a property to develop it a very high priority compared to someone's need for a home.
If you are asking what I think the legally defined notice period should be, I don't know and I would guess what is reasonable will largely depend on the rentals available that will vary a lot by area.
I'd prefer to see a national discussion about how to shift NZ towards the right to home culture that is needed to solve the housing crisis. Rental notices are part of that for sure.
And doesn't really matter if they wreck the house – it's being pulled down. One of my favorite landlords was going to pull down the house we were living in when we vacated. Gave us a years notice and told us to happily rip up the verandah, floorboards and anything else we saw fit to burn in the fireplace over the winter. Was only half a house by the time we left.
We had no firewood costs for the winter and he'd had some free demolition. Great fun was had by all.
But these days that would be illegal, the landlord would be exposing themselves to big fines in the Tenancy Tribunal for renting out a house that was no longer fit for habitation.
Good point though we would never have taken them to the tribunal and the decrepit state of many rental properties doesn’t give me any faith that councils take any responsibility for enforcing building codes in rental properties.
Duncan Garner believes the international view of the Prime Minister is:
like reading kids a picture book.
That'll be why United Arab Emirates projected her image on their flagship building last year. Because they are kids being read a picture book.
Duncan seems upset international viewers only see the warm, sincere, compassionate, socially responsible, people-focussed leadership and are blind to Jacinda Ardern's devious economy-wrecking programs which will apparently bring New Zealand to its knees.
He thinks their view is a shallow view of Ardern and following on from that Duncan must think the PM herself is shallow.
Let's look at shallow. Let's look at cringe appearances on Letterman. Let's look at doing interviews at APEC in a bathrobe, and mincing down a catwalk. Let's look at pulling the pony-tails of adult women, and doing prison-rape jokes on the radio.
I’ll take the world media view of Jacinda Ardern over what they saw of John Key any day.
I wonder if we will ever get comments from a proper US President and an Australian PM to match what Turnbull and Obama had to say about John Key?
From the other side of the ditch we had "I do. He is a real role model."
From the other side of the Pacific we got "Nah, he's a wonderful guy. He and I have become good friends and not just because we play golf together."
Somehow I don't think those sort of comments will ever be said about Ms Ardern. Still with a nutter like Trump in the White House anything could happen. He might decide he likes some aspect of the lady.
I think those sentiments will have helped New Zealand more than appearances on the front of the women's magazines.
That damn woman's magazine "Time". Such a frivolous load of woman's nonsense. My god, we are going to be exhausted turning all these magazines around on the shelves eh, Alwyn. /Sarc
It's long been known that Winston (and therefore NZ First) has advocated for fishing interests, and has received donations from Talleys, so this isn't much of a revelation.
And this has created a clash between NZ First and Green policies on fishing and on the Kermadec sanctuary.
Which adds to other significant differences between Greens and NZ First, and there are increasing signs that Winston is walking all over the meek Green leadership. The EV rebate is one of the latest examples.
Will the Green membership likewise rule out any future deals giving NZ First disproportionate power, which includes the power to ignore governing agreements and sideline the Greens?
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
But if Greens keep wimping along until the election I think there's good chance they won't have to make decision, voters will have decided for them they don't deserve to continue.
What are you saying? Loyal Green voters will desert the party and vote for another party or not vote at all? And how will this help anybody? Sounds like a vengeful reaction one would expect from a petulant child 😉
I just wonder why Green supporters seem not as staunch at opposing governing with NZ First as they are with National.
I understand they were keen to have a go at being a part of a government. But it looks like they have been burnt by NZ First. Have they learnt any lessons from this? Or do they just have no idea how to deal with it?
Try reading what I say rather than what you imagine then.
I said Green membership (not voters), who are said to make key decisions in the party, and who chose to not do any governing arrangement with National. As per weka's comment and link:
Both James Shaw and the rest of the Green Party itself have repeatedly stated that they will not form a government with National.
Currently James Shaw and the Green Party are being criticised (mostly from the left from what I see).
I think they will improve their chances of surviving the election (in Parliament) if they show some backbone and principles and stopped being walked over by NZ First.
I won't vote for Greens going by their current performance. If they made it clear they disapproved of a number of things NZ First have been doing, like reneging on policy support and abusing the donations procedures I would seriously consider voting for them.
Greens need to differentiate and go back to principles of integrity or on top of being walked over they risk getting dragged down by the threshold gurgler by NZ First.
Hi Pete, I’ll get my eyes checked because this is what I read @ 5.1:
But if Greens keep wimping along until the election I think there's good chance they won't have to make decision, voters will have decided for them they don't deserve to continue. [my bold, so I can read it better]
You won’t vote for the Greens and you think other loyal supporters won’t (shouldn’t?) either. This is your practical advice and prediction for the coming election, yes?
To me it sounds like you’re saying that people who formerly voted for the Greens should walk over or away from the party this election unless they stop being ‘wimpy’ and being walked over by NZF? Am I getting this correct or am I imagining it?
I could vote for the Greens, but not if they wimp along like they are currently.
I expect loyal supporters will continue to vote Greens regardless (or abstain from voting) and I'm not giving them any advice on voting, but there may be less than 5% of them.
When Greens like McDonald and Bradford express concerns about how the Greens are conducting themselves I think they have a real problem. If they don't address it they could miss the cut this election.
That would increase the chances of a National government next term (I won't vote for National under Bridges' leadership as they are going at the moment).
I’m glad that you cleared that up, for your decision to not vote for the Greens, and for your prediction that “there may be less than 5% of them”, meaning votes.
It is up to the voters to follow your footsteps (not "advice") and “increase the chances of a National government next term”.
I have cancelled my appointment with the optometrist; there’s nothing wrong with my reading, as it turns out.
You're getting it wrong again. Are you just trying to stir or something?
I haven't made a decision not to vote for the Greens. I made that clear.
I'm not predicting the will get less than 5%. It's an obvious possibility that Greens are concerned about.
"I won’t lie, the last two polls aren’t looking good for us. Last night’s poll marks the second in a row that indicate we are at risk of falling below the 5% threshold." – email from Green Party Campaign Director 14 February.
It is up to the voters to follow your footsteps (not "advice") and “increase the chances of a National government next term”.
You really do have a comprehension problem, unless you're deliberately misrepresenting what I've said.
Not stirring, just getting you to be unambiguous, if not for yourself then at least for the readers here.
Your vote for the Greens is conditional on them stopping “wimping”, yes?
A possibility is a prediction of sorts; it could or might happen does not mean it will happen. An analogy: there’s a 60% chance that it will rain tomorrow. Is that a possibility, a forecast, a prediction, or all of the above? Don’t think only in absolute terms.
The voters can do what you do or they can stay unconditionally loyal to the Greens because the alternative (i.e. consequence) of doing what you might do is that they will be out of Parliament after the election. And you still haven’t answered how this would help anybody (except National). Do you expect other voters to behave differently from you?
Please point out where I’m misrepresenting you. I’m trying to point the consequences of your thinking and possible action as expressed so clearly in your comments here.
At least this thread is now about voters and their possible voting behaviour, which is the only thing that we, as voters, have meaningful control over. All the other stuff about the Green membership is irrelevant unless we are members as well. BTW, I take it that you are not a member of the Green Party.
If you're not clear about what I mean why don';t you ask rather than make silly stuff up?
"A possibility is a prediction of sorts"
No it's nothing of the sort – "there’s a 60% chance that it will rain" suggests that there's close to an even chance that it will rain or won't rain. That isn't a prediction, it is multiple possibilities.
"Do you expect other voters to behave differently from you?'
Ok, no unequivocal answers from Pete, today. Just hot air and possibilities galore.
The Greens may go under (5%) if the displeasure of some voters trumps their rational viewing of how politics work. That’ll teach the party keeping wimping along until the election!
I could vote for the Greens, but not if [conditions].
Hot air. I could vote for National or ACT if they were something other than they are, but that would be a meaningless statement to put in a comment.
I think they have a real problem. If they don't address it they could miss the cut this election.
Your "concern" is duly noted. Bottom line is that there's only one party up for election that takes the environment seriously, and that's the Green Party. Labour is mostly lip service only. If you want to base your vote on trivial pissing contests over who dissed whom and who got pwned, feel free, but there are plenty of people who don't make trivia the basis of their vote.
Not hot air. I could vote for Greens again if they looked like they could stand up for what they believed better and showed signs of more effective leadership in government.
I suspect you have never voted for National or ACT and never would, so it's you doing the hot air.
I agree that Greens take the environment far more seriously than any other party in Parliament seriously. Their problem is having their seriousness about the environment taken seriously enough by Labour and especially NZ First.
And on current performance and numbers they don't look like seriously improving on their influence.
And if Greens don't care about enough votes to make the threshold, even you should be able to work out what might happen.
Green supporters aren't unique in politics, but a number of them seem more intent on driving away anyone deemed impure than attracting support and votes.
While the Green Party tries hard in social media to attract support they are frequently undermined by supposed supporters who seem to think their ideals are all that's permissible.
An all or nothing approach is likely to end up closer to nothing than everything.
"An all or nothing approach is likely to end up closer to nothing than everything."
Given that there's 100% of votes available, even if The Greens get 49% of the total vote, they'll be, as you declare, "closer to nothing than everything".
While the Green Party tries hard in social media to attract support they are frequently undermined by supposed supporters who seem to think their ideals are all that's permissible.
Don't know who you are referring to (because you haven't said), but in this thread at least, the problem isn't that people won't discuss how the GP might manage their election campaign in the light of NZF and associated issues, it's that you're running concern troll lines that skew the debate away from a left wing perspective on the Greens to one that is paternalistic and not allied with the left (apart from the alleged concern for the Greens going under 5%, but we know that you also vote centre and right so that concern is being taken with a grain of salt).
The Green Party supports a transformative Government which implements the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals. In this parliamentary term, the Green Party has a number of priorities to progress the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.
…
Relationship to other agreements
Both parties to this agreement recognise that Labour will be working with other parties both in terms of coalitions and confidence and supply arrangements. Labour agrees that it will not enter into any other relationship agreement which is inconsistent with this agreement and the Green Party and Labour agree that they will each act in good faith to allow all such agreements to be complied with.
Both parties to this agreement recognise that Labour will be working with other parties to deliver a stable Government. Labour agrees that it will not enter into any other relationship agreement which is inconsistent with this agreement, and New Zealand First and Labour agree that they will each act in good faith to allow any other agreements to be complied with.
NZ First getting their way on fishing and sanctuary policies, and getting donations from people with large commercial fishing interests, has a lot to do with the relative impotence of the Greens.
Sue Bradford claims to not be a right winger:
I am no right-winger, but I find myself unusually in the space occupied by the right – that is, I cannot fathom how property rights can be trampled on in this way, nor how Labour and the Greens can tolerate it.
If you follow Twitter at all you should see that the strongest criticisms of the Greens are coming from the left. Like:
A high ranking member of the Green Party is stepping down before next year's election, citing the party's drift to the centre as one of the reasons.
"When the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] says we have 12 years to save the world from climate catastrophe, we simply don't have time for centrism, moderation or fiscal austerity."
Pete George is playing his usual diversionary tactic by trying to spin this post into a critique of the Greens.
To all the idiots in this country who don't understand the laws of the land and are screaming for Ardern to sack Peters forthwith:
You cannot sack someone including a political office holder on the basis of suspicion. If that were the case then hundreds of people in this country would have to be thrown out of their positions on a daily basis – including Simon Bridges.
When the SFO investigation into NZ First is complete and wrong-doing has been established (if it is established), that is the point the prime minister is able to act.
To do so in advance of that point is to undermine the very democratic processes we are supposed to highly value.
Employment law doesn’t apply in parliament to mp’s and there positions in cabinet.
for someone who has been around politics as long as you have, that’s a pretty basic understanding of how ministerial posts work.
that you are trying to invoke the wrong law to try and make this all look ok from the prime minister shows how desperate labour and its supporters have become in trying to make this a non issue
Morgan and David Cormack have stood out in their strong criticism of the deafening silence from Labour/Greens over the NZ Foundation scam. The influence that the Racing Industry and the Talleys have over this government is disturbing to say the least.
Yes National are hypocrites for being donkey deep in donation issues, while at the same time laying into Winston. But so is every other person who has an issue with National but has essentially has turned a blind eye to Winston.
Shaw told the Herald that the details of what had happened were unclear.
"But regardless of who took the photographs and why, the fact they were passed to a blog that is designed to undermine trust in our political system is a concern."
His comments are likely to increase the pressure on Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who has so far declined to comment on the photos.
Shaw also took a step further in relation to questions about the NZF Foundation and whether it has properly declared donations to the NZF party.
"The allegations are concerning and due process must be followed while they are investigated," Shaw said.
"We know New Zealanders will be looking at this issue and worrying about what it means for their democracy, which is why we are focused on making the system more transparent and fair."
Shaw has previously answered questions about the foundation by saying that the country's electoral system needed to be strengthened.
He is now calling for an independent citizens' assembly to "clean up" political donations, which have been clouded by questions over the NZF Foundation, as well as the SFO charges laid in relation to a $100,000 donation to the National Party.
However National and Labour have shown far more self interest than will for transparency and fairness in the past and I haven't any sign from either that they want to change their self imposed Swiss cheese rules.
Effective reform won't be easy for more reasons than that.
I'm not sure that a citizens’ assembly is an appropriate way to reform – for anything like that it's an unproven system. And even if a citizens’ assembly came up with practical solutions it would still have to be agreed to by a Parliamentary majority.
And apart from the citizens' assembly idea the Green press release you link to is really quite vague. Like:
“Right now more than ever New Zealanders need to be engaging in democracy, not disenfranchised by it. We all must work together to ensure equality for all, healthy nature and climate action.”
Sounds more like electioneering.
“At the moment, two out of five political parties in Parliament are under investigation for potential donations misconduct. Whilst we cannot predict or ponder what the outcomes of those investigations will be, ultimately we think these investigations wouldn’t be happening had parties had access to public funds rather than vying for large donations from private interests."
“Everyone should have equal access to democracy and trust in the political institutions that make decisions for their communities."
Complete public funding of political parties would solve the donations issues and vested interests issues, but it would be difficult to provide 'equal access to democracy'.
Current public funding of parties strongly favours incumbent parties, especially the larger ones, and would make it even more difficult for new parties to compete.
I accept it was out of line. The conversation had degraded many posts ago as Pete repeatedly posed his patois of paternal preening. Someone had to say it. Debating a concern troll is wasted space and time.
