web analytics

Open mike 26/05/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, May 26th, 2025 - 86 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

86 comments on “Open mike 26/05/2025 ”

  1. Todays Posts 1
    26 May 2025 at 6:00 am

    Today's Posts (updated through the day):

    Reply
  2. Phillip ure 2
    26 May 2025 at 7:02 am

    Re the hole in the budget:

    Does Willis need some remedial math…?

    Reply
  3. Phillip ure 3
    26 May 2025 at 7:04 am

    Has not the time come to means-test the billions in corporate welfare doled out to the countries richest…?

    Seems only fair..?

    Reply
  4. Tiger Mountain 4
    26 May 2025 at 8:12 am

    There was a time before officially endorsed structural unemployment, Rogernomics and Ruthanasia’s slash and burn, when “Bennie Bashing” was not a beloved national sport.

    Yes believe it or not–someone on a war widows benefit for example was viewed almost with pride, we looked after our vulnerable. Unemployment was very low from WWII until the late 70s and zoomed up under neo liberalism, displacing many thousands from full time work who were basically discarded, no retraining and many did not recover.

    Jenny Shipley encouraged a “dob in a bludger” campaign with TV ads, curtains twitched across the land as some counted how many nights a sole parent had an overnight guest, and now WINZ/MSD are at it again with penalties for beneficiaries with boarders, sanctions with cards and forced work. Dirty filthy bennies say many, well wait till it is your turn!

    A Basic Income for all and retirement of WINZ/MSD is the only just solution.

    Reply
    • weka 4.1
      26 May 2025 at 8:59 am

      If there is a UBI and no WINZ/MSD, and if the UBI is set at a base rate and people can earn on top of that to reach a living wage, how do disabled people and others who can't work live?

      Reply
      • Phillip ure 4.1.1
        26 May 2025 at 9:04 am

        The ubi is set at the living wage…and of course those with needs that require further support could be serviced by a much slimmed down m.s.d…

        Real care..for everyone..

        Sorted…!

        And of course the large property portfolio held by m.s.d…and no longer needed..

        ..will make brilliant community centres..

        Reply
        • Spa 4.1.1.1
          26 May 2025 at 11:17 am

          Currently the government spends around $40b annually on all benefits, including superannuation. A UBI set at the living wage for all 18 and over would cost about $250b.

          Reply
          • Phillip ure 4.1.1.1.1
            26 May 2025 at 11:59 am

            @ spa..

            Would you have any idea how much the gummint spends on corporate-welfare..?

            (Most of it scammed by special interest groups/wily lobbyists/historical precedence..and screaming out for some of this means testing this coc-regime so favours…)

            And of course the handouts to their people..the landlords etc. by the cocs.. will be put right…

            Reply
          • weka 4.1.1.1.2
            26 May 2025 at 1:05 pm

            Some of that 250 billion would be returned to the government via taxation on higher income people.

            Reply
          • Chris 4.1.1.1.3
            26 May 2025 at 3:12 pm

            We could start with getting rid of relationship status for benefit purposes. Now more than ever the nature of relationships are so diverse that applying the definition of "de facto" in the social security context can produce outrageous results. Just the fact the state can delve so deeply into people's personal relationships should be enough to get rid of it.

            Reply
            • SPC 4.1.1.1.3.1
              26 May 2025 at 5:57 pm

              Sure we should allow benefit access to the non working partner*.

              Also, sickness in ACC and disability benefit at the super rate.

              Side issue – the higher living alone rate for super.

              That existing, would that mean a lower level of benefit for those not living alone* (such as couples in one bedroom of their flat or in a multi-bedroom house or anyone flatting or in a parental home)?

              The issue of "residential" circumstance might not go away completely.

              At the moment unmarried flatmates can access the benefit independently better than a sole parent with a non live in partner. Whereas married couples cannot.

              Reply
      • Res Publica 4.1.2
        26 May 2025 at 9:09 am

        That's an easy solve: set the UBI at a livable minimum.

        Structural unemployment has and always will exist. The difference is in how we respond. But a UBI isn't a safety net for the unemployed: it's an acknowledgment that dignity and participation in society shouldn't be tethered to employability, especially in a world of automation, precarity, and underemployment.

        Reply
        • weka 4.1.2.1
          26 May 2025 at 9:57 am

          Not quite that easy. Currently WINZ takes the following things into account when assessing how much to pay somebody,

          Disability costs that are specific to the individual. This covers are very wide range of costs that are over and above what disabled people have to pay for. It can be simple things like whether somebody can mow their own lawns or not, or it can be costs that are directly related to their disability which can be a complex assessment.

          housing costs specific to the individual and the area that they live in.

          whether the beneficiary has children or not, and a partner or not.

          costs not covered by the above. This includes one off advances, as well as ongoing costs that arise from or are causing hardship.

          All of that is solvable in the context of a UBI, the easiest concept to understand is a UBI with welfare bolted on. The only way to have those additional costs paid is to assess what those cost are. Currently WINZ rely on the beneficiary providing documentation and in the case of medical and disability issues documentation from a GP. Some of the disability funding in New Zealand goes through the ministry of health, and to access that disabled people need to go through and needs assessment, which is run by independent agencies.

