Open mike 30/05/2024

35 comments on “Open mike 30/05/2024 ”

• Comment on post

1. SPC 1

   30 May 2024 at 6:58 am

   Mainfreight perspective on the futre of rail

   Braid said as a significant user of rail throughout New Zealand, Mainfreight was “unsettled” by the “fiasco” around the future of the Cook Strait rail ferry services and rail service south of the Waikato.

   “What we’ve asked them is as long as we can rail into and out of ports for the ferries, then we’re ok with whatever they decide to do, as long as they get on with it and we don’t find the ferries run out of lifetime use,” he said.

   “That worries us and we have told them so. Rail is an efficient means to move freight around this country.’

   Braid said the company had had discussions with the independent committee currently advising the Government on its options.

   “What also worries us is when you read Simeon Brown’s (Minister of Transport) document, he only talks about rail freight between Hamilton, Tauranga and Auckland. There’s an enormous amount of freight that travels by rail across the width and breadth of the country.

   “We would urge them to be thinking seriously about rail as an ongoing mode for freight in New Zealand

   This

   The loss of rail services between the North and South Islands would result in Mainfreight adding 5700 more truck and trailer journeys a year.

   Braid doesn’t believe the Government’s plans for the ferries will include rail-served vessels.

   https://archive.li/qVrAA#selection-2003.29-2003.33

   Reply
   • Patricia Bremner 1.1

     30 May 2024 at 7:17 am

     No SPC, and they don't talk about the costs of stopping the new ferries or the vote that will be needed in view of that truck increases for roading maintenance. But so far forward planning does not seem to be in their wheelhouse. Or is it they have objectives they are keeping quiet about, while they blind us with sackings sinking lid austerity politics.

     Just a shout out to those protesting the treatment of the Treaty and related Laws. With you in spirit. Kia Kaha. Wairua Hikoi.

     Reply
   • PsyclingLeft.Always 1.2

     30 May 2024 at 8:19 am

     The loss of rail services between the North and South Islands would result in Mainfreight adding 5700 more truck and trailer journeys a year.

     Braid doesn’t believe the Government’s plans for the ferries will include rail-served vessels.

     https://archive.li/qVrAA#selection-2003.29-2003.33

     And how much damage will that cause to roads ! And of course the mega $ millions then repairing same : (

     Of course what does Simeon or the rest of his cronies care about that ?

     Support Rail

     https://thefutureisrail.org/

     Reply
     • Bearded Git 1.2.1

       30 May 2024 at 10:13 am

       The only hope is that this is a 3 year government and the same ferries we have now are still operating in two and a half years time with no non-rail capable replacement ferries on order.

       The new government could then sort this Simeon Brown inspired mess out.

       Reply
       • Belladonna 1.2.1.1

         30 May 2024 at 10:36 am

         Does anyone from the Opposition actually have a plan to 'sort this … mess out'?

         Because the last Labour government found the costs for the previous project unacceptable (which is why there was no funding agreed before the election).

         https://archive.ph/uztTk

         Reply
         • Bearded Git 1.2.1.1.1

           30 May 2024 at 12:55 pm

           That is interesting Bella. The new mega ferries were clearly less certain that was being portrayed in the media. But I note:

           "Cabinet made an in-principle decision to increase the contingency fund by $750m to enable the operation of the mega ferries but reduce the project’s scope by staging non-essential terminal development. Robertson wrote to McLean informing him of the decision and described it as the most viable option for the Crown. He said the significant cost increase required ministers to reconsider all potential options, particularly in the context of current capital constraints and other calls on Crown funding…."

           While the Labour Cabinet was keeping options open, the likely outcome was that the $750 million (probably $950 million) required would have been sanctioned, which would have permitted the purchase of the mega ferries, though their purchase would have been somewhat delayed, and work on the land would have been staged with only critical necessary work to be carried out. [As your link details, Kiwirail said $950 million (not 750) was the minimum to keep the project on track.]