Thanks WTB. You are more than welcome to call him out on his concern trolling (it's calling people names and telling them to shut up that tends to start fires and then the mods get grumpy at the extra work).
Green supporters keep reiterating how strongly they are opposed to doing any sort of governing deal with National. See /wtaf-nz-first/#comment-1686694
Will the Green membership likewise rule out any future deals giving NZ First disproportionate power, which includes the power to ignore governing agreements and sideline the Greens?
You linked to my comment but did you bother reading the link therein? It's pretty clear what the GP position is. They will work with any party on shared policy, including National. The reason they've ruled out supporting National via C/S or forming govt with them is because there is so little shared policy between the two parties now and much of National's platform is directly against GP core values. Pragmatically, the implication that they might support Nat to be govt was probably costing them votes, so they made it even clearer at the 2017 election.
Equally obviously, this isn't true of NZF. If the GP position is that they will compromise on policy but not core values (which is how I understand it), then there is in fact room to work with a government that includes NZF. The Greens don't have to get their own way on every policy. They signalled early on that there would be compromises, because that's how MMP works.
As for ruling out future deals, afaik the Green Party doesn't have a deal with NZF, and doesn't have the power to control what deals Labour makes with NZF. What you seem to be implying instead is that the Greens shouldn't support a Labour-led government that includes NZF. Which would mean that National would get to form government. Which would be an entirely nonsense position for the GP to take (unless it was being asked to compromise on core values, which it is not, thus far).
If Greens think that supporting a Labour-NZ First coalition government the way the current government has operated doesn't compromise their core values then they can go to the voters with that.
But some ex-Green MPs and candidates seem to think those values are being compromised.
Have Green members been asked if they support their party supporting a NZ First dominated government?
The NZ first donation issue looks unlikely to be resolved before the election. I think there's a real risk that will drag them down, and potentially the Greens too if they continue to look like a silent compliant junior party.
Few if any Green members would support their party supporting a NZ First dominated government, but you might want to have wee think about your question.
Ok, have Green members been asked if they support their party enabling a Government that includes NZ First?
They can claim an honest expectation of something better from NZ First this term, but I think they need to show they have learned a lesson about how they have been marginalised by NZ First and would not allow similar again (if they get the chance).
How do you propose that the Green Party prevents NZF from marginalising them next time round? (I personally wouldn't use the term marginalise, but I'm curious to see how you make sense of your own framing).
Active GP members are involved in internal party processes for forming positions on working with other political parties. Which you would know if you read the post you linked to.
"Have Green members been asked if they support their party supporting a NZ First dominated government?"
As opposed to what? Letting National form government?
I think most GP members paying attention are aware of this dilemma here. If you think the GP are compromising their core values, then you'd need to say how you see that. At the moment you just look like you're suggesting the GP should take a stand for an unknown principle that would result in a RW govt that would actively work against all that the Greens hold dear.
Not sure what you are reading, but I'm seeing the GP clearly laying down election year lines with regards to both Labour and NZF. Not lines that are 'do what we want or else', but lines that show voters how the Green Party differ from both Labour and NZF and if voters want what the GP is offering then the GP need more MPs in government come Sept. Which is possibly what you are meaning, I just framed it in the positive instead of the negative.
Considering the Greens have almost the same number of seats as NZF, they have very little say on anything in comparison to NZF. Winston just toys with James Shaw. I still believe Chloe is the future leader of the Greens as Shaw is just too weak whereas Marama is too left leaning for a lot of people (but has a lot more spine than Shaw).
About those polls that suggest Sanders would do as well in November against Sherbert Pervert as more moderate Dems – it seems they rely on a massive boost in turnout among young voters. That 'youth wave' is a mirage appearing at almost every election, but it never eventuates.
Here's the view from someone that went through the last time we had a clearly criminal Oval Office occupant, and the left took the opportunity to nominate their no-compromise candidate – that was McGovern in 1972.
People tend to believe polls that fit their preconceptions and be sceptical of those that don't. C'est la vie. The race is unfolding now and I am happy just to watch it without pretending to foreknowledge of any sort.
US co2energy emissions plummet in 2019,largest in absolute terms 1 GT since 2000.
The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt. US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period. A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019. Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%. Overall electricity demand declined because demand for air-conditioning and heating was lower as a result of milder summer and winter weather.
The rise in developing countries from offshoring may account for some.
Max Rashbrooke makes some good points re: recent child poverty stats. A reduction in poverty might be occurring, and that is good, but the real test will be reducing abject poverty, not the people just under the poverty line.
The fact that NACT has been used a lot here doesn't make it an actual thing.
Last year David Seymour did more good in Parliament than possibly all the National MPs. He deserves credit on his own.
Chloe Swarbrick stood out too, but that doesn't associate her with Labour.
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
[ok, enough Pete. You can definitely sing Seymour’s praises as a man in his own right. You can’t derail my posts, nor repeatedly imply that I used the term in a way I’ve already explained I didn’t. – weka]
ACT only exists by the grace of the National Party. This is completely different from Labour and the Green Party. As usual, you’re blurring lines and distinctions, which is something National has been doing a lot of too lately. Perhaps one day you could surprise us with an original thought and comment, yes?
Negative yesterday, negative today. Negative all year, according to one departing reader telling me I’ve grown strident and predictable. Fair enough. If it’s any help, every time I go to write about a certain topic that begins with C and ends with arrrrs, I do brace myself and ask: Again? Are ...
Bryce Edwards writes – It’s been a tumultuous time in politics in recent months, as the new National-led Government has driven through its “First 100 Day programme”. During this period there’s been a handful of opinion polls, which overall just show a minimal amount of flux in public support ...
Inspirational: The Family of Man is a glorious hymn to human equality, but, more than that, it is a clarion call to human freedom. Because equality, unleavened by liberty, is a broken piano, an unstrung harp; upon which the songs of fraternity will never be played.“Somebody must have been telling lies about ...
Tax Lawyer Barbara Edmonds vs Emperor Justinian I- Nolo Contendere: False historical explanations of pivotal events are very far from being inconsequential.WHEN BARBARA EDMONDS made reference to the Roman Empire, my ears pricked up. It is, lamentably, very rare to hear a politician admit to any kind of familiarity ...
It’s been a tumultuous time in politics in recent months, as the new National-led Government has driven through its “First 100 Day programme”. During this period there’s been a handful of opinion polls, which overall just show a minimal amount of flux in public support for the various parties in ...
Buzz from the Beehive Housing Minister Chris Bishop delivered news – packed with the ingredients to enflame political passions – worthy of supplanting Winston Peters in headline writers’ priorities. He popped up at the post-Cabinet press conference to promise a crackdown on unruly and antisocial state housing tenants. His ...
Ele Ludemann writes – The Reserve Bank is advertising for a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion advisor. The Bank has one mandate – to keep inflation between one and three percent. It has failed in that and is only slowly getting inflation back down to the upper limit. Will it ...
Last week former National Party leader Simon Bridges was appointed by the Government as the new chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA). You can read about the appointment in Thomas Coughlan’s article, Simon Bridges to become chair of NZ Transport Agency Waka KotahiThe fact that a ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Last week former National Party leader Simon Bridges was appointed by the Government as the new chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA). You can read about the appointment in Thomas Coughlan’s article, Simon Bridges to become chair of NZ Transport Agency ...
TL;DR: My top 10 news and analysis links this morning include:Today’s must-read: Gavin Jacobson talks to Thomas Piketty 10 years on from Capital in the 21st CenturyThe SalvoLocal scoop: Green MP’s business being investigated over migrant exploitation claims StuffSteve KilgallonLocal deep-dive: The commercial contractors making money from School ...
It’s a home - but Kāinga Ora tenants accused of “abusing the privilege” may lose it. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The Government announced a crackdown on Kāinga Ora tenants who were unruly and/or behind on their rent, with Housing Minister Chris Bishop saying a place in a state ...
This is a guest post by Connor Sharp of Surface Light Rail Light rail in Auckland: A way forward sooner than you think With the coup de grâce of Auckland Light Rail (ALR) earlier this year, and the shift of the government’s priorities to roads, roads, and more roads, it ...
Note: As a paid-up Webworm member, I’ve recorded this Webworm as a mini-podcast for you as well. Some of you said you liked this option - so I aim to provide it when I get a chance to record! Read more ...
TL;DR: In my ‘six-stack’ of substacks at 6.06pm on Monday, March 18:IKEA is accused of planting big forests in New Zealand to green-wash; REDD-MonitorA City for People takes a well-deserved victory lap over Wellington’s pro-YIMBY District Plan votes; A City for PeopleSteven Anastasiou takes a close look at the sticky ...
Buzz from the Beehive Here’s hoping for a lively post-cabinet press conference when the PM and – perhaps – some of his ministers tell us what was discussed at their meeting today. Until then, Point of Order has precious little Beehive news to report after its latest monitoring of the ...
David Farrar writes – We now have almost all 2023 data in, which has allowed me to update my annual table of how labour went against its promises. This is basically their final report card. The promiseThe result Build 100,000 affordable homes over 10 ...
I’m a bit worried that I’ve started a previous newsletter with the words “just when you think they couldn’t get any worse…” Seems lately that I could begin pretty much every issue with that opening. Such is the nature of our coalition government that they seem to be outdoing each ...
Geoffrey Miller writes – Timing is everything. And from China’s perspective, this week’s visit by its foreign minister to New Zealand could be coming at just the right moment. The visit by Wang Yi to Wellington will be his first since 2017. Anniversaries are important to Beijing. ...
Depictions of Islam in Western popular culture have rarely been positive, even before 9/11. Five years on from the mosque shootings, this is one of the cultural headwinds that the Muslim community has to battle against. Whatever messages of tolerance and inclusion are offered in daylight, much of our culture ...
Last week Transport Minster Simeon Brown and Mayor Wayne Brown opened the new Auckland Rail Operations Centre. The new train control centre will see teams from KiwiRail, Auckland Transport and Auckland One Rail working more closely together to improve train services across the city. The Auckland Rail Operations Centre in ...
Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: Retiring former Labour Finance Minister Grant Robertson said in an exit interview with Q+A yesterday the Government can and should sustain more debt to invest in infrastructure for future generations. Elsewhere in the news in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy at 6:36am: Read more ...
Timing is everything. And from China’s perspective, this week’s visit by its foreign minister to New Zealand could be coming at just the right moment. The visit by Wang Yi to Wellington will be his first since 2017. Anniversaries are important to Beijing. It is more than just a happy ...
TL;DR: The key events to watch in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy in the week to March 18 include:China’s Foreign Minister visiting Wellington today;A post-cabinet news conference this afternoon; the resumption of Parliament on Tuesday for two weeks before Easter;retiring former Labour Finance Minister Grant Robertson gives his valedictory speech in Parliament; ...
New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters’s state-of-the-nation speech on Sunday was really a state-of-Winston-First speech. He barely mentioned any of the Government’s key policies and could not even wholly endorse its signature income tax cuts. Instead, he rehearsed all of his complaints about the Ardern Government, including an extraordinary claim ...
A listing of 35 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, March 10, 2024 thru Sat, March 16, 2024. Story of the week This week we'll give you a little glimpse into how we collect links to share and ...
A listing of 35 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, March 10, 2024 thru Sat, March 16, 2024. Story of the week This week we'll give you a little glimpse into how we collect links to share and ...
“I’ve been internalising a really complicated situation in my head.”When they kept telling us we should wait until we get to know him, were they taking the piss? Was it a case of, if you think this is bad, wait till you get to know the real Christopher, after the ...
Happy fourth anniversary, Pandemic That Upended Bloody Everything. I have been observing it by enjoying my second bout of COVID. It’s 5.30 on Sunday morning and only now are lights turning back on for me.Allow me to copy and paste what I told reader Sara yesterday:Depleted, fogged and crappy. Resting, ...
Happy fourth anniversary, Pandemic That Upended Bloody Everything. I have been observing it by enjoying my second bout of COVID. It’s 5.30 on Sunday morning and only now are lights turning back on for me.Allow me to copy and paste what I told reader Sara yesterday:Depleted, fogged and crappy. Resting, ...
Happy fourth anniversary, Pandemic That Upended Bloody Everything. I have been observing it by enjoying my second bout of COVID. It’s 5.30 on Sunday morning and only now are lights turning back on for me.Allow me to copy and paste what I told reader Sara yesterday:Depleted, fogged and crappy. Resting, ...
.“$10 and a target that bleeds” - Bleeding Targets for Under $10!.Thanks for reading Frankly Speaking ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.This government appears hell-bent on either scrapping life-saving legislation or reintroducing things that - frustrated critics insist - will be dangerous and likely ...
“It hardly strikes me as fair to criticise a government for doing exactly what it said it was going to do. For actually keeping its promises.”THUNDER WAS PLAYING TAG with lightning flashes amongst the distant peaks. Its rolling cadences interrupted by the here-I-come-here-I-go Doppler effect of the occasional passing car. ...
Subversive & Disruptive Technologies: Just as happened with that other great regulator of the masses, the Medieval Church, the advent of a new and hard-to-control technology – the Internet – is weakening the ties that bind. Then, and now, those who enjoy a monopoly on the dissemination of lies, cannot and will ...
Been Here Before: To find the precedents for what this Coalition Government is proposing, it is necessary to return to the “glory days” of Muldoonism.THE COALITION GOVERNMENT has celebrated its first 100 days in office by checking-off the last of its listed commitments. It remains, however, an angry government. It ...
Bob Edlin writes – And what is the world watching today…? The email newsletter from Associated Press which landed in our mailbox early this morning advised: In the news today: The father of a school shooter has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter; prosecutors in Trump’s hush-money case ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Is another Green MP on their way out? And are the Greens severely tarnished by another integrity scandal? For the second time in three months, the Green Party has secretly suspended an MP over integrity issues. Mystery is surrounding the party’s decision to ...
For the last few years, the Green Party has been the party that has managed to avoid the plague of multiple scandals that have beleaguered other political parties. It appears that their luck has run out with a second scandal which, unfortunately for them, coincided with Golraz Ghahraman, the focus ...
TL;DR: The six newsey things that stood out to me as of 6:46am on Saturday, March 16.Andy Foster has accidentally allowed a Labour/Green amendment to cut road user chargers for plug-in hybrid vehicles, which the Government might accept; NZ HeraldThomas CoughlanSimeon Brown has rejected a plea from Westport ...