          When lefties say oh let’s just have a UBI and get rid of WINZ, they render invisible the degree to which disabled people in New Zealand are dependent on the state for their income and assessment of their income.

          We’ve had lots of debate about this, and many lefties have a poor understanding of how welfare currently works for disabled people and the impacts on them of a poorly thought through UBI. One of the key issues here is that once you get rid of WINZ, you leave the door open for the right to dismantle welfare entirely. Again this is solvable but it’s not something that can just be done simply with the wave of a hand saying a living wage or whatever. It is complex because of the nature of disabled people‘s lives.

          Reply
            • weka 4.1.2.1.1.1
              26 May 2025 at 10:08 am

              One way to solve the disability issue with a UBI is to first take the medical benefits out of work income and place them with a reformed ACC, see the Greens policy on this. This presumes that a reformed ACC would be a more functional department and manager of those processes than WINZ.I remain doubtful about this, unless we have a big shift of the Overton window, and Labour really needs to get over the whole jobs will solve everything position. It’s probably the most difficult aspect of making change.

              But it still leaves the other people who for whatever reason can’t work for instance a solo mum with a baby and a toddler, or somebody looking after an elderly relative, or somebody who lives somewhere where there just isn’t suitable work. As problematic is the WINZ system is at the moment we have to be careful not just to remove the supports that are still actually there.

              Reply
          • Phillip ure 4.1.2.1.2
            26 May 2025 at 10:10 am

            I did note that those with more complex needs could be serviced by a much-slimmed down m s.d..

            And of course there are exceptions to pretty much every rule…

            ..and these must be catered to…by a much slimmed down m.s.d..

            I fail to see the problems you detail..

            Reply
            • Tiger Mountain 4.1.2.1.2.1
              26 May 2025 at 10:18 am

              Weka has raised this for years whenever I or others talk Basic Income, and I reply you have a small special needs department as you have suggested Phillip.

              Reply
              • weka …
                26 May 2025 at 10:49 am

                I guess I don’t understand why when we’re talking about a UBI these things aren’t made explicit. Without making them explicit we run the risk of removing the supports that exist. There is also a very real danger of creating policy that the rise can use to dismantle welfare entirely.

                I’ve addressed that in more detail in the reply to Res Publica.

                Reply
            • Nic the NZer 4.1.2.1.2.2
              26 May 2025 at 7:32 pm

              The basic problem with UBI are right in front of you. For a start it needs to be at a level which we call, in the present economic context, the living wage. Firstly by having such a high UBI you end up with a large expenditure which mostly goes to wage earners. You have given an explanation for how to resolve the income gap for people who can't work (or can't work as much), but the income difference of basically doubling the income of minimum wage workers also creates a class of unemployed which will eventually (as prices adjust to new income levels) also become on a poverty level income. So in a fair society you still need an MSD to deal with this.

              A similar policy of a GMI looks more viable where income payments are a top up to other earned income.

              Reply
          • Res Publica 4.1.2.1.3
            26 May 2025 at 10:14 am

            I really appreciate your perspective. And the reality check.

            It’s easy to argue policy in the abstract without fully grappling with the lived realities of the people most affected.

            For me, the appeal of a UBI has always been its simplicity, universality, and its power to decouple survival and dignity from the coercive power of employment.

            But you’re right: that simplicity becomes a problem when it overlooks the complexity of disabled people’s lives and the highly individualised costs, assessments, and supports they rely on.

            A flat, one-size-fits-all UBI can’t meet those needs on its own.

            Maybe the way forward isn’t abolishing the state’s role but reimagining it. Still removing the dehumanising bureaucracy that divides people into "deserving" and "undeserving" poor, while turbocharging the Ministry for Disabled People to provide real, responsive, wraparound support.

            What makes me uncomfortable, and I think we can agree, is that we’ve created an entire industry built on navigating scarcity that forces disabled people to constantly prove their worthiness.

            Reply
            • weka 4.1.2.1.3.1
              26 May 2025 at 10:46 am

              Reimagining the state’s role is a great framing.

              I like the whole green party’s GMI package, because it addresses some of these issues, and raises the rates, and seems to be a good stepping stone between where we are now and a functionally saying UBI system that is the to promote well-being for all people. There’s a big opportunity here for the left to present a vision that’s also grounded in the practicalities of managing systems and attending to needs.

              Reply
            • SPC 4.1.2.1.3.2
              26 May 2025 at 6:09 pm

              One problem we have is that there is no unemployment support for those who leave a job. They have to have another one lined up, or afford the stand-down period before leaving their job. This leaves some as vulnerable as exploited migrant workers.

              Another one is the impact of a government sanctions on the unemployed, this can result in loss of housing with consequent impact on ability to remain registered.

              On this matter I suspect the growth in gang numbers is based on housing and support the state is not providing (some would find this option easier now they are not required to wear a patch in public – thus they can leave the gang when they get a job and housing).

              Reply
  5. Kay 5
    26 May 2025 at 9:02 am

    "Dirty filthy bennies say many, well wait till it is your turn!"