           I still think that a Labour/Green government, if they had won the election, would have continued with the mega ferries (which of course are rail capable) because this is such a vital link for NZ, and the cost of the mega ferries and associated land improvements would serve the country for generations to come.

           If Simeon Brown goes with a cheapskate non-rail option, this will be a disaster, as detailed by Mainfreight above.

           Reply
           • Belladonna 1.2.1.1.1.1

             30 May 2024 at 2:58 pm

             But what is their policy now that they are in opposition – and seeking to win the next election.
             They can't continue the ferry build project (that ship has sailed – pardon the pun) – so what alternative are they going to campaign on?

             Reply
         • KJT 1.2.1.1.2

           30 May 2024 at 2:19 pm

           National's "plan" to sort the mess out" is to spend many more billions on roads, which have a worse cost benefit ratio when everything is taken into account, including environmental and opportunity costs, than upgrading the ferries to serve for at least 30 years in the future.

           Now the Government has changed, NZ coastal shipping, the other leg of environmentally and economically effective transport, also appears to have dissappeared from consideration.

           Reply
           • Belladonna 1.2.1.1.2.1

             30 May 2024 at 2:59 pm

             Again. What is Labour/Green policy?

             Reply
             • Drowsy M. Kram …

               30 May 2024 at 5:59 pm

               Don't know about policy (I'm not a member of any political party) – wouldn't any previous policy now be in tatters thanks to Willis' decision? Still, a google suggests the Green party's transport spokesperson would be keen for the project to continue, despite sharing concerns about cost.

               Challenge to Willis’ costings on shoring up inter-island service [16 Feb 2024]
               But Green Party transport spokesperson Julie Anne Genter said there was no way another option to do all that was required would cost less.

               “There’s no time like the present, it’s going to cost less to carry on with the project as it is now, than to kick it down the road another few years.

               “I think that it’s highly unlikely we’re going to get reliable secondhand ships that have the capability and capacity to ensure that we have frequent and sustainable rail connection for freight between the two islands.”

               An interesting comment under that article got me thinking (again) about who really benefits from the 'off-again on-again' short-term planning for crucial infrastructure fostered by polarisation, political and otherwise.

               Surely large infrastructure projects such as Rail ferries, Port improvements and assembly areas; rail connectivity and roll-on roll off services, are multiyear planning and investment decisions which should be managed by a cross-party team: not left to the whim of an enthusiastic finance minister worried with balancing the books in the short term?

               As for the Labour party, a LabourVoices release by their transport spokesperson suggests they would have preferred the project to go ahead. Too partisan for my tastes, but certainly no more-so than NAct.

               Release: Public transport costs to double as National looks at unaffordable roading project instead [15 April 2024]
               “The Cook Straight ferries have been canned, despite the urgent need for replacements to secure the future of our vital North-South Island link for passengers and freight.”

               Out of curiosity, what was the National/Act policy prior to Willis' decision to can this infrastructure project?
               And this is fun – the deputy PM being his usual helpful self

               Ministerial Statements — KiwiRail—Interislander Ferry Fleet, Funding [12 Dec 2023]

               https://www.infrastructurenews.co.nz/future-freight-transport-dead-water/

               Reply
               • Belladonna …

                 31 May 2024 at 9:23 am

                 – wouldn't any previous policy now be in tatters thanks to Willis' decision?

                 Yes, that's rather the point. The OP was hoping for a 1-term government in order to 'sort this … mess out'?

                 None of the previous policies to continue the project or continue the project with modifications are viable any longer. I've not seen any new proposals from the opposition on what they would do now.

                 Links to what they claim they would have done, had they been re-elected are rather pointless.

                 Reply
                 • Drowsy M. Kram …

                   31 May 2024 at 10:35 am

                   While they were in opposition, did Nat/ACT/NZF have policies for securing the future of our vital North-South Island link for passengers and freight? And what's our CoC govt's plan now?

                   Budget 2024 opinion: Coalition gives Cook Strait the cold shoulder [30 May 2024]
                   So, what’s the plan here? There doesn’t appear to be one.