What seemed a booming success a couple of years ago has collapsed into fraud convictions.I looked at the crash of FTX (short for ‘Futures Exchange’) in November 2022 to see whether it would impact on the financial system as a whole. Fortunately there was barely a ripple, probably because it ...
Anybody following the situation in Ukraine and Russia would probably have been amused by a recent Tweet on X NATO seems to be putting in an awful lot of effort to influence what is, at least according to them, a sham election in an autocracy.When do the Ukrainians go to ...
TL;DR:Shaun Baker on Wynyard Quarter's transformation. Magdalene Taylor on the problem with smart phones. How private equity are now all over reinsurance. Dylan Cleaver on rugby and CTE. Emily Atkin on ‘Big Meat’ looking like ‘Big Oil’.Bernard’s six-stack of substacks at 6pm on March 15Photo by Jeppe Hove Jensen ...
Buzz from the Beehive Finance Minister Nicola Willis had plenty to say when addressing the Auckland Business Chamber on the economic growth that (she tells us) is flagging more than we thought. But the government intends to put new life into it: We want our country to be a ...
The Transport and Infrastructure Committee has reported back on the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill, basicly rubberstamping it. While there was widespread support among submitters for the principle that EV and PHEV drivers should pay their fair share for the roads, they also overwhelmingly disagreed with ...
Peter Dunne writes – This week’s government bailout – the fifth in the last eighteen months – of the financially troubled Ruapehu Alpine Lifts company would have pleased many in the central North Island ski industry. The government’s stated rationale for the $7 million funding was that it ...
See if you can spot the difference. An Iranian born female MP from a progressive party is accused of serial shoplifting. Her name is leaked to the media, which goes into a pack frenzy even before the Police launch an … Continue reading → ...
Ele Ludemann writes – The government is omitting general Treaty references from legislation : The growth of Treaty of Waitangi clauses in legislation caused so much worry that a special oversight group was set up by the last Government in a bid to get greater coherence in the public service on Treaty ...
What was that judge thinking?Peter Williams writes – That Golriz Ghahraman and District Court Judge Maria Pecotic were once lawyer colleagues is incontrovertible. There is published evidence that they took at least one case to the Court of Appeal together. There was a report on ...
TL;DR: My top 10 news and analysis links this morning include:Today’s must-read:Climate Scorpion – the sting is in the tail. Introducing planetary solvency. A paper via the University of Exeter’s Institute and Faculty of Actuaries.Local scoop:Kāinga Ora starts pulling out of its Auckland projects and selling land RNZ ...
Wellington’s massively upzoned District Plan adds the opportunity for tens of thousands of new homes not just in the central city (such as these Webb St new builds) but also close to the CBD and public transport links. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: Wellington gave itself the chance of ...
It’s Friday and we’re halfway through March Madness. Here’s some of the things that caught our attention this week. This Week in Greater Auckland On Monday Matt asked how we can get better event trains and an option for grade separating Morningside Dr. On Tuesday Matt looked into ...
Something you might not know about me is that I’m quite a stubborn person. No, really. I don’t much care for criticism I think’s unfair or that I disagree with. Few of us do I suppose.Back when I was a drinker I’d sometimes respond defensively, even angrily. There are things ...
Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The five things that mattered in Aotearoa’s political economy that we wrote and spoke about via The Kākā and elsewhere for paying subscribers in the last week included:PM Christopher Luxon said the reversal of interest deductibility for landlords was done to help renters, who ...
It was not so much the Labour Party but really the Chris Hipkins party yesterday at Labour’s caucus retreat in Martinborough. The former Prime Minister was more or less consistent on wealth tax, which he was at best equivocal about, and social insurance, which he was not willing to revisit. ...
Buzz from the BeehiveThe text reproduced above appears on a page which records all the media statements and speeches posted on the government’s official website by Melissa Lee as Minister of Media and Communications and/or by Jenny Marcroft, her Parliamentary Under-secretary. It can be quickly analysed ...
For forty years, Robert Muldoon has been a dirty word in our politics. His style of government was so repulsive and authoritarian that the backlash to it helped set and entrench our constitutional norms. His pig-headedness over forcing through Think Big eventually gave us the RMA, with its participation and ...
Bryce Edwards writes – Is the new government reducing tax on rental properties to benefit landlords or to cut the cost of rents? That’s the big question this week, after Associate Finance Minister David Seymour announced on Sunday that the Government would be reversing the Labour Government’s removal ...
Saudi Arabia is rarely far from the international spotlight. The war in Gaza has brought new scrutiny to Saudi plans to normalise relations with Israel, while the fifth anniversary of the controversial killing of Jamal Khashoggi was marked shortly before the war began on October 7. And as the home ...
Questions need to be asked on both sides of the worldPeter Williams writes – The NRL Judiciary hands down an eight week suspension to Sydney Roosters forward Spencer Leniu , an Auckland-born Samoan, after he calls Ezra Mam, Sydney-orn but of Aboriginal and Torres Strait ...
Ele Ludemann writes – Contrary to what many headlines and news stories are saying, residential landlords are not getting a tax break. The government is simply restoring to them the tax deductibility of interest they had until the previous government removed it. There is no logical reason ...
I can't remember when it was goodMoments of happiness in bloomMaybe I just misunderstoodAll of the love we left behindWatching our flashbacks intertwineMemories I will never findIn spite of whatever you becomeForget that reckless thing turned onI think our lives have just begunI think our lives have just begunDoes anyone ...
Michael Bassett writes – At first reading, a front-page story in the New Zealand Herald on 13 March was bizarre. A group of severely intellectually limited teenagers, with little understanding of the law, have been pleading to the Justice Select Committee not to pass a bill dealing with ram ...
How much political capital is Christopher Luxon willing to burn through in order to deliver his $2.9 billion gift to landlords? Evidently, Luxon is: (a) unable to cost the policy accurately. As Anna Burns-Francis pointed out to him on Breakfast TV, the original ”rock solid” $2.1 billion cost he was ...
TL;DR: My top 10 news and analysis links this morning include:Today’s must-read:Jonathon Porritt calling bullshit in his own blog post on mainstream climate science as ‘The New Denialism’.Local scoop:The Wellington City Council’s list of proposed changes to the IHP recommendations to be debated later today was leaked this ...
TL;DR:Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said yesterday tenants should be grateful for the reinstatement of interest deductibility because landlords would pass on their lower tax costs in the form of lower rents. That would be true if landlords were regulated monopolies such as Transpower or Auckland Airport1, but they’re not, ...
This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Tom Toro Tom Toro is a cartoonist and author. He has published over 200 cartoons in The New Yorker since 2010. His cartoons appear in Playboy, the Paris Review, the New York Times, American Bystander, and elsewhere. Related: What 10 EV lovers ...
The business section of the NZ Herald is full of opinion. Among the more opinionated of all is the ex-Minister of Transport, ex-Minister of Railways, ex MP for Auckland Central (1975-93, Labour), Wellington Central (1996-99, ACT, then list-2005), ex-leader of the ACT Party, uncle to actor Antonia, the veritable granddaddy ...
Hi,Just quickly — I’m blown away by the stories you’ve shared with me over the last week since I put out the ‘Gary’ podcast, where I told you about the time my friend’s flatmate killed the neighbour.And you keep telling me stories — in the comments section, and in my ...
The first season of Rings of Power was not awful. It was thoroughly underwhelming, yes, and left a lingering sense of disappointment, but it was more expensive mediocrity than catastrophe. I wrote at length about the series as it came out (see the Review section of the blog, and go ...
Buzz from the Beehive Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden told Auckland Business Chamber members they were the first audience to hear her priorities as a minister in a government committed to cutting red tape and regulations. She brandished her liberalising credentials, saying Flexible labour markets are the ...
Chris Trotter writes – TO UNDERSTAND WHY NEWSHUB FAILED, it is necessary to understand how TVNZ changed. Up until 1989, the state broadcaster had been funded by a broadcasting licence fee, collected from every citizen in possession of a television set, supplemented by a relatively modest (compared ...
Bob Edlin writes – The Māori Party has been busy issuing a mix of warnings and threats as its expresses its opposition to interest deductibility for landlords and the plans of seabed miners. It remains to be seen whether they follow the example of indigenous litigants in Australia, ...
Every year, in the Budget, Parliament forks out money to government agencies to do certain things. And every year, as part of the annual review cycle, those agencies are meant to report on whether they have done the things Parliament gave them that money for. Agencies which consistently fail to ...
Mike Grimshaw writes – Recent events in American universities point to an underlying crisis of coherent thinking, an issue that increasingly affects the progressive left across the Western world. This of course is nothing new as anyone who can either remember or has read of the late ...
The Government has accepted Labour’s change to the Road User Charge (RUC) discount for hybrid vehicles, meaning there will still be some incentive for people to buy greener vehicles. ...
Kicking the most vulnerable people out of state housing and pushing them towards homelessness will result in a proliferation of poverty and trauma across our most vulnerable communities. ...
Te Pāti Māori co-leader and MP for Waiariki, Rawiri Waititi has penned a letter asking MPs to support his members bill to remove GST from all food. The bill is expected to go through its first reading in parliament this Wednesday. “I’m calling on all political parties to support my ...
This year is about getting real with Kiwis and discussing the tough issues, as the National Government exacerbates inequality and divides New Zealand, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said ...
The Government adding Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) to its already roaring environmental policy bonfire is an assault on the future of wildlife that makes Aotearoa unique. ...
After 12 years of fighting to protect our moana we are finding ourselves back at square one and back at court. Today, the Environmental Protection Agency is sitting in Hawera to reconsider an application from Trans-Tasman Resources to dig up 50 million tonnes of the seabed in South Taranaki. This ...
Minister Shane Jones’ decision to step away from a seabed mining project is evidence of the murky waters surrounding the Government’s fast-track legislation. ...
The growth of Treaty of Waitangi clauses in legislation caused so much worry that a special oversight group was set up by the last government in a bid to get greater coherence in the publicservice on Treaty matters. When ministers first considered the need for tighter oversight in 2021, there ...
The growth of Treaty of Waitangi clauses in legislation caused so much worry that a special oversight group was set up by the last government in a bid to get greater coherence in the publicservice on Treaty matters. When ministers first considered the need for tighter oversight in 2021, there ...
The Coalition Government’s miscalculation saga continues as it has forgotten an eyewatering $90 million gap in its interest deductibility cost figures, say Labour Finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds and Revenue Spokesperson Deborah Russell. ...
He Pou a Rangi Climate Change Commission has today released advice that says if the Government doesn’t act now New Zealand is at risk of not meeting its climate goals. ...
The Coalition Government has today confirmed it is abandoning first home buyers who are struggling to get ahead, says Labour Finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds. ...
The New Zealand public voted for a change in direction at the 2023 general election and that is exactly what this coalition government has been delivering in its first 100 days. There was an immediate focus on the economy, easing the cost of living, cracking down on law and order ...
The Government has left the health system as an afterthought, announcing half-baked targets at the last minute of their 100-day plan, says Labour Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall. ...
Kiwis are still waiting for their promised cost of living support after 100 days of a National Government that is taking us backwards, Labour Leader Chris Hipkins said today. ...
The National Government has spent its first 100 days stopping, cutting and reversing. They have scrapped stuff for stuff for the sake of it, without putting up any solutions of their own – and it’s hardworking New Zealanders who will pay for it. ...
100 days of National taking NZ backwardsThe National Government has spent its first 100 days stopping, cutting and reversing. They have scrapped stuff for stuff for the sake of it, without putting up any solutions of their own – and it’s hardworking New Zealanders who will pay for it. ...
The Government must commit to funding free and healthy school lunches, as thousands of people sign the petition to keep them, education spokesperson Jan Tinetti says. ...
If the Government was serious about moving families into public housing, they would build more houses so there is actually somewhere for people to go. ...
The free and healthy school lunches programme feeds our kids, helps them to learn, and saves families money – but it is at risk under this Government, education spokesperson Jan Tinetti said. ...
The Government’s proposed changes to Firearms Prohibition Orders (FPO) add almost nothing new and are merely an attempt to distract from its plans to loosen gun laws, police spokesperson Ginny Andersen and justice spokesperson Dr Duncan Webb said. ...
The great Victorian era English politician Lord Macauley stood in the British House of Parliament and said, "The gallery in which the reporters sit has become a fourth estate of the realm".He understood and outlined even way back then, the significant role and influence media have in a democracy. ...
The government’s attack on Māori health this week is committing tangata-whenua to a premature death, says Te Pāti Māori. “The government have begun their onslaught on Māori health with the abolishment of the Māori Health Authority and smokefree laws in the same day” said health spokesperson and co-leader, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. ...
New Zealand’s social workers are qualified, experienced, and more representative of the communities they serve, Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston says. “I want to acknowledge and applaud New Zealand’s social workers for the hard work they do, providing invaluable support for our most vulnerable. “To coincide with World ...
Cabinet has agreed to a reduced road user charge (RUC) rate for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. Owners of PHEVs will be eligible for a reduced rate of $38 per 1,000km once all light electric vehicles (EVs) move into the RUC system from 1 April. ...
Minister of Agriculture and Trade, Todd McClay, says that today’s opening of Riverland Foods manufacturing plant in Christchurch is a great example of how trade access to overseas markets creates jobs in New Zealand. Speaking at the official opening of this state-of-the-art pet food factory the Minister noted that exports ...
Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Wellington today. “It was a pleasure to host Foreign Minister Wang Yi during his first official visit to New Zealand since 2017. Our discussions were wide-ranging and enabled engagement on many facets of New Zealand’s relationship with China, including trade, ...
Kāinga Ora – Homes & Communities has been instructed to end the Sustaining Tenancies Framework and take stronger measures against persistent antisocial behaviour by tenants, says Housing Minister Chris Bishop. “Earlier today Finance Minister Nicola Willis and I sent an interim Letter of Expectations to the Board of Kāinga Ora. ...
Tēna koutou katoa. Greetings everyone. Thank you to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and the Honourable Simon Bridges for hosting this address today. I acknowledge the business leaders in this room, the leaders and governors, the employers, the entrepreneurs, the investors, and the wealth creators. The coalition Government shares your ...
Minister Winston Peters completed the final leg of his visit to South and South East Asia in Singapore today, where he focused on enhancing one of New Zealand’s indispensable strategic partnerships. “Singapore is our most important defence partner in South East Asia, our fourth-largest trading partner and a ...
Minister of Internal Affairs and Workplace Relations and Safety, Hon. Brooke van Velden, will travel to the Republic of Korea to represent New Zealand at the Third Summit for Democracy on 18 March. The summit, hosted by the Republic of Korea, was first convened by the United States in 2021, ...