    Like everyone else who is suffering as a direct result of their voting or non-voting practices, I have zero sympathy for anyone who votes for these nasty people and subsequently winds up in the welfare system. I've met them, and heard the "I never knew how bad it was" etc etc. Oh diddums. If you choose to only believe the RW propaganda about us, then this is Karma.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 5.1
      26 May 2025 at 9:12 am

      I’ve always been a fan of the theory that the true measure of a society isn’t how it treats the majority, or the comfortably well off, but how it takes care of the poor, the marginalized, and those whom the economy leaves behind.

      It's a test we're failing. Miserably.

      Reply
      • Kay 5.1.1
        26 May 2025 at 9:48 am

        We've been failing miserably for a few decades now sad

        Reply
        • arkie 5.1.1.1
          26 May 2025 at 9:54 am

          This is because the electorate has been convinced that the purpose of society is to produce profits for business owners; even our 'labour' party thinks so.

          Another way of being is possible, we made this, we can make it different. We look out for each other. What we need is an economy for people and planet.

          Reply
  6. Hunter Thompson II 6
    26 May 2025 at 10:09 am

    Good news folks! The all-seeing, all-knowing POTUS has signed executive orders that will fast-track approvals for construction of new nuclear power plants (Wall Street Journal, 26 May). Perhaps he got the fast-track idea from the NZ government.

    While nuclear energy is said to be zero carbon, I have no idea if the problem of nuclear waste has been solved. Are they still burying it somewhere and hoping?

    Reply
    • gsays 6.1
      26 May 2025 at 12:15 pm

      You're mention of nuclear waste reminded me of James Lovelock's position on the subject.

      He said he would happily store the waste from his lifetime of energy use on his porch.

      https://www.jameslovelock.org/nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution/

      Reply
    • Bearded Git 6.2
      26 May 2025 at 12:36 pm

      Solar is much cheaper than nuclear now. (But makes much more sense with battery storage attached per the just opened Meridian solar farm)

      https://www.interest.co.nz/technology/133416/ruak%C4%81k%C4%81s-big-bess-officially-opens-meridian-planning-more-grid-batteries-and

      Constructing nuclear power stations is subject to cost overruns and massive decommissioning costs. For instance the Sizewell C plant currently being constructed in the UK is now forecast to cost 40 billion pounds (NZ$91 billion) and that doesn't include decommissioning costs.

      https://ieefa.org/resources/new-uk-data-sends-nuclear-warning-australia

      Reply
      • Bearded Git 6.2.1
        26 May 2025 at 12:59 pm

        Correction…Sizewell C has not yet started construction-see article above.

        Reply
      • joe90 6.2.2
        26 May 2025 at 2:04 pm

        more sense with battery storage

        $186 million to store 200 MWH . The proposed Onslow scheme was forecast to cost around 100 times as much ($17 billion) to store about 2500 times as much energy (5TWH).

        The Ruakākā Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) delivers 100 megawatts (MW) of maximum output with 200 MW-hour storage capacity. Meridian says that is sufficient to power approximately 60,000 average households for two hours during winter peak demand periods.

        Construction began in early 2023 and was completed within the original $186 million budget envelope,

        https://www.interest.co.nz/technology/133416/ruak%C4%81k%C4%81s-big-bess-officially-opens-meridian-planning-more-grid-batteries-and

        Reply
        • alwyn 6.2.2.1
          26 May 2025 at 3:27 pm

          The Lake Onslow scheme never seemed to make any sense to me. What was going to happen is that we would release water, currently in a reservoir above a Hydro station and run it through the dam's turbines to produce electricity that would pump water up into another reservoir for use in another power station.

          Why not simply leave the water in the original reservoir for use at a later date?

          Pumped hydro has a practical use if it uses surplus power from something like a Nuclear power station where the energy would simply go to waste or not be generated at all. Doing it with energy that could be left in the original hydro lake doesn't qualify.

          The battery is supposed to hold enough power to supply 60,000 households for 2 hours. Thta is enough for the whole country for about 4 minutes which doesn’t sound like very much does it?

          Reply
          • joe90 6.2.2.1.1
            26 May 2025 at 6:24 pm

            Why not simply leave the water in the original reservoir for use at a later date?

            Because unless high wet-year reservoir levels coincide with demand, water is spilled rather than used for generation.

            Nuclear power station where the energy would simply go to waste or not be generated at all

            Like off-peak renewables, right. And then there's the dynamic load elephant. Onslow would provide a fast-acting and large-scale dynamic load to help our increasingly renewables based network use to largely avoid the recent renewables induced problems in the Iberian peninsula.

            Reply
        • Bearded Git 6.2.2.2
          26 May 2025 at 5:53 pm

          You are comparing apples with oranges Joe.

          A mass of solar farms with battery storage have been developed in the last few years in Texas, California and Australia among other places. It clearly works.

          The interesting thing is that private enterprise is driving much of this.

          I'm not an expert, but from what I have read over the last few years it seems that plummeting prices of solar panels and significant advances in battery technology has meant that the Lake Onslow scheme is no longer viable, if it ever was.

          Happy to be proved wrong.