                   Btw, nice work holding our CoC govt to account here, in your uniquely centrist fashion.

                   Briefing floats possibility of KiwiRail exiting Cook Strait Interislander ferry service [20 March 2024]
                   “The Government will have more to say on this in due course.”

                   Budget 2024: Money to investigate emergency towing but no new Cook Strait ferries [30 May 2024]

                   Surely large infrastructure projects such as Rail ferries, Port improvements and assembly areas; rail connectivity and roll-on roll off services, are multiyear planning and investment decisions which should be managed by a cross-party team: not left to the whim of an enthusiastic finance minister worried with balancing the books in the short term?

                   Reply
                   • Belladonna …

                     31 May 2024 at 12:47 pm

                     I'm not the one calling for a one-term government to sort the issue out. Just the one asking for some evidence that the opposition has a plan to do this.

                     Perhaps you could link to the evidence that they do have a plan.

                     " multiyear planning and investment decisions which should be managed by a cross-party team"

                     Well, now, that would be a pleasant change – but I can't see the highly oppositional nature of NZ politics achieving this.

                     I don't see any evidence that the previous Labour government were seeking cross-party support for their rail-ferry infrastructure investment, nor sharing the information they were receiving about the rapidly escalating budget.
                   • bwaghorn []

                     31 May 2024 at 7:06 pm

                     Labour had cross party consensus with national on high density housing, but the nats have renegeded
                 • Drowsy M. Kram …

                   1 June 2024 at 7:30 am

                   Getting NZ Back on Track (link to an Emmerson cartoon)
                   https://cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/QNAJHC2ACZGPXCDCFB6JCTBFWA.jpg

                   Just the one asking for some evidence that the opposition has a plan to do this.

                   They had a plan in government, and the next government torpedoed the project. Maybe that was a good call – time will tell.

                   National, Labour firing broadsides after Cook Strait ferry project founders [14 Dec 2023]
                   Willis in Parliament on Thursday made a Ministerial Statement ahead of Question Time, having announced the day before she had rejected a bid from KiwiRail for further funding for the project to replace the Interislander ferries.
                   …
                   She [Willis] promised to provide further updates about the future of the ferry crossing before Christmas, reassuring people the government would be "working to ensure we have ongoing safe reliable ferry services and that we'll make the investments needed to deal with that".

                   Over 5 months later, it's now time for our new govt to reveal and implement their (cost-effective) replacement plan to secure the future of the North-South Island link for passengers and freight. Or is that plan out already? Assuming they can access an internet, future generations of Kiwis will marvel at the foresight and long-term planning capabilities of today's politicians.

                   Well, now, that would be a pleasant change – but I can't see the highly oppositional nature of NZ politics achieving this.

                   Yes, it would be great. Who is served by this "highly oppositional nature" that contributes to poor (at times very poor) governance? Imagine how much more productive, progressive and positive NZ could be with greater parliamentary bipartisan consensus.

                   ‘Politicians need agreed vision on NZ’s future’ – Infrastructure NZ boss [27 March 2024]

                   Shaw understood the lasting value of bipartisan legislation, and achieved the same by working with National party MPs:

                   James Shaw's valedictory – and his new roles [1 May 2024]
                   "I'm a liberal leftie from Aro Valley, so if you asked me at the start of my career, who I thought I would become close friends with, my first pick wouldn't be a Catholic conservative from Tauranga," referring to Todd Muller, who worked with Shaw to ensure the Zero Carbon Act was enduring and bipartisan.

                   And all parliamentary parties bar National seem to think the principle of fairness trumps partisan politics with regard to restoring citizenship to people born in Western Samoa.

                   Why did ACT and NZ First break with National on restoring citizenship to people born in Western Samoa? [11 April 2024]

                   Then there's the housing density agreement, while it lasted.

                   National pulls out of bipartisan housing density agreement in new policy [28 May 2023]

                   The lead-up to TPP ratification (parliamentary approval not required) prompted public protests (I attended two), but the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill enjoyed nearly unanimous support in the house – only Green MPs voted against.