ICNZ Speech 7 March 2024, Auckland Acknowledgements and opening Mōrena, ngā mihi nui. Ko Andrew Bayly aho, Nor Whanganui aho. Good morning, it’s a privilege to be here to open the ICNZ annual conference, thank you to Mark for the Mihi Whakatau My thanks to Tim Grafton for inviting me ...
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Lead Coordination Minister Judith Collins have expressed their deepest sympathy on the five-year anniversary of the Christchurch terror attacks. “March 15, 2019, was a day when families, communities and the country came together both in sorrow and solidarity,” Mr Luxon says. “Today we pay our respects to the 51 shuhada ...
Speech for Financial Advice NZ Conference 5 March 2024 Acknowledgements and opening Morena, Nga Mihi Nui. Ko Andrew Bayly aho, Nor Whanganui aho. Thanks Nate for your Mihi Whakatau Good morning. It’s a pleasure to formally open your conference this morning. What a lovely day in Wellington, What a great ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters held discussions in Jakarta today about the future of relations between New Zealand and South East Asia’s most populous country. “We are in Jakarta so early in our new government’s term to reflect the huge importance we place on our relationship with Indonesia and South ...
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters has announced that the Foreign Minister of China, Wang Yi, will visit New Zealand next week. “We look forward to re-engaging with Foreign Minister Wang Yi and discussing the full breadth of the bilateral relationship, which is one of New Zealand’s ...
Transport Minister Simeon Brown has today opened the new Auckland Rail Operations Centre, which will bring together KiwiRail, Auckland Transport, and Auckland One Rail to improve service reliability for Aucklanders. “The recent train disruptions in Auckland have highlighted how important it is KiwiRail and Auckland’s rail agencies work together to ...
The Government is proud to support the 10th edition of Crankworx Rotorua as the Crankworx World Tour returns to Rotorua from 16-24 March 2024, says Minister for Economic Development Melissa Lee. “Over the past 10 years as Crankworx Rotorua has grown, so too have the economic and social benefits that ...
Legislation implementing coalition Government tax commitments and addressing long-standing tax anomalies will be progressed in Parliament next week, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. The legislation is contained in an Amendment Paper to the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023–24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill issued today. “The Amendment Paper represents ...
Associate Environment Minister Andrew Hoggard has today announced that the Government has agreed to suspend the requirement for councils to comply with the Significant Natural Areas (SNA) provisions of the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity for three years, while it replaces the Resource Management Act (RMA).“As it stands, SNAs ...
Agriculture Minister Todd McClay has classified the drought conditions in the Marlborough, Tasman, and Nelson districts as a medium-scale adverse event, acknowledging the challenging conditions facing farmers and growers in the district. “Parts of Marlborough, Tasman, and Nelson districts are in the grip of an intense dry spell. I know ...
The Government is helping farmers eradicate the significant impact of facial eczema (FE) in pastoral animals, Agriculture Minister Todd McClay announced. “A $20 million partnership jointly funded by Beef + Lamb NZ, the Government, and the primary sector will save farmers an estimated NZD$332 million per year, and aims to ...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters has completed a successful visit to India, saying it was an important step in taking the relationship between the two countries to the next level. “We have laid a strong foundation for the Coalition Government’s priority of enhancing New Zealand-India relations to generate significant future benefit for both countries,” says Mr Peters, ...
Cabinet has agreed to provide $7 million to ensure the 2024 ski season can go ahead on the Whakapapa ski field in the central North Island but has told the operator Ruapehu Alpine Lifts it is the last financial support it will receive from taxpayers. Cabinet also agreed to provide ...
Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says the launch of a new mobile breast screening unit in Counties Manukau reinforces the coalition Government’s commitment to drive better cancer services for all New Zealanders. Speaking at the launch of the new mobile clinic, Dr Reti says it’s a great example of taking ...
Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says the launch of a new mobile breast screening unit in Counties Manukau reinforces the coalition Government’s commitment to drive better cancer services for all New Zealanders. Speaking at the launch of the new mobile clinic, Dr Reti says it’s a great example of taking ...
Unlocking economic growth and land for housing are critical elements of the Government’s plan for our transport network, and planned upgrades to State Highway 29 (SH29) near Tauriko will deliver strongly on those priorities, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “The SH29 upgrades near Tauriko will improve safety at the intersections ...
Unlocking economic growth and land for housing are critical elements of the Government’s plan for our transport network, and planned upgrades to State Highway 29 (SH29) near Tauriko will deliver strongly on those priorities, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “The SH29 upgrades near Tauriko will improve safety at the intersections ...
Lower fruit and vegetable prices are welcome news for New Zealanders who have been doing it tough at the supermarket, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. Stats NZ reported today the price of fruit and vegetables has dropped 9.3 percent in the 12 months to February 2024. “Lower fruit and vege ...
Tēnā koutou katoa and greetings to you all. Chair, I am honoured to address the sixty-eighth session of the Commission on the Status of Women. I acknowledge the many crises impacting the rights of women and girls. Heightened global tensions, war, climate related and humanitarian disasters, and price inflation all ...
Tēnā koutou katoa and greetings to you all. Chair, I am honoured to address the 68th session of the Commission on the Status of Women. I acknowledge the many crises impacting the rights of women and girls. Heightened global tensions, war, climate related and humanitarian disasters, and price inflation all ...
The coalition Government is supporting farmers to enhance land management practices by investing $3.3 million in locally led catchment groups, Agriculture Minister Todd McClay announced. “Farmers and growers deliver significant prosperity for New Zealand and it’s vital their ongoing efforts to improve land management practices and water quality are supported,” ...
Good evening everyone and thank you for that lovely introduction. Thank you also to the Honourable Simon Bridges for the invitation to address your members. Since being sworn in, this coalition Government has hit the ground running with our 100-day plan, delivering the changes that New Zealanders expect of us. ...
Recommendations from the Climate Change Commission for New Zealand on the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) auction and unit limit settings for the next five years have been tabled in Parliament, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says. “The Commission provides advice on the ETS annually. This is the third time the ...
The coalition Government is beginning its fight to lower building costs and reduce red tape by exempting minor building work from paying the building levy, says Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk. “Currently, any building project worth $20,444 including GST or more is subject to the building levy which is ...
Proposed changes to tax legislation to prevent the over-taxation of low-earning trusts are welcome, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says. The changes have been recommended by Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee following consideration of submissions on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2023–24, Multinational Tax, and Remedial Matters) Bill. “One of the ...
Assalaamu alaikum. السَّلَام عليكم In light of the holy month of Ramadan, I want to extend my warmest wishes to our Muslim community in New Zealand. Ramadan is a time for spiritual reflection, renewed devotion, perseverance, generosity, and forgiveness. It’s a time to strengthen our bonds and appreciate the diversity ...
Former Transport Minister and CEO of the Auckland Business Chamber Hon Simon Bridges has been appointed as the new Board Chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for a three-year term, Transport Minister Simeon Brown announced today. “Simon brings extensive experience and knowledge in transport policy and governance to the role. He will ...
Good morning all, it is a pleasure to be here as Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology. It is fantastic to see how connected and collaborative the life science and biotechnology industry is here in New Zealand. I would like to thank BioTechNZ and NZTech for the invitation to address ...
Regional Development Minister Shane Jones says he is looking forward to the day when three key water projects in Northland are up and running, unlocking the full potential of land in the region. Mr Jones attended a community event at the site of the Otawere reservoir near Kerikeri on Friday. ...
Associate Finance Minister David Seymour has today announced that the Government has agreed to restore deductibility for mortgage interest on residential investment properties. “Help is on the way for landlords and renters alike. The Government’s restoration of interest deductibility will ease pressure on rents and simplify the tax code,” says ...
Sport and Recreation Minister Chris Bishop will travel to Switzerland today to attend an Executive Committee meeting and Symposium of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Mr Bishop will then travel on to London where he will attend a series of meetings in his capacity as Infrastructure Minister. “New Zealanders believe ...
This year’s Pacific Language Weeks celebrate regional unity and the contribution of Pacific communities to New Zealand culture, says Minister for Pacific Peoples Dr Shane Reti. Dr Reti announced dates for the 2024 Pacific Language Weeks during a visit to the Pasifika festival in Auckland today and says there’s so ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Curran, Associate Professor of Ecology, Lincoln University, New Zealand Getty Images/Gerald Corsi In the latest move to reform environmental laws in New Zealand, the coalition government has introduced a bill to fast-track consenting processes for projects deemed to ...
Uber has argued it does not have as much control over drivers as the unions suggest, and wants a judgment ruling that drivers are employees and not contractors set aside and sent back to the Employment Court. The 2022 ruling followed a three-week hearing in which four drivers sought to ...
What can and can’t be purchased by disabled people or their carers has been slashed in an effort by the Ministry of Disabled People Whaikaha to save money. The purchasing guidelines, a set of rules that sets out what can be purchased using the various streams of Government disability funding, ...
The Treasury has published today a new Analytical Note by Tod Wright and Hien Nguyen, Fiscal incidence in New Zealand: The effects of taxes and benefits on household incomes in tax year 2018/19 . Analyses of the distributional impact of taxation and government ...
The Treasury has published today a new Analytical Note by Cory Davis, Boston Hart and Benjamin Stubbing, Household cost-of-living impacts from the Emissions Trading Scheme and using transfers to mitigate regressive outcomes . This Analytical Note ...
A coalition of public transport and climate organisations, united as ‘Transport for All’, is actively opposing the government’s transport proposals. The draft Government Policy Statement (GPS) includes plans for higher fares for public transport, ...
Greater Wellington is inviting feedback on proposed changes to its Revenue and Financing Policy. The Revenue and Financing Policy covers the Council’s various sources of funding, and how the cost of services is shared across the region. This includes ...
Labour has conceded it could have done more to deal with disruptive state housing tenants while in government but says the current coalition is going too far. ...
The band has asked their record label to issue a cease and desist to stop the NZ First leader using their 1997 hit to support his ‘misguided political views’. “I get knocked down, but I get up again,” blared through the speakers on Sunday as Winston Peters took the stage ...
By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific journalist Food rationing is underway in remote areas in Papua New Guinea’s Highlands following torrential rain and flash flooding. More than 20 people have been reported dead in Chimbu Province. In nearby Enga Province, the centre of last month’s massacre, a 15-year-old boy has been ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Hughes, Lecturer, Research School of Management, Australian National University After months of debate and intrigue, the AFL’s 19th and newest team, the Tasmania Devils, finally launched its jumper, logo and colours in Devonport this week. The Devils will wear green, ...
Brannavan Gnanalingam reviews the debut novel by Saraid de Silva.One of the most baffling things for children who move to a new country is what their parents’ (or grandparents’) lives were like prior to moving – for kids in particular, they’re too busy trying to fit in in their ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Gaunson, Associate Professor in Cinema Studies, RMIT University Narelle Portanier/Binge “If you don’t know who your mob are, you don’t know who you are,” Detective Andrea “Andie” Whitford (played by Leah Purcell) is told early into the new crime ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elise Klein, Associate professor, Australian National University It’s commonly accepted that women do the vast majority of caregiving in Australian society. But less appreciated is that Indigenous women do larger amounts of unpaid care than any other group. Working with the Aboriginal ...
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 Joe Biden and Donald Trump have both secured their parties’ nominations for the November 5 United States general election by winning a ...
Comment: There has been a striking contrast in trans-Tasman interest about Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi’s visit to New Zealand and Australia. While the Australian press has been full of articles about the visit – including his curious decision to meet with former prime minister and China booster Paul Keating ...
After years of pressuring banks and other institutions to stop investing in fossil fuels, climate campaigners are making some progress. So how does divestment work?For years, climate activists have been pushing banks and other big institutions to divest from fossil fuels. New research from climate advocacy group 350 Aotearoa ...
For Boba, Ethan and Ashley, K-pop is a place to belong, a way to express themselves, and a bridge to connect with others. The three young Polynesians are part of a K-pop fan community in Tāmaki Makaurau. It’s one of many that have sprung up worldwide as K-pop has gone ...
For Boba, Ethan and Ashley, K-pop is a place to belong, a way to express themselves, and a bridge to connect with others. This one-off documentary presents three intimate portraits of young Polynesians who are pulled into a Korean cultural phenomenon. K-POLYS is directed by Litia Tuiburelevu, Produced by Hex ...
There’s ample evidence demonstrating free school lunch programmes provide wide benefits across schools, households and communities according to public health researchers. ACT Minister David Seymour wants to reduce the spending on Aotearoa New Zealand’s ...
By Wata Shaw in Suva Fiji is facing an exodus of Fijians as many are leaving for overseas seeking employment and education and others are migrating, says Opposition MP Viliame Naupoto. Speaking in Parliament, he said: “His Excellency’s speech (Ratu Wiliame Katonivere) comes after a little over one year of ...
The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming comments from Christopher Luxon this morning recommitting to ‘no new taxes’ as part of Budget 2024. “Mr Luxon’s refusal at the Post-Cabinet press conference yesterday to repeat the ‘no new taxes’ promise ...
SAFE is urgently calling on the Environment Committee to reject the Government’s Fast-Track Approvals Bill, and is urging New Zealanders to rally behind the call. The proposed Bill, currently under consideration with the Environment select committee, ...
Teammates who spend all their time picking fights with spectators are only helpful for the other team, writes Madeleine Chapman. Anyone who has ever played a team sport competitively, particularly as a child and particularly, for some reason, basketball, will know that there’s a lot of politics involved. While there ...
The long-running Wellington music festival is too focused on the Jim Beam-ness and not enough on the Homegrown-ness.There is something about Homegrown that’s difficult to place. A barely perceptible-ness. Like feeling a ghost is watching you from the corner of the room but when you look, there’s nothing there. ...
The latest Ipsos New Zealand Issues Monitor reveals that fewer New Zealanders believe crime / law and order is one of the top issues facing our country. In 2018, Ipsos New Zealand started tracking the key issues facing New Zealand. In this wave ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Griffiths, Deputy Program Director, Budgets and Government, Grattan Institute Australia’s political donations rules are woefully inadequate, but donations reform is finally on the agenda. The federal government has signalled its interest in reform and will soon begin briefing MPs on its ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Patrick Taylor, Chief Environmental Scientist, EPA Victoria; Honorary Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University Naiyana Somchitkaeo/Shutterstock A recent study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has linked microplastics with risk to human health. The study ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Albert Van Dijk, Professor, Water and Landscape Dynamics, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University Global climate records were shattered in 2023, from air and sea temperatures to sea-level rise and sea-ice extent. Scores of countries recorded their hottest year ...
As part of our series exploring how New Zealanders live and our relationship with money, a teacher explains why he and his partner are in frugal mode – and how they’re making it work. Gender: Male Age: 35Ethnicity: Pākehā Role: I am an intermediate school teacher and my partner is ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Bendall, Senior Lecturer, Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, Australian Catholic University Binge Mary & George, the new British television drama series, depicts the real-life story of Mary Villiers and her son George, and their social climbing at the ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jason Nassios, Associate Professor, Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria University This article is part of The Conversation’s series examining the housing crisis. Read the other articles in the series here. Australian state and federal governments spend money in many ways to ...
The finance minister is denying that there’s a $5.6b shortfall in paying for the government’s campaign promises, including tax cuts. At his post-cabinet press conference yesterday, the PM refused to rule out new taxes to pay for the cuts, writes Anna Rawhiti-Connell in this excerpt from The Bulletin, The Spinoff’s ...
Kāinga Ora tenants abused by their neighbours are doubting the government's crackdown on disruptive tenants will make a difference on their behaviour. ...
Kāinga Ora is New Zealand’s biggest residential landlord, housing more than 180,000 vulnerable people in more than 67,000 properties. Yesterday the government announced a crackdown on its tenants who fall behind on rent. One longtime Kāinga Ora tenant shares her experience.For 18 years I lived in a 1960s standalone ...
Why does this myth persist, and what’s the real reason our skin is suffering?It’s one of the biggest international grievances New Zealanders hold, up there with the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior and 1981’s underarm incident. We’re quick to tell international travellers that the world’s pollution led to the ...
Bob’s relationship with certain members of Lincoln’s academic staff continued to deteriorate in the 1990s. Others supported him publicly, though articles such as Roland Clark’s 1993 piece in Growing Today cannot have pleased the university management. Clark wrote that Bob was selling onions from the Biological Husbandry Unit to a ...
SailGP’s races feature in-your-face action, with agile, hydro-foiling catamarans tacking and jibing for the title over several days. However, public comments ahead of the global series’ return to New Zealand have left this past year’s controversy in the shadows, as a key appointment attracts criticism from dolphin advocates. A year ...
Opinion: We are fast approaching a fundamental change in prisons. As the number of people on custodial remand looks set to overtake the number of sentenced prisoners, the main function of prisons in New Zealand may become incarcerating un-sentenced people who may not be guilty of offending. We have already ...
A huge seven months lies in store for the White Ferns, beginning this week with the visit of England and culminating with the T20 World Cup in Bangladesh in September and October. Starting on Tuesday in Dunedin, the world ranked No. 2 visitors will play five T20s and three ODIs, ...
Opinion: In a move that has shocked road safety advocates across the country, the new Minister of Transport, Simeon Brown, is poised to abandon the previous government’s speed limit reduction policy, particularly around schools. Even more alarmingly, he wants school speed limits to be variable rather than full-time, arguing ...
Auckland Council is opposing a fast-track development backed by Sir John Kirwan and Spark NZ, because it doesn’t meet stringent new climate adaptation requirements The post Surf-data centre faces new 3.8C climate warming rules appeared first on Newsroom. ...
When the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act was introduced in 2009 it was firmly targeted at gangs and drugs. The legislation means police no longer need a conviction to seize assets that criminals can’t prove were paid for legitimately, as long as their alleged offences are punishable by more than a ...
Loading…(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){var ql=document.querySelectorAll('A[quiz],DIV[quiz],A[data-quiz],DIV[data-quiz]'); if(ql){if(ql.length){for(var k=0;k<ql.length;k++){ql[k].id='quiz-embed-'+k;ql[k].href="javascript:var i=document.getElementById('quiz-embed-"+k+"');try{qz.startQuiz(i)}catch(e){i.start=1;i.style.cursor='wait';i.style.opacity='0.5'};void(0);"}}};i['QP']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){(i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)})(window,document,'script','https://take.quiz-maker.com/3012/CDN/quiz-embed-v1.js','qp'); Got a good quiz question?Send Newsroom your questions. The post Newsroom daily quiz, Tuesday 19 March appeared first on Newsroom. ...
The letters, which were published last week, were addressed to Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) Chairperson Megawati Sukarnoputri, National Democrat Party (NasDem) Chairperson Surya Paloh, National Awakening Party (PKB) Chairperson Muhaimin Iskandar, Justice and Prosperity Party (PKS) President Ahmad Syaikhu and United Development Party (PPP) Chairperson Muhammad Mardiono. In ...
Evicting more people from state housing is ignorant to the consequences of poverty, the Greens say, but the Housing Minister says it's a privilege that can be taken away if abused. ...
Evicting more people from state housing is ignorant to the consequences of poverty, the Greens say, but the Housing Minister says it's a privilege that can be taken away if abused. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emerald L King, Lecturer in Humanities, University of Tasmania IMDB Between Netflix’s 2023 live-action version of One Piece, and its latest take on Avatar: The Last Airbender, fans are once again asking: why are live-action anime adaptations so tricky to ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emerald L King, Lecturer in Humanities, University of Tasmania IMDB Between Netflix’s 2023 live-action version of One Piece, and its latest take on Avatar: The Last Airbender, fans are once again asking: why are live-action anime adaptations so tricky to ...
The government says it still intends to deliver tax cuts by July, but will not lock them in until they have got them past their coalition partners. ...
Kiingi Tuheitia Pootatau Te Wherowhero VII has hosted members of the Green Party Caucus at Tuurangawaewae Marae in Ngaaruawahia. The audience follows the King’s Hui-aa-Motu on 20 January, where more than 10,000 people gathered to discuss national ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dr Rachael Potter, Research Associate and Lecturer in Work and Organisational Psychology, University of South Australia Ground Picture/Shutterstock Pregnant women and workers with children are often unfairly treated by their bosses and colleagues, despite laws to protect against workplace discrimination ...
Reacting to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s refusal to rule out introducing new taxes at the budget, Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Connor Molloy, said: “Today’s refusal to rule out new taxes suggests the Government is nothing more ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Duckett, Honorary Enterprise Professor, School of Population and Global Health, and Department of General Practice and Primary Care, The University of Melbourne Aila Images/Shutterstock Aged-care workers will receive a significant pay increase after the Fair Work Commission ruled they ...
He’s bringing ‘Sophie’ back, yeah. Goodshirt’s ‘Sophie’ music video is one of the most instantly recognisable New Zealand music videos of all time. Featuring a woman listening to the song on headphones while her entire house is burgled behind her, the video won the New Zealand music award for Best ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University A year ago, the AUKUS agreement was formally announced between Australian and UK Prime Ministers Anthony Albanese and Rishi Sunak and US President Joe Biden. The agreement mapped out the “optimal ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andreas Helwig, Associate Professor, Electro-Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern Queensland SmartS/Shutterstock Steam locomotives clattering along railway tracks. Paddle steamers churning down the Murray. Dreadnought battleships powered by steam engines. Many of us think the age of steam has ended. ...
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carrie Leonetti, Associate Professor of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau Victims who experience family violence in Aotearoa New Zealand are treated differently, depending on which part of the justice system they turn to for help. But a new member’s bill ...
As much as left Govt. critics are essentially snookered by the demonstrable “lesser of two evils” scenario, and the 30 year old major party neo liberal consensus–militate for change we must.
Benefit (Job Seeker Allowance) 13 week stand down period for Forest industry workers displaced by International virus blowback is not going to be shifted according to Mr Robertson.
Floods or droughts see millions in largesse for the farming community, but working class people living week to week get no consideration under Labour’s hard neo liberal approach to welfare–dating back to Helen Clark’s punitive “Jobs Jolt”.
“Work will set you free” is still WINZ/MSD sadistic approach. Even though the nature of 21st Century work has totally changed since the 1964 Social Security Act and there is little non precarious, viable work! Yes, I have seen the Labour “Future of Work” talk fest documents and they are full of it. We need UBI now. In the interim no stand downs or sanctions or abatements for any beneficiary. Carmel Sepuloni is another apologist that should hang her head in shame.
When Labour comes knocking very shortly for votes they should think about growing the working class vote rather appeasing middle class welfare recipients such as neo rentiers.
Who does Robertson think he is impressing really? The answer I guess has been known for years.
UBI without welfare bolted on will be a disaster for many people, especially disabled people, and young mums. Doubly so under National.
Not advocating welfare be ended with introduction of some form of UBI.
Do support making Govt. payments/tax adjustments unique to holder regardless of relationships, and dropping the abatement rate poverty traps. And it would be nice to see the top echelons of WINZ/MSD reapply for their jobs, and sent packing.
The problem is that all the NZ UBI models are based around no welfare or haven't solved the welfare issue, and when people start talking about UBI it tends to get left out of the conversation.
Agreed that so many things are wrong with how MSD/WINZ are doing welfare, lots needs sorting out there.
Fair enough point. There is no universally agreed UBI definition (no pun etc.) for what people mean by the term. Welfare absolutely should be retained–but benefit stigma and appalling treating of disabled and long term ill in particular should cease.
A difficult problem to solve while private landlords run riot and utility costs rise. Fare free public transport and free Wi-fi nationwide and a massive public housing build would provide a better setting for a discussion on UBI/Welfare/Superannuation! But what Govt. would go there just yet.
I've got a post on UBI nearly ready to go up. I don't go into the housing crisis, but it's definitely the thing that's makes all other problems very hard to solve.
That doesn't sound right at all. The stand down periods are individually worked out and can be assessed here: https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/online-services/apply/what-is-a-stand-down.html#null Go to: work out how long your stand down is.
The 13 weeks is a maximum applying to people that have recently been in work and have left for reasons that do not satisfy WINZ/MSD. But, if you are taking a personal grievance etc. for say claimed unjustified dismissal, stand downs may be waived.
I based my comment on the The Forest Industry Contractors Assn call on the Minister.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018735806/covid-19-forestry-industry-calls-for-benefit-stand-down-exemption
Dealing with WINZ/MSD is a fraught process for most that encounter it. Because something is in the legislation does not mean it will necessarily applied to individuals.
I am pointing to the difference between automatic verbal assurances for Farmers in weather events and the the recalcitrance here. Robertson just has to say–“no one out of work due to Covid 19 related reasons will be stood down or denied a benefit” there, not so hard is it?
The 13 week period came from the mouth of Shane Jones. I bet it is not 13 weeks, and these people are now getting a taste of reality for many – officious asshats who act like you are a criminal for having needs. These mongrels are still thick on the ground in WINZ despite the call for kindness. Maybe these workers do need an advocate, as they've thrown their toys out of the cot at round one. Got the media involved, Shane’s there… I see no reason to make blanket reassurances we have no idea of the length and scope of the virus epidemiology yet.
i had a very abusive boss once in NZ, the guy got taken weekly to the employment court and i am not joking here. when i went to winz to ask what would happen if i would quit my employment with this person i was told that i would be stood down for 12 weeks as a boss who is a known bully – inclusive sexual and racist abuse – was no reason for anyone to quit a job.
So yes, this it not something Shane Jones makes up (even if it might fit the narrative that all the fuck ups ofthe kinder gentler bullshit goverment currently running the show is the fault of NZ First), this is something that everyone who loses their employment or wants to quit for reasons not acceptable by our Tory leader ship (again, blue, green, red, nary a difference) needs to keep in mind.
So you might want to consider what you are betting on.
https://www.cab.org.nz/article/KB00001934
They may use 'may', but generally speaking do not quit your job unless you have enough resources to last 15 weeks, no matter how abusive your work place, how dangerous, how fucked up. Because you.will.be.stood.down. And the current lot Red/Green/Black has done absolutly nothing to change that. Kinder, gentler, bullshit.
Did the forestry workers quit their jobs? Big difference to being laid off or put on hold. Shane pulled the largest 13 week figure out from the documentation, I still see no evidence this is the actual case.
Sorry about your nasty boss. most of us have worked for a mongrel or three. You need unions involved with bad bosses or you're on your own, unfortunately.
Yip .
I watched Robinson say the other day that they would try repurpose (my word but that was th general drift) forestry workers who have been stood down . And I I thought fuck you . Your a fucking labour party . How about forcing the forestry industry to gaurentee workers wages for 52 weeks of the year you gutless cunt.
Atleast national are honest we know they hate the working man.
To me this strongly depends on the implementation Robertson is thinking about. The govts tree planting program could use some capable labour.
Ultimately I don't think that any business can guarantee work for all its employees full time. There will be periods when available work is insufficient for all who want to be employed. To resolve this the govt should implement a job guarantee. We already implement a similar buffer stock policy actually through treasury and RBNZ unemployment rate targets but instead of maintaining the work skills of those who endup without work we let their willing contributions go to waste.
Yeah na
Your part of the problem obviously.
Logging is a full time job in all but name .
You show me another fulltime employment industry where the bosses can just shut the gates and send you home with your last paycheck while expecting you to come back as soon as things pick up .
Bit confused about what your tilting at. Is it the idea of more trees?
No it's the fact that forestry workers are treated like shit .
Absolutely no safeguards or security to their employment.
But allgood they can just up sticks and pick fruit according to Robertson.
I agree with everything you're saying about benefits and a UBI but saw an opportunity to say something about the draconian, unfair, but legal 13-week stand down.
There's no automatic 13-week stand down for forestry workers or anyone else affected by job-loss caused by coronavirus. The 13-week stand down only applies if the person, any person applying for the equivalent of the unemployment benefit (whatever it’s called right now) leaves their job without good and sufficient reason or is sacked for misconduct. This is what the Act says, but I accept the practice is different.
Good and sufficient reason must take account of the person's circumstances, such as child care responsibilities, transport difficulties, whether the employment relationship breaks down and the person resigns: anything that affects the person's ability to continue in the employment. Good and sufficient isn't about the subjective views of the decision-maker, which unfortunately too many decisions are based on.
Similarly, misconduct means gross misconduct. It doesn't simply mean being sacked because an employer wants to do that, or thinks the reason for the dismissal is justified. In other words, it's not the opinion of the employer that's relevant to whether a stand down is imposed. And contrary to popular belief, a PG does not have to be taken in order for a benefit to be paid in instances where the person has lost their job because of misconduct, despite MSD staff often insisting that it must.