          Reply
          • joe90 6.2.2.2.1
            26 May 2025 at 6:47 pm

            You are comparing apples with oranges Joe.

            It's pomegranate seeds to watermelons, $930/kwh v $3.40/kwh, if my admittedly piss poor reckons are correct.

            Reply
            • Bearded Git 6.2.2.2.1.1
              27 May 2025 at 8:45 am

              Detailed calculations please Joe and show your sources.

              You can develop a hell of a lot of solar/battery storage facilities for $17 billion.

              Reply
              • joe90 …
                27 May 2025 at 2:05 pm

                The Ruakākā Battery Energy Storage System: actual cost – $186 million to store 200 MWh = $930,000/MWh/$930/KWh

                https://www.interest.co.nz/technology/133416/ruak%C4%81k%C4%81s-big-bess-officially-opens-meridian-planning-more-grid-batteries-and

                Lake Onslow pumped hydro scheme: most recent estimate – $17 billion to store 5TWh/5 million MWh = $3400/MWh/$34/KWh.

                https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/131664547/what-happens-if-we-pull-the-plug-on-lake-onslow

                Reply
                • Bearded Git …
                  27 May 2025 at 11:43 pm

                  Good point, but its a bit more complicated than that. (The figures below are very rough).

                  Using the Ruakaka numbers $12 billion of solar storage would be able to power all 2 million houses in NZ for 4 hours.

                  The entire hydro system would be able to be shut down for almost 7 hours each time $12 billion battery storage was charged (100/60 x 4 hours where hydro supplies 60% of NZ power) and throughout each 7 hour period the lake levels would rise. At other times it would sometimes shut down only for 2-3 hours depending on battery charged status, but these shut downs would be regular.

                  The result is that Onslow would not be needed. Given that solar is getting cheaper all the time only something like $10 billion would be needed for solar.

                  Meanwhile Onslow's projected $17 billion cost would now probably be over $20 billion with inflation and overruns.

                  The key point is that a certain level of immediately available solar/wind battery storage would enable lake levels to be managed so that the lakes had much more than the current 6 weeks storage.

                  Reply
          • dv 6.2.2.2.2
            26 May 2025 at 6:53 pm

            Not sure why solar panels have not been made compulsory for new builds.

            Reply
            • Tony Veitch 6.2.2.2.2.1
              27 May 2025 at 4:14 am

              Or why the power companies are not made to pay wholesale rates for power they receive off private roofs, instead of the pittance they now pay.

              That would provide a real incentive to put solar panels on every roof.

              Reply
        • SPC 6.2.2.3
          26 May 2025 at 6:19 pm

          Local solar and wind with batteries means we can keep more water in the existing hydro dams (overseas hydro is often used as the back up).

          There are agreements for reduced smelter pot-lines in dry years and now a precedent as per gas for the Methanol plant. In that regard buy out of the Methanol plant and its gas rights might be smarter than the expense of a gas terminal and importing and new exploration subsidy.

          PS The market. Existing energy providers (and shareholders) fear a government owned Onslow, they do not fear their own generation out of battery storage.

          Reply
    • joe90 6.3
      26 May 2025 at 12:45 pm

      Elmo's script kiddies are going reorganize the nuclear regulators.
      What could go wrong? I mean, it’s only the safety of nuclear power plants.

      .

      The Department of Government Efficiency’s wide-ranging and haphazard cuts to the federal government have reached the nation’s nuclear safety programs.

      Just before Valentine’s Day, at the direction of Elon Musk, the Trump administration nixed 17 percent of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s workforce despite the objections of senior officials, The Washington Post reported Monday.

      https://newrepublic.com/post/192247/elon-musk-doge-cuts-nuclear-safety

      Reply
  7. Sanctuary 7
    26 May 2025 at 10:29 am

    If we were to create a four year term and then re-establish the upper house as a constitutional balance, what powers should the upper house have and how should it be populated?

    Would the upper house elections be by direct franchise, or perhaps include nominated august citizens? For example, the upper house be non-elected and be made up of all members of the Order of New Zealand and the NZ order of Merit (limited to 20 and 30 living people), current and former members of the supreme court, a properly appointed representative of any Iwi who claim at least (say) 15,000 members (that would be around 20 Iwi) and, say, up to 20 government appointees with a maximum of 100 members?

    If it was appointed thus, what powers should it have? Should it be able to block legislation? That would be undemocratic. But what is the point of the cost of an upper house if it has no powers?

    Reply
    • Ad 7.1
      26 May 2025 at 10:48 am

      I'd be inclined to parallel the Australian Senate model. We could have a seat each for the Cook Islands, Tokelau and Niue if they felt like they wanted to stay within the "realm". Or not.

      It needs to be a proper evolution of the Select Committee process that Sir Geoffrey Palmer instigated back in the day. Meaning, it should be the place where legislation really gets the ruler put over it. At the moment a government with a will to do it just bashes it through without so much as a decent BORA check.

      https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/what-is-the-role-and-function-of-the-senate#:~:text=The%20Senate%20is%20one%20of,the%20best%20interest%20of%20Australians

      And mirroring the Australian model gives us an opportunity to feel what an Australasian federation could look like. We have to be prepared 🙂

      Reply
    • Res Publica 7.2
      26 May 2025 at 10:56 am

      OK I'll take a swing at this.