                   The 'anti-smacking bill' also had strong parliamentary support (8 noes in a conscience vote during the Clark/Labour govt, with the Key/National govt having no appetite to repeal the legislation), while our last parliament unanimously passed a sex self-identification law, despite it being "a lightning rod for culture wars issues."

                   Bipartisan agreements are possible, and the 1st year after an election could be a good time to develop consensus (challenging with ACT/NZF on board, for sure). Otherwise, successive 'stop-start governments' will further divide NZ, and who would want that?

                   Beyond COVID-19: five actions which would improve the health of all New Zealanders [NZMJ, 22 May 2020]
                   We need to reflect carefully on the fact that in 2020 our political leaders united in bipartisan agreement to make dramatic changes to our way of life in the interests of public health.

                   Reply
2. Jimmy 2

   30 May 2024 at 7:46 am

   Lets hope today is the day that a government finally increases the tax brackets that haven't increased for about 13 years, even though the minimum wage has increased from around $13.00 per hour in 2011 to $23.15 today, as a person working full time on the minimum wage now gets in to paying 33% on their last bit of income!

   Reply
   • Bearded Git 2.1

     30 May 2024 at 8:10 am

     The top tax bracket needs to be increased to a rate of 45% over $150k, rather than the current 39% over $180k.

     Reply
     • Sealegs 2.1.1

       30 May 2024 at 10:27 pm

       Tax at 45% about 150K you reakon, that would put us close if not the highest rate of tax in the developed world. You would see a mad sell up and scramble for the airport, that would include your doctor's, business owners all the people that are way more productive than you, and that pay the majority of the tax. You really have to rethink your envious nature as 150k in the real world is not a very big income and alot of tradesmen are getting very close to that figure or over it, they would join the exodus. The drop in tax take would be disastrous.

       Reply
       • Bearded Git 2.1.1.1

         31 May 2024 at 8:24 am

         On reflection perhaps you are right Sealegs. The real issue is the blatant unfairness of the top 5% owning such a large proportion of capital assets.

         So a much better option would be a meaningful Wealth Tax or a Land Tax while keeping the 39% above $180k threshold. The Greens had a WT in their last manifesto that looked workable and fair.

         Reply
   • SPC 2.2

     30 May 2024 at 8:28 am

     Sure, 33 cents starting above the MW.

     Reply
   • mikesh 2.3

     30 May 2024 at 9:35 am

     a person working full time on the minimum wage now gets in to paying 33% on their last bit of income!

     An increase from 30% to 33% on their last bit of income doesn't seem like much of a hardship.

     Reply
     • Descendant Of Smith 2.3.1

       30 May 2024 at 10:26 am

       by last bit you mean $152-00.

       Min wage for 40 hours is $48,152 per annum.

       I don't disagree that brackets should be adjusted but then I think three things should be adjusted for all workers by the rate of inflation every year.

       1. Minimum wage
       2. All wages for everyone as many contracts now have no provision for annual pay increases (or at best an annual review discussion which results in no increase)
       3. Tax brackets

       This way workers would at least maintain their income value.

       Unions and individuals could then negotiate for productivity etc increases.

       Reply
       • SPC 2.3.1.1

         30 May 2024 at 8:11 pm

         I'd link pay equity agreements to the median or average wage – so they do not fall back in real terms.

         And I'd link a tax bracket to MW level (I'd leave others as they are).

         Reply
   • Jimmy 2.4

     30 May 2024 at 9:56 am

     Apologies, I hadn't had my morning coffee when commenting above so wasn't fully awake. The minimum wage gets you in to the 30% tax bracket not 33%! Still far too high a tax rate IMO. And then of course, anything you spend your net income on mostly has GST of 15% on it.

     Reply
     • Craig H 2.4.1

       30 May 2024 at 1:44 pm

       With current housing costs, not necessarily as mortgage repayments (including interest) and rent are both exempt from GST.