Stand-downs are a bit like current benefit levels: frittering around the edges makes life better for some people, but really we need to lock minimum benefit levels to a fair proportion of median income and get rid of stand-downs altogether.
t's important to remember that bad implementations of UBI are possible, and in fact more likely than good ones under current conditions. It is a tool not an end in itself. Oops, answer to weka at 2.1
Any UBI implementation provides more income to those who are in work as well as those on welfare. But if the intention is to bolster the income of people on welfare then just improving the welfare rates and associated regressive policies seems to be better targeted.
A job guarantee is a technically better policy, as it helps with some of the difficulties caused to people finding a job without a solid employment history.
Its also worth acknowledging that the unemployment rate is always an artifact of official govt policy.
Any UBI implementation provides more income to those who are in work as well as those on welfare.
Not if you adjust PAYE tax rates to balance things out at the same time. I agree with AB that bad implementations are perfectly possible, indeed in general it's way easier to fuck things up than get them right, but the principle of universality is a good one worth aiming for.
At the moment we still treat welfare as something you have to 'deserve', and then intrusively impose bureaucratic judgements that most people find debilitating and destructive in the long run. It's fundamentally counterproductive.
In pragmatic terms I'm open to the idea of introducing a UBI very incrementally. There is no reason why it could be be initially set at quite a low number like $5kpa as a sort of 'tax free income threshold' while retaining much of the existing system. Then over a period of a decade or so we could annually move the UBI up and slowly adapt the existing systems to incorporate it, until eventually we reduced targeted benefits to the minimum judged necessary. It would be a process, not an event.
This would allow the economy time to rebalance, discover any bugs, and create the opportunity to mitigate any issues that arose.
When I mentioned that a UBI helps those in work and out I was indicating those on low income vs existing welfare. Creating a more steep income step between welfare and work seems problematic to me.
And the intro of a tax free threshold doesn't help anybody with no income. All the UBI proposals I have seen discussed are talking about replacing benefit regimes (so to make them universal and unregressive) here but it seems that concept should be discarded as a part now?
As far as i can see its obvious how to resolve the issues with welfare regimes, but not so for any UBI proposals.
Creating a more steep income step between welfare and work seems problematic to me.
One of the great virtues of a UBI is it can eliminate that 'step' altogether. Ideally you want the settings to work so that everyone has access to the base UBI, and any income earned above this is taxed at a smooth and reasonable rate.
One of the big intractable issues with targeted welfare is that inevitably as a person earns even a small amount, it's necessary to claw back their benefit at very high marginal tax rates. This creates a huge disincentive.
And the intro of a tax free threshold doesn't help anybody with no income.
Well as I explicitly said, a low UBI of say $5kpa is only 'sort of' like a tax free income band, but with the added bonus that it helps everyone regardless of whether they have an income or not.
All the UBI proposals I have seen discussed are talking about replacing benefit regimes (so to make them universal and unregressive) here but it seems that concept should be discarded as a part now?
While most UBI advocates argue for a technically clean system for the sake of argument, reality is messy and it's probably not desirable to impose purity for just ideological reasons. I'm open to keeping a targeted benefit system during an extended transition period, and hopefully finishing up with the best of both approaches in the long run.
Why would you want to eliminate that step?
I guess this is one of the major differences between left and right. The right always are going to believe that paid work should be significantly better paid than welfare. Not just in respect of the costs of work (travel, food, etc) but also to show the work is more beneficial to both society and the individual.
If the only benefit is pay, then the work isn't beneficial to people. The money is.
The right think that people need to be bullied into work, so people not in work should live in hardship.
The left know that if there is work in a good team with a competent boss who treats them with respect, people will want to do it.
Additionally, when the economy is structured around maintaining a level of unemployment to avoid inflation, unemployed people are victims of that structural feature.
Apologies … I expressed that too cryptically and I think you misunderstood.
The problem I was referring to was the well known poverty trap that occurs when a beneficiary starts to move back into paid work, often part time or casual.
Their new income isn't enough to live on, so they still need some state support. Typically what happens though is that support is taxed at very high marginal rates, otherwise you would finish up in the inequitable position that someone working full time alongside them might easily finish up on a lower net income.
Then you get the impact of stand-down periods if the new job doesn't work out for some reason. Or you have to shift for family reasons. And the very low partner qualifying income in this country also works against families.
The overall problem is that while benefits are damned miserable in this country, the median wage isn't much better. And this makes transitioning from one to the other problematic. You can easily find yourself working 20 or 30 hours a week, and by the time you take the costs and lost opportunity into account, you aren't much better off. This is the disincentive I was mentioning.
Essentially a decently designed UBI eliminates issues at root.
The mythical incentive gap is completely beside the point Wayne. Due to errors (inefficiencies if you like) in the Govts economic policy handling there are just not regularly enough of the kinds of jobs such that everyone is employed. Only govt policy could possibly reliably solve that but instead we leave it to the market with occasional nudges to monetary and fiscal policy (for better or sometimes worse).
The policy which maintains this is a blight. Its also the single biggest source of waste in the economy.
I agree workers should be compensated and not so insignificantly they're comparable to benefits. But also, benefits are meant to bridge a gap in employment not drive people into poverty. So both minimum wage and benefits need to be increased.
True. In a similar vein, what is the rationale for returns on capital being better rewarded than paid work?
I don't think we are quite discussing the income step in equivalent terms. I am suggesting there are 3 regimes being discussed, 1) welfare & work (present) 2) UBI & work and 3) UBI & welfare & work. Of these 2 can be problematic because those out of work will be on the UBI only and that will be too low to live on by itself. 3 will be less problematic but relative to 1 the difference between welfare and work will be whatever income is shifted out of welfare to the universal UBI payments. This seems to be making people in welfare significantly worse off from a bad starting point. This is also the nature of the UBI proposals I have seen. Simply making the benefit regime universally available to the unemployed would get that solved relatively simply on the other hand.
Sadly the fact remains that ALL the solutions are long term and the patience (within the electorate) is not there….we have created a substantial pool of individuals who are not only not productive but will be negatively productive for some considerable period…..a UBI will not turn that around, especially one at any sort of affordable level….when one considers what determines our purchasing power internationally.
Not consigning this group to perpetual poverty would be a good start
The two main UBI advocates, that I know of, are Gareth Morgan and Keith Rankin. Both advocate coupling it wit a flat tax rate – Morgan, 30%, and Rankin, 35%. Morgan suggested a UBI of $11,000 pa, while Rankin suggested $200 pw. The main difference between the two was Morgan saw a UBI as largely replacing welfare, while Rankin would keep the welfare system intact.
Taking Morgans suggestions one sees that someone on an income of $50,000 pa would pay $15,000 in tax but would be receiving $11,000 UBI from the government; so his net payment to the government would be $4,000 which, on an income of $50,000, is equivalent to a tax rate of 8%. On the other hand someone on $20,000 would pay $6,000 in tax and receive $11,000 by way of UBI. Therefore he/she is receiving a net payment from the government of $5,000 – he is, in effect, benefiting from the equivalent of a negative income tax.
Similar calculations at other income levels would show that a UBI coupled with a flat tax is equivalent to a progressive tax system.
it is not and we have been there before
We have a UBI now for old people. It's called NZS and plenty of them choose to work or not and we pull some of that money back through the tax system due to the higher earnings they earn on top of their super. They have absolute freedom to choose to work or not.
We could start by reducing the NZS age back to 60 and lifting the top tax rate a little to help pay for it.
The miracle of metamorphosis from whence a bludger is reborn as a deserved and revered taxpayer that currently exists at 65 could be even more useful at 60 – especially for those – often Maori – who don't reach 65.
The removal of cheap labour through a UBI would also mean more investment in high quality jobs, robotics, etc. to increase New Zealand's productivity.
We don't need more low paid jobs e.g. cafes and restaurants, picking fruit, shop assistants, tourism, etc.
The biggest emerging factor is in my view the inherent racism in the labour market. New Zealand has an older declining European workforce and an increasing young Maori workforce.
If we want to be successful in the future we have to be investing in young Maori. No ifs, no buts.
To do that we have to address the poverty issue and quickly.
To do that we should at least put benefit rates back to the same rate as NZS- immediately and without any fuss. Get rid of the youth rate as well.
For those who don't believe the rates were the same here's the rates from 1976.
UB 18+ unmarried $28-75
NZS unmarried person $28-75
Today it is
UB 18+ single at home $145-98
UB 18 – 24 single not at home $182-47
UB 25+ single at home $218-98
NZS single living alone $411-15
NZS sharing $379-52
It is completely disgusting that we have gone from 100% equivalence to having such a wide disparity in the way we treat our most vulnerable.
Wayne's notion of keeping a gap between benefits and wages in order to encourage people to work reinforces how much of a lie it was that giving tax cuts to employers would mean they would be able to pay workers more. One of the many big economic lies. If they had passed those tax cuts onto workers then benefits would not need to have been kept so low.
It as big a lie as increased productivity leads to more work/jobs. Increased productivity can only lead to less jobs – if you had 10 people making widgets and they increased their output then you wouldn't need 10 people. Increased productivity will make you more efficient and competitive and be able to produce things at a lower cost but this is all in vain if you can't actually sell more product. It like orchardists planting heaps more apple trees and having no markets to sell them in.
Companies that stay around and are big innovate – not just rely on low wages to make the bottom line look better.
There is no rational reason to keep benefit rates low really. It actually stifles productivity and innovation and maintains rubbish employers.
do the numbers….there are roughly 4 million kiwis over the age of 18. If you are not going to reduce the income of super annuitants then you have a gross annual out going of around 85 billion pa for a UBI…current total tax take is around 93 billion
Umm I was suggesting only four things. Increasing benefit rates to the NZS rates, dropping NZS down to 60 again and increasing the tax rate at the top to get more of the NZS back for those for whom NZS+work equals a high income.
Didn't suggest a UBI for everyone.
Tell me why do most NZS recipients work – because A they have to or B – because they want to.
Agree benefit rate needs to be increased….though so much damage has been done that wont solve the problems.
A 60 retirement option while sensible IMO would be a hard political sell….esp given the rhetoric over the past cpl decades.
A more progressive tax system with substantial clawback for exceedingly high salaries a no brainer.
Dont know that 'most' NZS recipients do work…though of those that do I suspect a good proportion of them do so because they have to
The "most" referred to of those that work why do most do so, rather than suggesting that the majority of all NZS recipients work.
While looking around you isn’t a good way of measuring things nearly all the people I know on super working don’t have to. The ones that do are generally raising their grandchildren and in general are Maori.
Assuming a tax rate of, say, 20%, a tax-free zone of $5,000 would amount to a UBI of $1,000 per year.
or around 20 dollars a week…or 3.5 cafe coffees
I'm in two minds about the 90 day notice for rentals especially reading this.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/119787941/landlords-battle-to-get-tenants-to-leave-property
I'd like to know how long the family had been there and when the present owners bought the property.
It matters because by the look of it that is a troubled family requiring significant support. If they had been living in that property for many years with the previous owner and the Tuffleys bought it and kicked them out immediately that suggests an absence of duty of care. People with high needs like that can’t just up-sticks and go find another rental.
We hear from landlords all the time what a kind, caring social service they provide the country's poorest but if the situation I have described above is true then that doesn't fit.
The Tuffleys look like developers to me rather than landlords (the clue is in the company name) and the 'no cause' legislation is designed to make sure landlords and developers do follow a duty of care to their vulnerable tenants which has not been the case for decades now.
Time for landlords to show themselves to be what they claim they are.
We have a similar (although not quite as bad) tenant for the past 10 years. The property manager routinely asks that we invoke the 90 day eviction, and we probably should have. The place is going to cost us a bomb to fix when the day of reckoning arrives. Probably several years worth of rent.
We also had a similar case where one tenant is a block of three began disturbing the other two neighbours. We lost three good tenants before we were able to finally get her to move on, again a costly and frustrating exercise. And all this was before the proposed legislation that will make the process even harder.
While it's all very well and good to stand up for the rights of the weak and dysfunctional, but very often their failures have consequences for everyone else around them that cannot be ignored.
In this case the Tuffleys are planning to demolish the existing end of life building and replace it with four new townhouses … and increasing the supply of homes in the area. But instead of being supported in this, they're somehow made into the villans.
As for the existing tenants; I've always been 100% crystal clear on this … around 10-15% of the population simply need social housing. Period.
The Tuffleys in that article are not being made into villains, they are clearly pictured as the victims.
Not arguing against knocking down that house and building townhouses – that is a good thing.
But, the difficulty in this case seems to be a failure in the court and tribunal system rather than the legislation itself. If you are going to be a developer you can't cry about not being able to afford a lawyer to action existing pro-landlord rules! That seems weird to me.
As far as I can see the new legislation would require three instances of adverse behaviour to be lodged then the 90 day order can be applied. Pretty simple I would have thought.
As is stands now no proof of adverse behaviour is required – no reason at all.
The other thing I hope the new law will do is for landlords who are kicking their tenants out for whatever reason to explore their duty of care.
Finally, in your first example you say it’s going to cost several years worth of rent to fix the house. National median rent for 1-2 bedrooms is $390/week so “several years” (3.5 to be generous) is $70,000.
What did they do, burn it down?
If you are going to be a developer you can't cry about not being able to afford a lawyer to action existing pro-landlord rules!
Not all developers are wealthy people and are by definition almost always short of cash; especially on your first few projects.Good lawyers are very expensive; $10,000 can get gobbled up without blinking.
There is no doubt in my mind these tenants have totally abused the property, they have abused the process and no-one, not even the taxpayer, can be blamed for not wanting give them have a house they will almost certainly wreck. High needs or not, they pretty much have themselves to blame for the mess they're literally in.
As far as I can see the new legislation would require three instances of adverse behaviour to be lodged then the 90 day order can be applied.
That is almost exactly the process we went through with the paranoid tenant I mentioned above. We gave her multiple chances over the period of two years, but each time she backslid and caused another tenant to leave.
We are not social workers, and we have no capacity to determine a person's state of mind, and gathering evidence of adverse behaviour, when often it's covert and the perpetrator denies it vehemently, is also fraught. Most people want nothing to do with this kind of crap and just move on as soon as they can. You get a verbal complaint from them, but getting them to write something down and sign it is much harder. They don’t want to get involved because.
In the end it took us over two years from the first doubts, through multiple attempts at exercising our 'duty of care', to finally evicting her. We absolutely did not enjoy the process as we also had considerable empathy for her position; yet in the end we could not tolerate her persistent interference with other tenants. Issuing a 90 day notice without reason was our last resort, but necessary. Imagining any of this is 'easy' is only possible if you haven't been in this position.