      If we are to have a democratically elected upper house, it must be clearly distinguished from the House of Representatives in terms of:

      • Electoral boundaries
      • Voting system
      • Election cycle

      Having a double MMP system would risk redundancy, gridlock, and voter fatigue — essentially duplicating the current arrangement with little added value.

      A staggered election cycle or a different voting model (e.g. STV or proportional regional representation) might better suit an upper house intended for review and reflection.

      But such a system comes with trade-offs. It could increase the risk of political deadlock — unless we adopt mechanisms like cohabitation (as in France), where political leadership is formally shared between differing majorities.

      As for a non-elected, honorific-based upper chamber, the idea carries a surface appeal, but it is constitutionally vulnerable.

      Such a chamber would suffer from:

      • Democratic legitimacy issues (Who appointed them? Who holds them accountable?)
      • Political manipulation (A government could expand honours lists to stack the chamber with loyalists)
      • Iwi representation distortion (Not all iwi would be treated equally, and some may reject Crown appointment as a meaningful mandate)

      We must be cautious not to build into our constitution the seeds of elite capture, even under the guise of "august citizens."

      Regardless of how it is populated, the upper house must not be given the power to block legislation outright, nor should it control supply or budgetary decisions.

      Its role should be one of deliberative delay and scrutiny:

      • The ability to review and recommend amendments
      • The power to delay legislation for a fixed term (e.g. six months) to allow for further public consultation or reconsideration
      • A focus on constitutional compliance and treaty obligations, perhaps with a specific mechanism to raise concerns where legislative proposals undermine foundational principles

      Crucially, any upper house in Aotearoa must be built on co-governance from the ground up. This means embedding tangata whenua representation not as token inclusion, but as a foundational feature.

      This kind of upper house wouldn’t just improve legislation. It should model what partnership can look like at the highest level of governance: where mana Māori and democratic legitimacy coexist, and where the future of our country is shaped by both partners in a co-sovereign, co-equal partnership.

      Reply
      • AB 7.2.1
        26 May 2025 at 1:46 pm

        Regardless of how it is populated, the upper house must not be given the power to block legislation outright

        Yeah. The purpose should be to enhance the democratic process by throwing bad legislation into the public domain for a period of time to properly expose its deficiencies – and with luck help voters make more informed decisions next time they vote. And if there is no power to veto, it would also give more options as to how the upper house is populated, because it (in theory) wouldn't need to pass the strictest possible test of being democratic or not.

        But despite that, I'd expect the selection of the upper house to be a swamp of political manoeuvering, however it's done. Doubly so if Treaty obligations were a factor it had to consider – David Seymour would immediately have a Bill before the lower house to remove such a provision. Overall I'm not sure that the benefits we'd get from it in terms of shining a light on legislation would be worth the trouble it would cause.

        Reply
        • Res Publica 7.2.1.1
          26 May 2025 at 2:04 pm

          Yeah, my thinking is that we're already struggling to reconcile a sovereign Parliament with a co-sovereign, overlapping partner in Māori. A constitutional challenge that’s forcing us to rethink some pretty foundational assumptions about power, legitimacy, and democratic accountability.

          And that’s happening in an age where the Treaty Principles and Regulatory Standards Bills are on the table, and where TPM MPs are being banned from Parliament for performing a haka.

          Introducing a third institutional power into that already fragile arrangement feels less like reform and more like begging a constitutional crisis (if we're not already in one).

          Reply
          • Phillip ure 7.2.1.1.1
            26 May 2025 at 4:49 pm

            It sounds ridiculous…farcical..

            'where tpm mps are being banned from parliament…for performing a haka..'..(!)

            Reply
  8. Muttonbird 8
    26 May 2025 at 10:41 am

    Economist Benje Patterson:

    (Benje) Patterson also questioned the long-term value of Investment Boost, an untargeted incentive likely to fund a lot of “tax-efficient ute upgrades”.

    Newsroom's Jonathan Milne:

    But as Newsroom’s Jonathan Milne reports, the scheme contains a potentially explosive flaw: there’s no cap on either eligibility or cost. Unlike similar programmes overseas, New Zealand’s version doesn’t have a narrowly defined set of depreciable assets.

    And Marc Daalder:

    The finance minister has said the policy will deliver the “confidence injection” business needs – and Daalder agrees. “It’s hard to imagine a policy that could inject more confidence for the big end of town than an uncapped opportunity for everyone from multinationals to commercial property developers and [Shane] Jones’ beloved mining sector.”

    But for National Party client journalist, Thomas Couglan, despite likening the budget to a hit job on the poor, Labour is of course worse.

    “Who’d have thought that after a Budget as stern and severe as this, one that leaves so many victims, so many targets, that it might actually be Labour that comes off in the more vulnerable political position?”

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/the-bulletin/26-05-2025/budget-2025-a-fiscal-time-bomb-and-a-disrespectful-blue-dress

    Reply
  9. Karolyn_IS 9
    26 May 2025 at 12:27 pm

    This is excellent! Marilyn Waring is organising a people's select committee of former Nat, Lab, NZF and GP MPs to investigate pay equity. They will hold public hearings of submissions to the committee, the 1st in Wellington on Aug 11. The aim is to gather evidence.

    The unofficial committee is rounded out with former MPs Jackie Blue, Jo Hayes and Belinda Vernon from National, Nanaia Mahuta, Lianne Dalziel, Steve Chadwick and Lynne Pillay from Labour, Ria Bond from New Zealand First and Sue Bradford from the Greens. All are working on a 'pro bono' – unpaid – basis.

    Independent consultant Amy Ross, previously the Public Service Commission's lead on pay equity, and former Parliamentary librarian and researcher Bessie Sutherland would provide additional research support, and would be paid.

    Reply
      • Heather Grimwood 9.1.1
        26 May 2025 at 1:43 pm

        Regarding Marilyn Waring's strong move :

        What a great group of powerful women engaging in this enterprise!!! AND without requiring fiscal payment.

        Hearty congratulations on embarking on a truly worthwhile expedition. May it have the desired success not just for all of us, but in bringing about attitudinal change so needed in New Zealand.

        Reply
        • Karolyn_IS 9.1.1.1
          26 May 2025 at 2:07 pm

          I'm told Amy Ross is THE leading expert on pay equity in NZ. Online she says,

          I am one of the country's leading experts in pay equity, recognised for spearheading the creation of comprehensive technical guidance, tools, templates, and educational resources to support others to navigate the pay equity claims process. My expertise in this field has been instrumental in fostering greater understanding of the technical area of pay equity and in supporting the progress of claims.

          Reply
          • alwyn 9.1.1.1.1
            26 May 2025 at 2:32 pm

            Apart from her own opinion of her merits can you tell us anyone else who holds the view that she is "THE leading expert" and has told you so?

            Reply
            • Karolyn_IS 9.1.1.1.1.1
              26 May 2025 at 3:25 pm

              I think that claim was made because of the role Amy took in being the head of the pay equity task force.

              Kathryn Ryan says,

              One of the country's leading experts on pay equity has described the government changes in one word – appalling.

              Amy Ross is the former head of the pay equity taskforce which sat within the Public Service Commission, it was set up in 2021 to help government agencies navigate the Equal Pay Act.

              It also worked to develop tools and the complex frameworks used to evaluate and compare roles and pay rates.

              Reply
            • Drowsy M. Kram 9.1.1.1.1.2
              26 May 2025 at 3:26 pm

              Alwyn, apart from your own assertion that you "come here only in the wish to bring some enlightenment to the ignorant", does anyone else hold that view?
              wink
              Amy Ross says that she is "one of the country's leading experts in pay equity", and that opinion appears to be evidence-based. So, A leading expert – happy?

              Thank goodness the 'People's select committee' to gather evidence on the CoC's cost-saving pay equity 'reset' has been convened by a former Nat MP and includes former women MPs from most political parties, ACT excepted. Willis & van Velden will be thrilled the former MPs are working on a "pro bono" basis; their work won't cost our CoC govt a dime, let alone a pretty penny. Just imagine the expense of a CoC select committee!

              According to the information provided by Karolyn_IS @9. Amy Ross was "previously the Public Service Commission's lead on pay equity".

              Pay equity expert on Government changes [9 May 2025]

              Amy Ross
              Manager, Pay Equity Team, Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission, New Zealand

              Known for: Closing the gender pay gap
              Amy Ross leads the Pay Equity Taskforce in The Public Service Commission which supports the progress of pay equity claims across the public and community sectors. This work puts legislation into action to create a more gender equitable workforce. Amy leads the development of resources, tools and advice to support the pay equity process. Amy led the development of Te Orowaru a new gender equitable work assessment too. This tool has attracted international attention and was featured at the Equal Pay Internation Coalition (EPIC) meeting in Geneva in 2023 as well as attracting a research visit from Iceland. Amy facilitates conversations between individuals, unions, employers, and funders to support robust evidence-based pay equity settlements. This work has contributed to 10 successful pay equity settlements and one sector wide extension (where a pay equity settlement is extended to cover all workers in that occupation), which has corrected the pay and conditions of over 100,000 employees by an average of 30%.

              Reply
              • alwyn …
                26 May 2025 at 3:39 pm

                The solution her group came up with appears to be the one that led to the comparison of librarians with fisheries officers and stretched the original scheme into the realm of fantasy. Even Hipkins isn't willing to commit to it is he?

                If they were extending the scheme to cover the situation between nurses in the public sector and those who are practice nurses in a GP clinic I see the relevance, even if it isn't looking at the gender differences problem but it seems to have wandered off into the land of Oz and drifted off over the rainbow..

                [using the word ‘appears’ or a question mark doesn’t mean you aren’t trolling. You are quite capable of explaining your thinking and providing evidence for your claims or opinion. This is your 6th mod warning this year. Off you pop for a month. – weka]

                Reply
                • weka …
                  26 May 2025 at 4:02 pm

                  mod note

                  Reply
                • Drowsy M. Kram …
                  26 May 2025 at 4:05 pm

                  The solution her group came up with appears to be the one that led to the comparison of librarians with fisheries officers and stretched the original scheme into the realm of fantasy.

                  Alwyn, are you sure that you "come here only in the wish to bring some enlightenment to the ignorant"?

                  If 'enlightenment' includes parroting NAct talking points then fair enough.

                  Is comparing librarians to fisheries officers really so ridiculous? [14 May 2025]
                  “So ​you ​have ​to ​wonder ​if ​this ​is ​about ​saving ​money. But if it is, ​let’s ​just ​front ​foot ​that ​and ​be ​honest. ​Because ​I ​don’t ​think ​it’s ​providing ​clarity. ​I ​think ​it’s ​just ​raising ​the ​bar, and ​as ​a ​result ​of ​that, ​saving ​the ​government ​money,” she [Fiona McMillan, a lawyer who worked on pay equity claims] says. “And if that’s the case, ​it ​is ​what ​it ​is, ​but ​maybe ​people ​have ​to ​own ​that.”

                  Maybe the CoC's political gamble will pay off – it will certainly put more money into some well-lined pockets.

                  Government’s political gamble backfires as backlash to pay equity reform grows

                  ‘Kate Sheppard is rolling in her grave’
                  The backlash has spread beyond the streets and into a wave of column inches. Commentators have been lining up to denounce the rollback, with Stuff’s Verity Johnson declaring that “Kate Sheppard [is] rolling in her grave” over a policy that “[kicks] the hardest working, most systemically undervalued women in society in the teeth”.

                  If you thought that was vitriolic, just wait. In the Sunday Star-Times (paywalled), an incandescent Andrea Vance flung the c word at the government: “Turns out you can have it all. So long as you’re prepared to be a c… to the women who birth your kids, school your offspring and wipe the arse of your elderly parents while you stand on their shoulders to earn your six-figure, taxpayer-funded pay packet.”

                  Reply
                • Cinder …
                  26 May 2025 at 8:34 pm

                  On behalf of Library assistants, Librarians, Archivists and Registrars everywhere. [deleted] for the entire month Alwyn.

                  Maybe you'll come back normal 🙄

                  [Is this a character trait of yours, to kick someone who’s down? Don’t do it again – Incognito]

                  Reply
                  • Incognito …
                    26 May 2025 at 8:55 pm

                    Mod note

                    Reply
                  • Cinder …
                    27 May 2025 at 9:43 pm

                    Pardon?

                    Are you gaslighting me?

                    Alwyn just used his RW talking point, which itself plays on sexist tropes, to denigrate my profession and defend the vile actions of this government. He also denigrated the women who have convened the Peoples Committee which I will be submitting to.

                    So who is kicking who when they are down?

                    The entire pay equity shit show is equivalent to a bunch of private school punks mugging a bunch of brown looking school girls and stealing their lunch money.

                    And then the punks ride off in a new car daddy bought them on the work account. And Daddy got 20% back courtesy of the government.

                    But please don't swear apparently… Is anyone on The Standard even remotely working class?

                    There is one type of person most Librarians abhor, those who feign ignorance.

                    Those who feign ignorance just don't want to exercise their brain to figure anything out, you're their servant. They don't need to know how to do research or find information, that sounds hard to them. And then they'll be annoyed if you can't access the resource for them. Sometimes they'll even ask for something which they themselves can't even name! Privileged knobs usually…

                    Remind you of anyone?

                    Did you know that the Japanese word "Otoboke" means feigned ignorance? Can we coin the phrase "Otoboke Alwyn" now? Or do we have to wait until his ban expires?

                    This is why we can't have nice things.

                    And why has no one noticed the very obviously sexist choice of occupations to compare and their depiction?

                    Manly Fisheries Officers in stab proof vest and combat boots vs weedy middle aged women who looks like your mum with some books.

                    Not a physically strong Polynesian woman caring for someone in their last days alongside their families vs a nerdy psychologist.

                    Not a young male nurse helping a disabled person from the shower vs a very overweight licensed physiotherapist.

                    Labour and the Greens need to sort out their semiotics.

                    Reply
        • weka 9.1.1.2
          26 May 2025 at 6:45 pm

          very exciting, and with luck it will go on to other issues.

          Reply
    • Phillip ure 9.2
      26 May 2025 at 1:24 pm

      The cocs could be well -advised to invest in some flak-jackets..

      I sense incoming…heh..!

      Reply
    • Karolyn_IS 9.3
      26 May 2025 at 5:28 pm

      The People's Committee on Pay Equity website is here,

      And people/groups can make their submissions to there.

      The Committee will hold hearings where you can present your submission. Dates for hearings will be posted here when they are scheduled.

      Reply
  10. gsays 10
    26 May 2025 at 12:41 pm

    Just in case there are any optimists left in this country…

    In a little under a week, we are one aneurysm away from Gordon Brittas being Prime Minister.

    Reply
    • kejo 10.1
      26 May 2025 at 1:03 pm

      Gordon Brittas! Tee Hee There is a certain likeness

      Reply
    • Res Publica 10.2
      26 May 2025 at 1:47 pm

      In a little under a week, we are one aneurysm away from Gordon Brittas being Prime Minister.

      If it happens, only temporarily. Until National elects a new sock puppet leader.

      Reply
    • tc 10.3
      26 May 2025 at 1:48 pm

      Please don't remind us it's depressing enough with these coc's running NZ into the ground.

      Reply
  11. Bearded Git 11
    26 May 2025 at 12:48 pm

    Liam Hehir completely lost it trying to defend the undefendable budget today on the RNZ political discussion.

    Having said that, Neale Jones struggled to defend a CGT being introduced by Labour (when it wins in 2026) when Kathryn Ryan put it to him that it would produce little revenue in the first few years.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018988739/dissecting-the-budget-liam-hehir-and-neale-jones

    Wealth Tax anyone?

    Reply
    • Res Publica 11.1
      26 May 2025 at 1:45 pm

      Liam Hehir making an ass of himself on National radio? That's my drive home sorted
      laugh

      He's batting 0/2 after his breathless pearl clutching over parliamentary privelege last week.

      Reply
    • Drowsy M. Kram 11.2
      26 May 2025 at 2:20 pm

      Tax and the economic income of the wealthy [April 2023; PDF]
      The effective tax rate (tax paid divided by economic income) of the families we researched varied considerably, depending on how their economic income was gained from 2015 to 2021. The median (middle) effective tax rate was 8.9%.

      Wealth Tax anyone?

      Yes please – there’s plenty of private wealth to tax, given the self-serving predilection of NAct govts to attend to the wants of landLords and other sorted Kiwis.

      ‘Growth Budget’ = growth in poverty [22 May 2025]
      “Furthermore, documents in the Government’s own Budget clearly show it is far off track to meeting the Child Poverty Reduction targets, with over 1 in 8 children living in abject poverty under this Government which is willing to fork out billions for the wealthy, while leaving people in poverty behind.”

      Richie Poulton: The Final Interview | 1News' John Campbell
      [3 Oct 2023; 17 minute YouTube video]
      "You can’t really undo what happens in childhood. So the experience of intense, or regular poverty situation, of circumstances, is long lasting."

      Why poverty in New Zealand is everyone’s concern [20 Jan 2020]
      Liang [a consultant paediatrician based in Auckland, with a special research interest in child health and development] describes poverty as a “heritable condition” that perpetuates and amplifies through generations: “It is also not hard to see how individual poverty flows into communities and society, with downstream effects on economics, crime and health, as well as many other systems. Loosen one strand and everything else unravels.”
      …
      The gap between rich and poor is wider than we like to admit and it’s possible – depending on where you live and work – to avoid seeing poor families. This may be why some deny the existence, let alone the impact, of child poverty in our country.

      Reply
    • mikesh 11.3
      26 May 2025 at 6:03 pm

      Wealth Tax anyone?

      Definitely. A capital gains tax may well be taxing persons who are not particularly wealthy.

      Reply
      • Incognito 11.3.1
        26 May 2025 at 7:05 pm

        BS argument.

        GST and income tax (PAYE) are near-universal taxes that affect almost every New Zealander regardless of income or wealth even John Key’s paperboys. A CGT is designed to tax realised increases in asset values, but in practice such gains are mostly realised by people who have significant assets or investment portfolios, i.e., the ‘wealthy and sorted’ – those who’re already accumulating wealth and getting richer.

        In NZ there are exemptions that have enabled many New Zealanders to benefit from a tax-free CGT and accrue wealth. Instead of your sophistry, you might want to consider that a CGT is not about taxing non-wealthy folks but about a fairer system that changes incentives and redistributes wealth from property speculation and rapid appreciation to better address inequality.

        Reply
  12. alwyn 12
    26 May 2025 at 2:39 pm

    Is there anyone here living in the Far North Council area who knows what their Council has spent on this foolish exercise of collecting and storing plastic waste material?

    Now they dump it in the landfill, as they could so easily have been doing for years.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/far-north-council-to-landfill-190-tonnes-of-plastic-waste/YDPRDTEQX5G25B7HNY5IBJMCXY/

    Reply
    • Bearded Git 12.1
      26 May 2025 at 2:49 pm

      Unfortunately, and scandalously, roughly 350,000 tonnes of plastic waste go to landfill in NZ annually (the estimates vary)-the Far North dump represents 0.5% of this.

      Reply
  13. Ffloyd 13
    26 May 2025 at 3:44 pm

    Res Publica. Liam Hehir! Is that who that babbling idiot was. Kathryn did a terrible job of shutting him up. I did laugh when the other chap? said that he sounded like a chihuahua . Which he did, a chihuahua on speed!!! And Ryan had the gall to shush him. I find her quite aggravating at times.

    Reply
  15. ianmac 15
    26 May 2025 at 4:55 pm

    Mountain Tui agrees with Jack. Willis has spent more in 18 months, than Labour did in 6 years! And with no major domestic Crisis like a pandemic for an excuse.

    https://mountaintui.substack.com/p/nicola-williss-debt-already-higher

    Reply
  16. Phillip ure 16
    27 May 2025 at 3:10 pm

    Note to moderator:

    Am unable to comment on Willis/trump thread…

    Reply

Leave a Comment