       Reply
     • KJT 2.4.2

       30 May 2024 at 2:01 pm

       Legacy of the great tax swap, where tax on high incomes, inheritances and unearned gains was decreased, and GST and income tax on median incomes and below, increased!

       We will see a repeat today, no matter how they dress it up with spin. Low income earners, families and those on welfare will see a “block of cheese” per month at best. Most of which will be clawed back by private child care providers, landlords, power companies and other vultures. Not to mention National’s sneaky increased taxes, sorry! user pays charges.

       Reply
3. Adrian 3

   30 May 2024 at 9:48 am

   It is staggering that Braid of Mainfreight has been ignored by Simeon Brown who at a stretch I would reckon doesn’t know which end of a truck or ferry is the front.

   Reply
4. Drowsy M. Kram 4

   30 May 2024 at 6:01 pm

   "We're all in it together." – Lady Willis

   We're 'in it', all right, but 'together'? Really, m'lady, surely you jest.

   Cost of landlord tax break increased by $800m to $2.9b

   King Luxon: Chow down landLords – let's get your income back on track.
   
   The Side Eye’s Two New Zealands: The Table

   IRD report reveals ‘fundamental unfairness’ of how the wealthy are taxed
   [27 April 2023]
   A wealth gap reality check
   … median effective tax rate paid by New Zealand’s richest individuals is just 8.9%, compared to an effective tax rate of 22% for someone earning $80,000 a year with no other income. As The Spinoff’s Duncan Greive explains, “the low tax rates paid are achieved because this group earns just 7% of its income through wages …”

   Today’s classroom visitor is Mr Luxon from the National Party
   MR LUXON: If you were naughty you went to boot camp and got scared into being an ordinary hardworking New Zealander. Or you became a bottom-feeder. Don’t become bottom-feeders, boys and girls.

   TV presenter’s foodbank cuts 500 families as times get tough
   "The demand is never-ending," he [Letele] said. "There is no light at the end of any tunnel. It is relentless, and it is depressing, and we cannot do any more than we are doing.
   …
   Letele is also aghast at suggestions from Act's leader, David Seymour, that cuts could be made to free school meal provision, saying BBM saw a huge spike in demand during school holidays because families struggled to feed their children.

   Why poverty in New Zealand is everyone's concern
   Liang 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."

   A Kete Half Empty
   Poverty is your problem, it is everyone's problem, not just those who are in poverty. – Rebecca, a child from Te Puru

   Reply
   • Maurice 4.1

     30 May 2024 at 10:34 pm

     median effective tax rate paid by New Zealand’s richest individuals is just 8.9%, compared to an effective tax rate of 22% for someone earning $80,000

     $80,000 @ 22% = $17,600

     $800,000 @ 8.9% = $71,200

     Who is paying "more" tax? Indeed four times more in money terms.

     Median effective tax rate is simply mathematical manipulation to make it look like that is not so.

     Reply
     • Drowsy M. Kram 4.1.1

       30 May 2024 at 11:15 pm

       $800,000 @ 8.9% = $71,200

       $728,800 – awful – how does one even survive on such a pittance?
       Surprised these Kiwis haven't buggered off – what's keeping them here?

       Why poverty in New Zealand is everyone’s concern
       Liang 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.”

       A Kete Half Empty
       Poverty is your problem, it is everyone’s problem, not just those who are in poverty. – Rebecca, a child from Te Puru
       …
       New Zealanders still cling to the idea that we’re an egalitarian, classless society. The reality is we’re increasingly stratified. 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.

       Twenty-five years later I’m still learning, much of it from my patients. Part of the reason I wanted to write this essay was to try to understand some of the research on child poverty, and to apply it to what I do. I’m no expert on this topic – just a simple practitioner – but luckily there is no lack of detailed reports on every aspect of child poverty. They all agree that there is a problem – and there are solutions.

       https://hail.to/sewn/article/iJuaVvH

       Reply
       • Maurice 4.1.1.1

         30 May 2024 at 11:40 pm

         So how much do you feel the tax should be?