(Incidentally here in Australia as tenants ourselves we were on the receiving end of a similarly paranoid neighbour who caused my partner a lot of stress. By contrast to NZ we had recourse to a very efficient Court process that allowed us to make a formal complaint about the behaviour without dumping the problem onto the landlord. It worked very well I have to say.)
Let me clear. Of the roughly 50 tenants who have rented our homes in the past 20 years, exactly 5 of them … ie 10% … have created significant problems. This is about industry average over that period. Ultimately this is why property owners are increasingly turning to professional managers who dispassionate and efficient in dealing with these issues. It's also partly why your rent keeps going up.
You don't know whether I pay rent or not. I hope you are not fishing for personal information.
No I am not. It has been my own choice to be transparent about my personal interest and stake in this debate over many years now … but what you say about your position is entirely up to you.
Yes I can see this new rule could be a problem especially where there is a block of 3 flats joined and the middle tenant likes wild parties and has unsavoury people turning up at all hours. The front and back tenants are more likely to just move on ASAP than get involved in having to make complaints etc to landlord and the landlord will likely lose two good tenants (and have trouble replacing them).
Well yes. Landlords do have an obligation to ensure the tenant has 'quiet enjoyment' of their home. But how to handle this when other tenants compromise this? It can rapidly become very messy.
Of the 50 odd tenants in our experience, we have used the 90 day order on one of them, and will eventually need to on another. That's 4% of all our tenants and similar to the 3% of all tenants who are issued eviction notices annually. It's reasonable to think a majority of evictions are done for good and proper reasons.
No reasonable person enjoys being on either end of the process, but one of the hard lessons we've been slow to learn is that when the landlord/tenant relationship goes south for whatever reason, it's usually best to get to a clean break earlier rather than later.
Perhaps, but my original point was did the Tuffleys know this when they bought the property. Reading between the lines it looks like they are recent purchasers, while that family has been there some time. They would have known what they bought.
Afraid I just don't buy the 'we were going to move in there before they wrecked it' line which has been fed the writer of the article and to us, the public. They are "Tuffley Developments" after all.
Afraid I just don't buy the 'we were going to move in there before they wrecked it'
I can easily imagine just this happening. For a period of five years we lived in the worst of our units while we were doing up the other three in the group (and while I worked a more than full-time job).
Developing is not just a matter of clearing the land and plonking up some houses. It typically takes around 18 – 36 months of planning, permitting, funding and organising before so much as a spade gets looked at. It's entirely plausible the Tuffley's were intending to live in the old house to minimise their cash flow until they could start building. It's what I'd likely do.
And it's my reading of the story that while it was a definitely a mess before they bought it, the tenants made an extra effort to trash the place after the eviction process started. That's always the big reason why landlords often don't evict when unless they really have to … the frequency of vengeful tenants taking it out on the property while not especially high, is not zero either.
There is no reasonable expectation the tenant has a right to live in an end of life house indefinitely. It was time to demolish it and replace it with something better.
Your quote:
Which line in the article leads you to believe this? Is it this from Leanne Tuffley:
Umm. Anyone looking at those pictures will not believe that 'an effort to trash the place' dragged the value of the house down anymore than it was already.
Also, how do these statements match up? From the writer of the article:
and from Adrian Tuffley:
And here is Leanne again:
But they weren't being residential landlords in this case, they were being developers who kicked high needs, long term tenants out on the street. And they bought the house with full knowledge of the state of it.
Look at the pictures, that didn't happen since October 2019.
The article is just horror-tenant-porn for consumption by the land-owning class. Not saying Susan Edmunds doesn’t about bad landlords, she does, but this one is pure sneering at vulnerable people.
I would guess the old owner had decided that the house was end of life and no longer economic to bring up to current standards and decided to sell.
The new owners clearly never intended to rent it out; but because the sale came with the tenants in-place they were forced into the role as landlords, at least temporarily, while the 90 day order was implemented. This is a novice mistake, no experienced developer would make because of exactly this kind of hazard. And the sort of problem real landlords like myself do have to confront. The idea that it's some kind of made up horror-tenant-porn is bullshit.
And I'm not quibbling with you about this family being 'high needs'. That is what social housing is for. The real question has to be, why didn't HNZ assist them as soon as the 90 day notice came up?
It's what I hope the new legislation will do. Help encourage landlords to take more of an interest in their tenants' affairs rather than serving up 42 or 90 day notices when they feel like it.
Perhaps this could take the form of them involving HNZ early and helping make the transition for a high needs family less traumatic.
As I said before we do hear a lot about the social service NZ amateur landlord provide for renting Kiwis. I think they need to show it a bit more.
You said before it’s not the job of a landlord to be social worker. Perhaps not but they should show more of an interest than the Tuffleys did.
Edit: Newshub say Tuffley Developments Ltd bought the property in December 2018.
Edit again:
Removed the link to the Newshub article. They have plastered the Tribunal decision at the top of the article. Wankers.
Help encourage landlords to take more of an interest in their tenants' affairs
I hear you; it's a temptation we've fallen into a number of times now and sadly I have to report that it has bitten us firmly on the arse every single damned time. It is very, very difficult to help people until they are willing to take responsibility for their problems.
rather than serving up 42 or 90 day notices when they feel like it.
And while I can only speak directly for myself, I think most landlords are reasonable people and only resort to eviction notices with good reason. If the tenant is paying the rent, looking after the place and there is no adverse behaviour causing problems … then why would you? Far better to keep good people you know in place than taking on new tenants who are an unknown risk. There is simply no sane motivation to do it on an arbitrary or whimsical basis.
Edit: In this case the reason is clear; the house was no longer capable of economically meeting the new rental standards and it was going to be demolished to make way for four new units. That seems reasonable to me.
The flipping of properties is one big reason why they issue eviction notices. Nothing to do with perfectly good tenants and it happens a lot although I assume less so recently with bright line tests and the Asian money out of the market.
This behaviour damages the stability of local communities.
The flipping of properties is one big reason why they issue eviction notices.
Yes I can accept this is a factor, but exactly how to deal with it? I've always maintained there is a real difference between landlords who buy, build or rennovate and hold long term, and investors who I agree are prone to 'flipping'. But determining the difference isn't easy.
How to deal with a landlord who decides on retirement to sell several units they've held for decades to retire their debt? Is this flipping? Or an owner in their 80's who have decided they want out of the business? And so on; people sell for good reasons.
And new owners may well want to develop the potential of the property for all sorts of good reasons, and existing tenants simply don't fit.
Yet the point you make is a decent one; there isn't any reason to evict a good tenant just because of a sale. It should need some justification beyond that. Perhaps one way forward would be to give existing tenants 'first right of refusal' on any new tenancy that arises after a sale.
Interesting. Is their tenancy law set up quite differently?
The house is in a regional town well below that median. Our net cash flow from it after rates, insurance, maintenance and sundries (but before tax and interest) is about $10k pa. As a rough guess we're going to have to spend at least $20k on it to get it back to scratch.
"I'm in two minds about the 90 day notice for rentals especially reading this."
Maybe landlords should give people a decent amount of time to vacate their home, just a thought. Or god forbid, negotiate with the tenants. Lots of places 90 days isn't long enough to find somewhere else suitable. Thanks housing crisis.
I think in this case if the article is correct, even if they had given six months or a years notice by the look of the photos, they were going to have problems.
Out of interest, what do you think a decent notice period would be for a rental?
I think it depends on the tenants and their situation and needs. A family with kids in a local school have a different set of needs than an itinerant worker. Hence my suggestion about negotiating rather than just relying on law.
We haven't heard the side of the story from the tenants in that situation, so there is no way to know how it might have played out differently. My comment was more general.
I suspect that the landlords in that case were getting bad advice about process.
I think it should also depend on the landlord's situation and needs (as well as tenants). So if the tenant is a family with children that have just started attending a local high school, eg. year 9 (old third form) , what do you consider is a reasonable notice period? (I agree 90 days is very short time to up sticks and find replacement) are you thinking more like six months or a year?
True, but then I don't consider someone wanting to buy a property to develop it a very high priority compared to someone's need for a home.
If you are asking what I think the legally defined notice period should be, I don't know and I would guess what is reasonable will largely depend on the rentals available that will vary a lot by area.
I'd prefer to see a national discussion about how to shift NZ towards the right to home culture that is needed to solve the housing crisis. Rental notices are part of that for sure.
And doesn't really matter if they wreck the house – it's being pulled down. One of my favorite landlords was going to pull down the house we were living in when we vacated. Gave us a years notice and told us to happily rip up the verandah, floorboards and anything else we saw fit to burn in the fireplace over the winter. Was only half a house by the time we left.
We had no firewood costs for the winter and he'd had some free demolition. Great fun was had by all.
But these days that would be illegal, the landlord would be exposing themselves to big fines in the Tenancy Tribunal for renting out a house that was no longer fit for habitation.
Good point though we would never have taken them to the tribunal and the decrepit state of many rental properties doesn’t give me any faith that councils take any responsibility for enforcing building codes in rental properties.
Duncan Garner believes the international view of the Prime Minister is:
That'll be why United Arab Emirates projected her image on their flagship building last year. Because they are kids being read a picture book.
Duncan seems upset international viewers only see the warm, sincere, compassionate, socially responsible, people-focussed leadership and are blind to Jacinda Ardern's devious economy-wrecking programs which will apparently bring New Zealand to its knees.
He thinks their view is a shallow view of Ardern and following on from that Duncan must think the PM herself is shallow.
Let's look at shallow. Let's look at cringe appearances on Letterman. Let's look at doing interviews at APEC in a bathrobe, and mincing down a catwalk. Let's look at pulling the pony-tails of adult women, and doing prison-rape jokes on the radio.
I’ll take the world media view of Jacinda Ardern over what they saw of John Key any day.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/02/overseas-views-of-jacinda-ardern-as-a-hero-are-shallow-duncan-garner.html
I wonder if we will ever get comments from a proper US President and an Australian PM to match what Turnbull and Obama had to say about John Key?
From the other side of the ditch we had "I do. He is a real role model."
From the other side of the Pacific we got "Nah, he's a wonderful guy. He and I have become good friends and not just because we play golf together."
Somehow I don't think those sort of comments will ever be said about Ms Ardern. Still with a nutter like Trump in the White House anything could happen. He might decide he likes some aspect of the lady.
I think those sentiments will have helped New Zealand more than appearances on the front of the women's magazines.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/74225621/john-key-praise-from-barack-obama-reflects-genuine-friendship
That damn woman's magazine "Time". Such a frivolous load of woman's nonsense. My god, we are going to be exhausted turning all these magazines around on the shelves eh, Alwyn. /Sarc
You would think that.
I don't think there's any disputing Ardern has far, far more international profile and influence than Key.
Key appealed to right-wing Australia only, and his friendship with Obama was for diplomatic optics only. Duncan Garner might describe it as "shallow".
It's long been known that Winston (and therefore NZ First) has advocated for fishing interests, and has received donations from Talleys, so this isn't much of a revelation.
And this has created a clash between NZ First and Green policies on fishing and on the Kermadec sanctuary.
Which adds to other significant differences between Greens and NZ First, and there are increasing signs that Winston is walking all over the meek Green leadership. The EV rebate is one of the latest examples.
Sue Bradford still shows that old green trait of integrity in Donations & Loss Of Property Rights Means Racing Bill Should Be Withdrawn Immediately
The current Green Party didn't put up a speaker and voted for the first reading,. It looks like they have rolled over for NZ First again.
Green supporters keep reiterating how strongly they are opposed to doing any sort of governing deal with National. See https://thestandard.org.nz/wtaf-nz-first/#comment-1686694
Will the Green membership likewise rule out any future deals giving NZ First disproportionate power, which includes the power to ignore governing agreements and sideline the Greens?
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
But if Greens keep wimping along until the election I think there's good chance they won't have to make decision, voters will have decided for them they don't deserve to continue.
What are you saying? Loyal Green voters will desert the party and vote for another party or not vote at all? And how will this help anybody? Sounds like a vengeful reaction one would expect from a petulant child 😉
Not saying anything like that.
I just wonder why Green supporters seem not as staunch at opposing governing with NZ First as they are with National.
I understand they were keen to have a go at being a part of a government. But it looks like they have been burnt by NZ First. Have they learnt any lessons from this? Or do they just have no idea how to deal with it?
So, what are you saying then, in practical terms about people who voted for the Greens in 2017?
I read a lot of words (AKA hot air) but you don’t seem to be saying much.
Try reading what I say rather than what you imagine then.
I said Green membership (not voters), who are said to make key decisions in the party, and who chose to not do any governing arrangement with National. As per weka's comment and link:
Currently James Shaw and the Green Party are being criticised (mostly from the left from what I see).
I think they will improve their chances of surviving the election (in Parliament) if they show some backbone and principles and stopped being walked over by NZ First.
I won't vote for Greens going by their current performance. If they made it clear they disapproved of a number of things NZ First have been doing, like reneging on policy support and abusing the donations procedures I would seriously consider voting for them.
Greens need to differentiate and go back to principles of integrity or on top of being walked over they risk getting dragged down by the threshold gurgler by NZ First.
Hi Pete, I’ll get my eyes checked because this is what I read @ 5.1:
You won’t vote for the Greens and you think other loyal supporters won’t (shouldn’t?) either. This is your practical advice and prediction for the coming election, yes?
To me it sounds like you’re saying that people who formerly voted for the Greens should walk over or away from the party this election unless they stop being ‘wimpy’ and being walked over by NZF? Am I getting this correct or am I imagining it?
You're 'imagining' quite a bit again.
I could vote for the Greens, but not if they wimp along like they are currently.
I expect loyal supporters will continue to vote Greens regardless (or abstain from voting) and I'm not giving them any advice on voting, but there may be less than 5% of them.
When Greens like McDonald and Bradford express concerns about how the Greens are conducting themselves I think they have a real problem. If they don't address it they could miss the cut this election.
That would increase the chances of a National government next term (I won't vote for National under Bridges' leadership as they are going at the moment).
Pretty much what I
imaginedsaid then.I’m glad that you cleared that up, for your decision to not vote for the Greens, and for your prediction that “there may be less than 5% of them”, meaning votes.
It is up to the voters to follow your footsteps (not "advice") and “increase the chances of a National government next term”.
I have cancelled my appointment with the optometrist; there’s nothing wrong with my reading, as it turns out.
You're getting it wrong again. Are you just trying to stir or something?
I haven't made a decision not to vote for the Greens. I made that clear.
I'm not predicting the will get less than 5%. It's an obvious possibility that Greens are concerned about.
"I won’t lie, the last two polls aren’t looking good for us. Last night’s poll marks the second in a row that indicate we are at risk of falling below the 5% threshold." – email from Green Party Campaign Director 14 February.
You really do have a comprehension problem, unless you're deliberately misrepresenting what I've said.
Not stirring, just getting you to be unambiguous, if not for yourself then at least for the readers here.
Your vote for the Greens is conditional on them stopping “wimping”, yes?
A possibility is a prediction of sorts; it could or might happen does not mean it will happen. An analogy: there’s a 60% chance that it will rain tomorrow. Is that a possibility, a forecast, a prediction, or all of the above? Don’t think only in absolute terms.
The voters can do what you do or they can stay unconditionally loyal to the Greens because the alternative (i.e. consequence) of doing what you might do is that they will be out of Parliament after the election. And you still haven’t answered how this would help anybody (except National). Do you expect other voters to behave differently from you?
Please point out where I’m misrepresenting you. I’m trying to point the consequences of your thinking and possible action as expressed so clearly in your comments here.
At least this thread is now about voters and their possible voting behaviour, which is the only thing that we, as voters, have meaningful control over. All the other stuff about the Green membership is irrelevant unless we are members as well. BTW, I take it that you are not a member of the Green Party.
If you're not clear about what I mean why don';t you ask rather than make silly stuff up?
"A possibility is a prediction of sorts"
No it's nothing of the sort – "there’s a 60% chance that it will rain" suggests that there's close to an even chance that it will rain or won't rain. That isn't a prediction, it is multiple possibilities.
"Do you expect other voters to behave differently from you?'
Think about how stupid that question is.
Ok, no unequivocal answers from Pete, today. Just hot air and possibilities galore.
The Greens may go under (5%) if the displeasure of some voters trumps their rational viewing of how politics work. That’ll teach the party keeping wimping along until the election!
I could vote for the Greens, but not if [conditions].
Hot air. I could vote for National or ACT if they were something other than they are, but that would be a meaningless statement to put in a comment.
I think they have a real problem. If they don't address it they could miss the cut this election.
Your "concern" is duly noted. Bottom line is that there's only one party up for election that takes the environment seriously, and that's the Green Party. Labour is mostly lip service only. If you want to base your vote on trivial pissing contests over who dissed whom and who got pwned, feel free, but there are plenty of people who don't make trivia the basis of their vote.
Not hot air. I could vote for Greens again if they looked like they could stand up for what they believed better and showed signs of more effective leadership in government.
I suspect you have never voted for National or ACT and never would, so it's you doing the hot air.
I agree that Greens take the environment far more seriously than any other party in Parliament seriously. Their problem is having their seriousness about the environment taken seriously enough by Labour and especially NZ First.
And on current performance and numbers they don't look like seriously improving on their influence.
Pete George would vote for The Greens, if only they…
I've spoken with The Greens. They've accepted the loss of Pete's vote and the general consensus is:
No
One
Cares.
And if Greens don't care about enough votes to make the threshold, even you should be able to work out what might happen.
Green supporters aren't unique in politics, but a number of them seem more intent on driving away anyone deemed impure than attracting support and votes.
While the Green Party tries hard in social media to attract support they are frequently undermined by supposed supporters who seem to think their ideals are all that's permissible.
An all or nothing approach is likely to end up closer to nothing than everything.
It's just the one vote they don't care about Pete:
Yours.
Now you're free to nail your colours to another mast, Pete!
Any idea who's?
"An all or nothing approach is likely to end up closer to nothing than everything."
Given that there's 100% of votes available, even if The Greens get 49% of the total vote, they'll be, as you declare, "closer to nothing than everything".
The Greens at 49%?
I could live with that.
Don't know who you are referring to (because you haven't said), but in this thread at least, the problem isn't that people won't discuss how the GP might manage their election campaign in the light of NZF and associated issues, it's that you're running concern troll lines that skew the debate away from a left wing perspective on the Greens to one that is paternalistic and not allied with the left (apart from the alleged concern for the Greens going under 5%, but we know that you also vote centre and right so that concern is being taken with a grain of salt).
Everyone's vote is just one vote.
A curious aspect of political forums is there seems to be far more intent to repel support than to attract it.
What “governing agreements” have been ignored, Pete?
https://www.parliament.nz/media/4487/nzlp___gp_c_s_agreement.pdf
https://www.parliament.nz/media/4486/362429780labourandnewzealandfirstcoalitionagreement.pdf
Greens have supported and are supporting (as above) some quite questionable policies implemented for NZ First.
In return they are being vetoed by NZ First.
How on earth is this post about the Greens? Yet you mention them seven times and NZF five times.
Looks like you have just used your comment to regurgitate right-wing attack talking points about the Green Party.
NZ First getting their way on fishing and sanctuary policies, and getting donations from people with large commercial fishing interests, has a lot to do with the relative impotence of the Greens.
Sue Bradford claims to not be a right winger:
If you follow Twitter at all you should see that the strongest criticisms of the Greens are coming from the left. Like:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/395936/high-ranking-greens-member-pulls-pin-before-election
And:
https://twitter.com/MorganGodfery/status/1230760721861902336
Pete George is playing his usual diversionary tactic by trying to spin this post into a critique of the Greens.
To all the idiots in this country who don't understand the laws of the land and are screaming for Ardern to sack Peters forthwith:
You cannot sack someone including a political office holder on the basis of suspicion. If that were the case then hundreds of people in this country would have to be thrown out of their positions on a daily basis – including Simon Bridges.
When the SFO investigation into NZ First is complete and wrong-doing has been established (if it is established), that is the point the prime minister is able to act.
To do so in advance of that point is to undermine the very democratic processes we are supposed to highly value.
Looks like your usual tactic of attacking. I have not suggested that Ardern sack Peters if that's what you're implying. But…
"You cannot sack someone including a political office holder on the basis of suspicion."
You can stand them down pending an investigation or prosecution. Both Helen Clark and John Key did that.
Employment law doesn’t apply in parliament to mp’s and there positions in cabinet.
for someone who has been around politics as long as you have, that’s a pretty basic understanding of how ministerial posts work.
that you are trying to invoke the wrong law to try and make this all look ok from the prime minister shows how desperate labour and its supporters have become in trying to make this a non issue
Morgan and David Cormack have stood out in their strong criticism of the deafening silence from Labour/Greens over the NZ Foundation scam. The influence that the Racing Industry and the Talleys have over this government is disturbing to say the least.
Yes National are hypocrites for being donkey deep in donation issues, while at the same time laying into Winston. But so is every other person who has an issue with National but has essentially has turned a blind eye to Winston.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12308988
https://thestandard.org.nz/green-party-call-for-national-discussion-on-political-party-funding-and-donations-reform/
Hardly deafening silence.
More like a sideline hum in a self-interested beehive.
it doesn't surprise me that you would miss the importance of talking about electoral finance reform at this moment in time. Far easier to just diss.
I fully support electoral finance reform.
However National and Labour have shown far more self interest than will for transparency and fairness in the past and I haven't any sign from either that they want to change their self imposed Swiss cheese rules.
Effective reform won't be easy for more reasons than that.
I'm not sure that a citizens’ assembly is an appropriate way to reform – for anything like that it's an unproven system. And even if a citizens’ assembly came up with practical solutions it would still have to be agreed to by a Parliamentary majority.
And apart from the citizens' assembly idea the Green press release you link to is really quite vague. Like:
Sounds more like electioneering.
Complete public funding of political parties would solve the donations issues and vested interests issues, but it would be difficult to provide 'equal access to democracy'.
Current public funding of parties strongly favours incumbent parties, especially the larger ones, and would make it even more difficult for new parties to compete.
Oh do shut up you incompetent old fool.
Please don't abuse people like that, it just degenerates the conversation.
I accept it was out of line. The conversation had degraded many posts ago as Pete repeatedly posed his patois of paternal preening. Someone had to say it. Debating a concern troll is wasted space and time.
Thanks WTB. You are more than welcome to call him out on his concern trolling (it's calling people names and telling them to shut up that tends to start fires and then the mods get grumpy at the extra work).
Yeah, good point; a moderator should move it to OM.
on it.
You linked to my comment but did you bother reading the link therein? It's pretty clear what the GP position is. They will work with any party on shared policy, including National. The reason they've ruled out supporting National via C/S or forming govt with them is because there is so little shared policy between the two parties now and much of National's platform is directly against GP core values. Pragmatically, the implication that they might support Nat to be govt was probably costing them votes, so they made it even clearer at the 2017 election.
Equally obviously, this isn't true of NZF. If the GP position is that they will compromise on policy but not core values (which is how I understand it), then there is in fact room to work with a government that includes NZF. The Greens don't have to get their own way on every policy. They signalled early on that there would be compromises, because that's how MMP works.
As for ruling out future deals, afaik the Green Party doesn't have a deal with NZF, and doesn't have the power to control what deals Labour makes with NZF. What you seem to be implying instead is that the Greens shouldn't support a Labour-led government that includes NZF. Which would mean that National would get to form government. Which would be an entirely nonsense position for the GP to take (unless it was being asked to compromise on core values, which it is not, thus far).
If Greens think that supporting a Labour-NZ First coalition government the way the current government has operated doesn't compromise their core values then they can go to the voters with that.
But some ex-Green MPs and candidates seem to think those values are being compromised.
Have Green members been asked if they support their party supporting a NZ First dominated government?
The NZ first donation issue looks unlikely to be resolved before the election. I think there's a real risk that will drag them down, and potentially the Greens too if they continue to look like a silent compliant junior party.
Few if any Green members would support their party supporting a NZ First dominated government, but you might want to have wee think about your question.
Indeed.
Ok, have Green members been asked if they support their party enabling a Government that includes NZ First?
They can claim an honest expectation of something better from NZ First this term, but I think they need to show they have learned a lesson about how they have been marginalised by NZ First and would not allow similar again (if they get the chance).
How do you propose that the Green Party prevents NZF from marginalising them next time round? (I personally wouldn't use the term marginalise, but I'm curious to see how you make sense of your own framing).
Active GP members are involved in internal party processes for forming positions on working with other political parties. Which you would know if you read the post you linked to.
"Have Green members been asked if they support their party supporting a NZ First dominated government?"
As opposed to what? Letting National form government?
I think most GP members paying attention are aware of this dilemma here. If you think the GP are compromising their core values, then you'd need to say how you see that. At the moment you just look like you're suggesting the GP should take a stand for an unknown principle that would result in a RW govt that would actively work against all that the Greens hold dear.
Not sure what you are reading, but I'm seeing the GP clearly laying down election year lines with regards to both Labour and NZF. Not lines that are 'do what we want or else', but lines that show voters how the Green Party differ from both Labour and NZF and if voters want what the GP is offering then the GP need more MPs in government come Sept. Which is possibly what you are meaning, I just framed it in the positive instead of the negative.
Considering the Greens have almost the same number of seats as NZF, they have very little say on anything in comparison to NZF. Winston just toys with James Shaw. I still believe Chloe is the future leader of the Greens as Shaw is just too weak whereas Marama is too left leaning for a lot of people (but has a lot more spine than Shaw).
About those polls that suggest Sanders would do as well in November against Sherbert Pervert as more moderate Dems – it seems they rely on a massive boost in turnout among young voters. That 'youth wave' is a mirage appearing at almost every election, but it never eventuates.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/25/21152538/bernie-sanders-electability-president-moderates-data
Here's the view from someone that went through the last time we had a clearly criminal Oval Office occupant, and the left took the opportunity to nominate their no-compromise candidate – that was McGovern in 1972.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/02/25/sanders-supporters-waste-their-vote-doomed-2020-democrat-column/4821921002/
Do you get it's not 1972, and populism on both the left and the right have changed the game? Too Soon….
People tend to believe polls that fit their preconceptions and be sceptical of those that don't. C'est la vie. The race is unfolding now and I am happy just to watch it without pretending to foreknowledge of any sort.
US co2energy emissions plummet in 2019,largest in absolute terms 1 GT since 2000.
The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt. US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period. A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019. Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result, gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%. Overall electricity demand declined because demand for air-conditioning and heating was lower as a result of milder summer and winter weather.
The rise in developing countries from offshoring may account for some.
https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019
Max Rashbrooke makes some good points re: recent child poverty stats. A reduction in poverty might be occurring, and that is good, but the real test will be reducing abject poverty, not the people just under the poverty line.
The fact that NACT has been used a lot here doesn't make it an actual thing.
Last year David Seymour did more good in Parliament than possibly all the National MPs. He deserves credit on his own.
Chloe Swarbrick stood out too, but that doesn't associate her with Labour.
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
[ok, enough Pete. You can definitely sing Seymour’s praises as a man in his own right. You can’t derail my posts, nor repeatedly imply that I used the term in a way I’ve already explained I didn’t. – weka]
Sheesh. It has been used on NZ political blogs for the last decade. Is that really the best problem you can find today?
Sheesh. Is this really the best problem you can find today?
A decade of misuse is still misuse. A strength of MMP is diversity of parties, the term is used to diminish diversity.
Hang on a sec.
National and ACT have been inseparable for a decade and National direct their Epsom supporters to vote for the ACT candidate.
So the term NACT is 100% legitimate.
Labour and nz1 have been inseparable their last two Electoral cycles in government. By your logic the two are inseparable.
But Labour have never had the same relationship with NZF as NACT have had since John Key and the tea-pot tapes.
Key sat down that day with a crook in John Banks, remember?
Unless you count the 2015 Northland by-election. Why was there a by-election? Because Mike Sabin was dodgy.
See the pattern?
Dancing on the head of a pin is so unbecoming.
Labour / nz1 form government. Nz1 gets pilloried for making a Mockery of electoral financing. Labour / nz1 lose the election
cant you see a pattern forming here?
He has all of Epsom to dance on, Climaction. You are the one tripping off the edge of a pin.
No John Key this time.
Good luck anyway, though.
ACT only exists by the grace of the National Party. This is completely different from Labour and the Green Party. As usual, you’re blurring lines and distinctions, which is something National has been doing a lot of too lately. Perhaps one day you could surprise us with an original thought and comment, yes?
If I had something original to criticise from nz1 I wouldn’t sound so repetitive to you.
Here’s an original thought. Labour don’t need nz1 to win the next election. My question is why do they behave like they do?
Somewhere in your neighbourhood a hedge needs trimming.
mod note for you Pete.