         TEN times as much 800,000 @ 22% – $176,000 [$624,000 left]

         TWENTY times as much 800,000 @ 44% – $352,000 [$448,000 left]

         At what level do you think they would bugger off and pay no tax at all?

         Reply
         • Descendant Of Smith 4.1.1.1.1

           31 May 2024 at 6:36 am

           Did they bugger off when tax was much higher? It is such an idle bullshit threat.

           Are we as country, rather than themselves as individuals, better off since they have have lower tax rates. Look around you the answer is clearly no.

           How low should tax be until it trickles down? When will the well-off ever be satisfied? The answer is never. The rich will never be satisfied. They can never be rich enough. Profit is just a private tax as opposed to a public one.

           Reply
           • gsays 4.1.1.1.1.1

             31 May 2024 at 6:51 am

             This 'capital flight' nonsense can be filed under 'trickle down' and 'market decides' myths. It’s next to the “The right are good managers of the economy” in the fiction area.

             Just neo-liberal bulldust,

             Reply
             • Descendant Of Smith …

               31 May 2024 at 8:25 am

               No one ever says quite where they are going to go to.

               Australia has higher taxes, 14% employer contribution to super, asset testing of superannuation payments and most NZ businesses who move to Oz fail.

               The UK has death duties as does the US, Ireland, the US, France, Germany etc.

               Reply
         • Drowsy M. Kram 4.1.1.1.2

           31 May 2024 at 9:03 am

           So how much do you feel the tax should be?

           I'm keen on the Green / TPM wealth taxes – would be under their thresholds. If not a wealth tax, then maybe a 45% tax rate on income over A$190,001.

           Given an exchange rate of ~92 Australian cents to the NZ$, our threshold for a 45% tax rate might be ~NZ$210,000, so income of NZ$800,000 would attract ~$265,500 in tax on the $590,000 over that threshold (leaving an absolute pittance of NZ$324,500 – such penury is almost unimaginable), in addition to whatever tax might be owing on the first $210,000.

           So, how much do you feel the tax should be?

           https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

           At what level do you think they would bugger off…

           No idea – do you? Might depend (in part) on what's keeping them here now.

           … and pay no tax at all?

           Well, yes, perhaps that is an ultimate goal for some – to "pay no tax at all".

           PM wanted NZ to become 'Jersey of the South Pacific' [6 April 2016]
           Prime Minister John Key is not shying away from comments he made before he became Prime Minister that he wanted New Zealand to be more like a British dependency, well-known as a tax haven, in order to grow the economy.

           Timeline: John Key on foreign trusts [13 April 2016]
           Since news of the Panama Papers leak broke, Prime Minister John Key has been under pressure to address New Zealand's rules on foreign trusts, amid accusations that the country is a "tax haven".

           Is NZ a tax haven for the rich and dodgy? The Pandora Papers reignite the debate [6 Oct 2021]
           But until more information is revealed about who is still using New Zealand’s foreign trust system and for what ends, it’s difficult to know how effective New Zealand’s regulations have been in clamping down on evasion and laundering.

           Heh – “the rich and dodgy” – can’t help helping themselves.

           Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed. – Einstein

           The Coalition Government has an opportunity to design a conservative tax reform package reducing the need for more radical reforms, Dan Brunskill says [18 May 2024]
           More New Zealanders are becoming anxious that society is being permanently divided into two separated classes: those who own property and those who do not.

           Kiwi children born to parents who did not have the opportunity to buy cheap assets at the end of the twentieth century often find themselves unable to buy a home and join the first class.

           While they don’t get to share so much in the wealth of the nation, they are expected to contribute a growing share of their income to its maintenance.

           This is not a politically sustainable arrangement. Bill English, a former Prime Minister and Finance Minister, said so himself late last year.

           If the incoming government was not able to make progress on housing affordability, then New Zealand would “certainly” end up with a capital gains and wealth tax.

           “Because the people shut out of the market are not going to tolerate another round of house price growth where they're locked out,” English said.

           Reply

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS