The benefits of a Labour led Government

Written By: - Date published: 12:18 pm, April 1st, 2019 - 67 comments
Categories: class war, cost of living, employment, grant robertson, jobs, Living Wage, minimum wage, national, same old national, Simon Bridges, Unions, wages, workers' rights - Tags:

Today increases to the minimum wage and superannuation come into being.  Yesterday Radio New Zealand said this:

Increases in the minimum wage and superannuation kick in tomorrow, along with several measures aimed to help businesses.

Finance Minister Grant Robertson said the April 1 changes are intended to grow the economy and improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders.

Among the measures is the largest ever rise in the minimum wage, which increases by $1.20 to $17.70 an hour.

Superannuation and veterans’ pensions will increase by 2.6 percent.

A research and development incentive will provide a 15 percent tax credit to businesses that spend more than $50,000 on research and development from tomorrow.

ACC levies will also fall tomorrow.

You would think that everyone would celebrate the Government acting to improve the plight of those less fortunate in our society.  But not everyone.

From Television New Zealand:

National Party leader Simon Bridges has again spoken out against the minimum wage increase which comes into effect today, calling it “too far, too fast”.

The pay boost, from $16.50 to $17.70, will see around 200,000 Kiwis benefit.

Mr Bridges told TVNZ1’s Breakfast this morning that the Government “should increase the minimum wage every single year”, but added the $1.20 rise will add undue stress to many of the small businesses which are “doing it tough”.

“It’s an accumulative effect, right? This is why the economy is weakening.

It’s not just capital gains tax, it’s not just minimum wage, it’s doing away with the 90-day trial, it’s unionizing the workforce – it’s all of these things which means they don’t have a certainty and confidence,” he said. 

Mr Bridges added that society made the decision for taxpayers to subsidise low-paid workers through welfare.

“The truth is, as a society, we made that decision, you know?

If you’re not a 17-year-old on the minimum wage, but if you’re a mum or a dad and you’ve got one, two, three children and you’ve got different circumstances, you will be getting supplements for your home rentals, you will be getting Working for Families.

So as a society, [we’ve] decided that that’s the right thing to do.

“We already – through Working for Families, through rental supplements and the like – are supporting them,” he concluded. “But to have that small business doing it? Look, they just can’t.”

It is interesting that Bridges has essentially conceded that the current system is not working, that businesses survive only because the Government subsidises wages.  The last time I looked businesses such as McDonalds, Starbucks and Burger King were doing pretty well mainly because their wages bill was so low.

And so many wealthy institutions whose cleaning bills are low thanks to low levels of pay are also enjoying something at someone else’s cost.

Well done to the Government for doing this.  Can someone on the right explain how they would improve things?

67 comments on “The benefits of a Labour led Government ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. The Chairman 1
    1 April 2019 at 12:40 pm

    Nothing for the sick and unemployed?

    • A 1.1
      1 April 2019 at 2:36 pm

      Benefits aren’t levelly applied. Meaning there can be differences in surpluses of several hundred (assumes 2 x boarders, mortgage fully paid and core benefit payment received without penalty for income) vs deficits of 100+ (TAS, private rental, high health costs and unable to work or have a boarder).

      Nobody in the decade since TAS was introduced cared enough to change things for sick and disabled and I wouldn’t expect more now. Don’t need a drug, alcohol, or gambling problem to not be able to meet your expenses, all you need do is end up on the losing end of our welfare system.

    • Pat 1.2
      1 April 2019 at 7:34 pm

      am not sure…is that the case?

      • The Chairman 1.2.1
        1 April 2019 at 8:13 pm

        Seems not. Hat tip, te reo putake

        • Pat 1.2.1.1
          1 April 2019 at 8:18 pm

          have seen his link…it would appear benefits have increased by less than 2%…am guessing thats in line with inflation and there is no independent increase nor increase in relation to minimum wage

          • The Chairman 1.2.1.1.1
            1 April 2019 at 8:34 pm

            Indeed, Pat. Which would explain why there has been little said of it. It’s pittance, thus they should still be ashamed.

            Benefits should be fixed to wages as pensions are.

            • Pat 1.2.1.1.1.1
              1 April 2019 at 8:40 pm

              I think that it is a reflection of the historical position with regard to the ‘deserving poor’….or the incentive to work…even if its not a realistic option

              • The Chairman …
                1 April 2019 at 8:59 pm

                The incentive to work doesn’t really apply to the sick and disable that are unable too. Thus, as they are no longer productive, I guess they must fall into the category of Labour’s “deserving poor”

                The sick and disable tend to be solely or largely dependent on benefits. And usually for a far longer term. For some, it can be life long. Thus, without decent increases in benefits they are distend to long periods (and in some cases a life time) of poverty.

                Yet, a number of people and the Government seem to be fine with that. Go figure?

                • Pat …
                  1 April 2019 at 9:05 pm

                  if unable to work then no amount of ‘incentive’ will change that…there may be a place for incentive for those capable of work but to consign those unable to effective poverty would appear to me to be contrary to their stated ideals….that is difficult to reconcile

  2. WILD KATIPO 2
    1 April 2019 at 12:50 pm

    Took them bloody long enough…

    And yeah – what about the sick and unemployed?

    Huh ?

    • The Chairman 2.1
      1 April 2019 at 3:51 pm

      Indeed, WK

      Labour should be ashamed.

      Where are the pay increases for workers who become sick or unemployed, Jacinda?

      • te reo putake 2.1.1
        1 April 2019 at 4:24 pm

        All benefit rates went up this morning, lads, including those for the sick and the unemployed. Gutting for your argument that Labour are bastards, I know, but welcome news for many.

        Old and new rates here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2019/0027/latest/whole.html

        I’d agree the rates are too low overall, but at least this Government is trying to address the wider issues; a theme that will be picked up in the next budget, I imagine.

        • Kay 2.1.1.1
          1 April 2019 at 5:52 pm

          And correspondingly, all those of us receiving TAS will see that reduced (due to the fact our income has technically increased) thus cancelling out any pittance of an increase. Often we find the TAS cut leaves us with even less money than before the increase. Which is why these annual ‘cost of living’ increases are better known as April fools jokes.

          • te reo putake 2.1.1.1.1
            1 April 2019 at 7:11 pm

            Hi, Kay. Can you tell me a bit more about TAS eligibility? I’m supporting someone at WINZ in a couple of days. Transitting off ACC on to sickness benefit, though an appeal is in on the decline of ACC cover. TAS sounds like it might help.

        • Stuart Munro. 2.1.1.2
          1 April 2019 at 7:01 pm

          Well, I’d like to see more, but good on them.

        • Pat 2.1.1.3
          1 April 2019 at 7:41 pm

          The increases are negligible…if minimum wage has increased by over 7% why havnt benefits?

          • Chris 2.1.1.3.1
            2 April 2019 at 1:52 am

            Because the legislation pins annual increases to the CPI. TRP thinks the increases reflect Labour looking after beneficiaries. I suppose that’s true in a sense, for example, if you think Labour should get a pat on the back for not repealing the section of the Act that says the increases have to happen. Perhaps the poor owe Labour a big thank you for not doing that.

        • Chris 2.1.1.4
          2 April 2019 at 1:34 am

          “I’d agree the rates are too low overall, but at least this Government is trying to address the wider issues; a theme that will be picked up in the next budget, I imagine.”

          The Social Security Act requires benefit rates to be increased every year, so it’s not a matter of this government trying to address the wider issues at all – the previous National government had to do it, too, so don’t try to claim that Labour’s going out of its way to do anything extra for beneficiaries because they’re not.

          And as far as Labour looking at addressing benefit issues at the next budget, well, that’s what Labour’s been saying since the benefit cuts in 1991, and it’s done absolutely nothing. People have given up waiting for Labour to do anything meaningful for beneficiaries. All it’s done is made things worse. Nobody believes that shit anymore about Labour wanting to sort the benefit system out. “Wait til after the election…”, “it’s going to be in the next budget…”, “we’re working on the policy now but we have to get it right…” It’s become a total joke.

      • Chris 2.1.2
        2 April 2019 at 2:08 am

        Increasing benefit levels is not on Labour’s radar. Labour are opposed to doing that. At the end of last year Labour passed a whole brand new Social Security Act. It was originally a National government Bill but Labour adopted it as its own and passed it almost in its entirety. It was a very nasty manouvre on National’s part which suited Labour down to the ground because it was consistent with its anti-social security track record going back to 1999. While it’s been Labour’s policy to talk about fixing our social security system for decades now, it certainly isn’t part of its policy to do it.

  3. The Chairman 3
    1 April 2019 at 1:04 pm

    “National Party leader Simon Bridges has again spoken out against the minimum wage increase which comes into effect today, calling it “too far, too fast”.

    It’s actually the opposite. Too little too late. How quick Bridges forgets the growing numbers queuing for food parcels.

    And as for the small struggling businesses Bridges refers, they will potentially do better when many more workers have extra cash to spend.

  4. Ad 4
    1 April 2019 at 1:20 pm

    Well done you beat me to it.

    More in Budget in 6 weeks.

  5. WeTheBleeple 5
    1 April 2019 at 1:27 pm

    I suspect some business owners have no grasp of trickle-round theory.

    With trickle round, the money goes to the bottom namely workers, and this gets spent on basic goods and services which businesses provide. The business gets paid, the workers get paid. Simple. Money circulates through and strengthens the local economy (till it hits a corporate siphon).

    With trickle down, the money goes to champagne and boats for management for a jolly good job jolly well done. The workers sit with tin cups waiting for management to piss out the window. Trickling down are jobs for wiping up piss, wiping down yachts, and wiping chins.

    • indiana 5.1
      1 April 2019 at 4:13 pm

      How well does this theory work if businesses increase the cost of their product inline with the increase in wages paid to their employees? And of course we all know that the price of commodities do not increase equally with the increase in wages.

      • WeTheBleeple 5.1.1
        1 April 2019 at 4:43 pm

        It is up to each business how they respond. In the big picture 200K people, many of who work just as hard (and often harder) than managers, will be better off. And we’re not talking take a trip abroad better off, we’re talking feeding the kids, heating the house, getting to work.

        I understand some industries rely heavily on the cheapest labor they can get. The claim is that competition and overheads force their hand to operate like this. I encourage such industries to make a clear financial case for themselves instead of noise and veiled threats of the sky falling in local newspapers.

        It might be that some industries do require propping up, let the accountants account for them. If their value to society is such they are worth propping up, state their case.

        On the local money go round

        200 000 people times $1.20 an hour times 40 hours

        9 600 000 per week added to the local economy.

        Accommodation supplement costs 30M per week to landlords.

        Some people have had it both ways for far too long. Those who endure genuine hardship should be looked after. Business and workers.

      • KJT 5.1.2
        1 April 2019 at 10:43 pm

        Capitalism says, that businesses which cannot cover their true costs, should be allowed to fail, and make way for businesses that use their resources more efficiently.

        One of the notable things about “Capitalists” is the belief in capitalism goes down the drain, and the hand goes out, for “socialist” subsidies’, when it is they who are failing.

        Supply and demand dictates the price of most goods, rather than the marginal cost of supply. Some, must haves, can get away with cost plus pricing, like electricity. Most commodities have a market limit on the price level.

    • Skunk Weed 5.2
      2 April 2019 at 4:22 am

      Like +100%

    • Lucy 5.3
      2 April 2019 at 10:11 am

      Whilst I dislike trickle down your theory of trickle round doesn’t work either. In all the stories from Victorian times the main thing was that if you were poor you bought food each day as 1) there was no way to preserve food and 2) you had to pay cash. But this is the most expensive way to buy things so the poor in many instances paid more than the wealthy for their food bill due to the markups put on purchasing small quantities (sounds like the current debate about shopping trucks). Trickle round also means that the poor still spend all their income, as their cars are older and need more servicing, their homes are rentals and the rents go up each year, they eat more poorly so they need to go to the dentist more, they are more vulnerable to sickness as the food choices are more limited. Any system that relies on a trickle approach will fail because to work demand must be higher than supply

      • WeTheBleeple 5.3.1
        2 April 2019 at 11:13 am

        If you took my original post seriously that’s your issue there were more than enough sign posts to suggest it was satirical.

        Thanks for the lecture about how the poor spend all to pay their bills. I feel considerably enlightened. That btw was also sarcasm.

  6. mosa 6
    1 April 2019 at 1:30 pm

    Simon Bridges is irrelevant like his opinions on anything.
    They had nine years and accomplished zilch.
    Unionizing the workforce ? Yeah right.

    • my view 6.1
      1 April 2019 at 10:06 pm

      Simon might be irrelevant but they aren’t. They might not be socially minded but they left the country financially sound. That’s the foundation that is letting this Government try out its expensive policies. The last nine years is a cheap shot when we all know that a lot natural and global problems had to be delt with in that time.

      • WeTheBleeple 6.1.1
        2 April 2019 at 5:05 am

        Delusional. Evidence of the financially sound books left by National? Just blathering, if you say it is so doesn’t make it true – at all!

        The books with broken hospitals, broken people, welfare system, housing, health, education…

        ‘They might not be socially minded’

        They are not society minded. Go count your shares or something else you are capable of comprehending.

  7. JO 7
    1 April 2019 at 2:25 pm

    Is it a bit late for someone on the right to think of something to do about a situation they have planned, promulgated, put into place, pressured people to accept, punished others for resisting, put at the top of their to-do list at every election since the early 1990s and before (Bold Sir John merely put knobs on top), and pugnaciously promoted with promises of progress and prosperity?

    Still, there’s always hope that goodwill and good minds on all ‘sides’ will come up with some useful ideas. Like, maybe, expecting businesses to think of their staff not as costs to control but assets worth investing in?

  8. A 8
    1 April 2019 at 2:41 pm

    This will sound harsh but what we need are corresponding cuts in Accommodation Supplement as part of the first phase in weening our landlords off welfare dependency.

    The AS has ruined this country by pushing up rents at the bottom and causing a flow on effect. It was only ever meant to give low income earners a choice between State and private rentals, not supply 60% of all rental properties with gov’t money.

    • Rosemary McDonald 8.1
      1 April 2019 at 5:03 pm

      I’d be getting rid of the AS totally. Put in place a wage, rent and price freeze literally overnight with no prior warning, and simultaneously announce the immediate cancellation of the AS.

      Government should have funds to hand to purchase acceptable properties at the resulting mortgagee sales.

      Kill a whole lot of birds….

      • Chris 8.1.1
        2 April 2019 at 4:16 pm

        The maximum AS can be over three quarters of a person’s basic benefit rate. Axing that amount of someone’s income would be pretty horrific.

    • Skunk Weed 8.2
      1 April 2019 at 7:15 pm

      What 60% of Landlords getting Rent Subsidies from Central Government you are fucking joking, what a crooked set up that is, and most of the money flowing over to China ?

  9. Psycho Milt 9
    1 April 2019 at 3:27 pm

    “We already – through Working for Families, through rental supplements and the like – are supporting them,” he concluded. “But to have that small business doing it? Look, they just can’t.”

    Interesting – Simon Bridges just declared capitalism to be unworkable in NZ. Although, based on his previous word salads, you have to assume he doesn’t actually know that’s what he said.

  10. Tiger Mountain 10
    1 April 2019 at 3:27 pm

    Good, well needed, incremental reforms, which only Nashnull worshippers could fault, so I will fault something else–the “Neo Liberal Consensus” that National and Labour predominantly, and NZ First and Greens secondarily, have subscribed to for almost 30 years now–Reserve Bank Act, SOEs, State Sector Act, essentially free in and outflow of capital and repatriated profits…

    if the Coalition Govt. is able to win a second term, in what ever form it may reemerge following the 2020 election, then there are other substantial reforms needed, many of which could be done right now with less blow back than CGT seems to have attracted

    …such as; genuinely renounce Rogernomics/Ruthanasia, cleanse the top ranks of the SSC, and public sector top echelons, of hundreds of “enemies within”–monetarist hard men masquerading as civil servants, reform punitive WINZ/MSD or preferably retire it totally and replace with GMI/UBI, return Electricity generation and supply to full public ownership, with some compensation over time, return the Marsden Refinery to full public ownership, particularly now that it is looking greener energy generation also, etc. etc.–“for the many not the few” has to be the tack for a second term Jacinda lead Govt.

  11. cleangreen 11
    1 April 2019 at 3:31 pm

    Labour needs to get transport sorted out here as trucks are not the way as we showed here.

    I wrote to the minister of transport asking to meet him in his office in wellington last month and while parliament was off.

    We just got another note back saying ‘he was to busy’???????

    He is to busy while not at parliament? What the hell was he busy doing??

    GGGRRRRR.

    He needs to get big items done before 2020 to look credible.

    TO; Phil Twyford
    Minister of Transport.
    31st March 2019.

    Subject; Article below entitled; “The Hidden Trucking Industry Subsidy”

    This US based article shows we ‘public’ give an exorbitant unfair amount of subsidy to the trucking industry.

    Minister please drive around regional NZ and just see the impacts of 50+ tonne trucks destruction of our “soft roads” that do not even have an adequate under base to carry the 50+ tonne laden weight trucks, as they need a ‘reinforced concrete base’ as US/Canadian and EU roads have installed under their truck routes.

    Quote;
    Freight trucks cause 99% of wear-and-tear on US roads, but only pay for 35% of the maintenance. This $60B subsidy causes extra congestion and pollution, and taxpayers pay the bill.

    SO; ‘WE GIVE ‘PUBLIC’ SUBSIDY TO TRUCKS WHY NOT RAIL’?

    We request ‘public’ money for roading also be given to restoring our public owned regional rail.

    Dear Minister of Transport;

    Since this document came out we know that the public is massively funding road repairs for private trucking companies so now we need to level the playing field for rail as it is a public owned entity owned by us taxpayers so we now desperately need at least an equal 50% contribution of the ‘public road funding’ be given to rail to restore the regional rail services around NZ.

    Your response to this letter is very welcome.

    • Psycho Milt 11.1
      1 April 2019 at 3:35 pm

      I drove from Rotorua to Palmerston North this morning and have never seen so many big rigs on the road, including the narrow, winding Vinegar Hill road between Feilding and SH1. South of Taupo the traffic actually stopped because big rig one couldn’t get his fat arse onto a bridge while fatarse big rig two was crossing it. Stop subsidising these fucks – what you subsidise, you get more of.

      • cleangreen 11.1.1
        1 April 2019 at 4:02 pm

        Yes Psycho Milt.

        We on the East Coast roads from Napier to Tauranga called ‘Highway two’ is stuffed and falling apart as trucks are literally pulling the road apart from side to side now, and potholes are every 5o yards apart from each other now.

        My vehicle’s steering has been damaged so many times, now I pay to fix the steering every three months on average, or replace a broken engine mount.

        This is worse than just being a ‘bad joke’ it’s now sop dangerous to drive on these roads now.

        Get rail going as it was before.

        http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1904/S00008/kiwirail-to-boost-log-capacity-out-of-wairarapa.htm

        KiwiRail to boost log capacity out of Wairarapa
        BusinessDesk Monday, 1 April 2019, 10:33 am
        Article: BusinessDesk

        By Gavin Evans

        April 1 (BusinessDesk) – KiwiRail plans to increase its log capacity out of Wairarapa by about a third to cater for the increased harvest and reduce the number of trucks travelling into CentrePort in Wellington.

        The company runs two trains on week days – typically of 15 wagons each – and twice as many at the weekend when there are fewer commuter services.

        Alan Piper, the group’s sales and commercial general manager, says the firm has no plans for additional services. But he says the weekday trains currently have surplus capacity and just require extra wagons to increase their loads.

        “We are planning to add 15 wagons to one of the daily trains in May, once more wagons become available,” he told BusinessDesk.

        “That will increase the capacity by around 100,000 tonnes a year from the current 270,000 tonnes” and reduce truck movements over the Remutaka Range by about 6,000, he said.

        Log exports are booming, with many ports working to increase capacity to handle trees planted in the 1990s. Logs and timber are the country’s third-largest export and brought in $5.3 billion in the 12 months through February, 12 percent more than a year earlier.

        KiwiRail is also investing heavily to capture more of that harvest for its own business. It is converting about 100 container wagons annually to carry logs and is expecting to receive an additional 200 new log wagons by the end of the year.

        New Zealand has about 1.7 million hectares of plantation forest, according to the Ministry for Primary Industries. The southern North Island – including Taranaki but excluding Central Hawke’s Bay – accounts for about 161,400 ha of that.

        CentrePort handled 891,500 tonnes of logs in the six months through December, 36 percent more than a year earlier. Port Taranaki handled about 425,000 tonnes in the same period, a 24 percent increase. Napier Port handled a record 2.2 million tonnes in the 12 months through September, 35 percent more than the year before.

        Wairarapa and Tararua is home to almost 70,000 ha of forest. KiwiRail delivers logs from the Waingawa hub south of Masterton. It was established in 2016 by CentrePort and local foresters.

        A new venture active this month wants to find ways to use that facility more efficiently.

        Forest Enterprises Growth, New Forests and Feilding-based FOMS have formed Log Distribution to better coordinate their shipments.

        The trio, some of whom also have operations around Gisborne and Rangitikei, are collaborating around their common interests in Hawke’s Bay and Wairarapa.

        Forest Enterprises chief executive Bert Hughes says recent changes mean all three firms are using Tauranga-based TPT to manage their export marketing and scheduling of their shipments.

        While they are still competing for sales, their logs are going on the same ships so they can work collaboratively to gather consignments and get vessels loaded quicker.

        Trees the partners source or harvest in Hawke’s Bay will continue to be shipped through Napier Port. Log Distribution’s early focus will be on ways to improve coordination of harvests, trucking and use of Waingawa.

        “We expect to put 600,000 tonnes through Wellington” a year, he told BusinessDesk.

        “Once we get that right, we can grow it out from there.”

        Hughes is expecting a steady increase in the Wairarapa harvest during the next five years and CentrePort is expanding storage at Waingawa.

        Burt he said reducing ‘choke-points’ in the logistics chain will be key to making better use of the region’s rail and port infrastructure and reducing truck movements on the Remutaka Range, he says.

        Being “a bit more careful” about the grade of logs being cut may improve the use of space at Waingawa and increase stock turn, he said.

        “Your need for extra storage is not as great, in effect, if you can move it down the chain faster.”

        Last week, Hughes said about 8,000 tonnes of logs were being railed to CentrePort weekly – the equivalent of 40 log trucks a day.

        Starting overnight services would be ideal, but while the supply of locomotives, log wagons and drivers remains tight, firms have to find other ways to maximise the use of the assets available.

        “We’ve just got to be more organised.”

        (BusinessDesk)

        ends

        • Sacha 11.1.1.1
          1 April 2019 at 6:38 pm

          Please do not paste the whole article here – just the link and maybe a relevant sentence or paragraph will do.

    • Skunk Weed 11.2
      1 April 2019 at 7:16 pm

      NZ Roads are getting chewed to bits by heavy trucks ?

  12. Psycho Milt 12
    1 April 2019 at 3:31 pm

    “It’s an accumulative effect, right? This is why the economy is weakening.

    It’s “cumulative effect,” Simon. You’re welcome. That second sentence is an outright lie.

    Maybe if NZ businesses didn’t treat the minimum wage as a default, the government wouldn’t have to keep increasing the minimum wage all the time. Causes have effects, you know?

  13. AB 13
    1 April 2019 at 3:51 pm

    As Chomsky said – small changes in big powerful systems can make a worthwhile difference for individuals. So yeah that’s why Labour governments are always preferable.
    It’s like the back still hurts when you get up, but it’s maybe a bit better than yesterday and there’s some Voltaren in the cupboard so you can make it through the day. Not to be sneezed at.

  14. roy cartland 14
    1 April 2019 at 4:01 pm

    “Can someone on the right explain how they would improve things?”
    • Lower taxes so “hard-working” people can keep more of “their” money
    • Sell “uncompetitive” assets and services and invest in “profitable” ones
    • Take government out of the role of, er, governing and leave it to privateers
    • Increase benefits for those who can pay or are paid well already
    • Whatever big-dairy farmers say they wants, they gets
    • Renege on environmental commitments because those that “want to” can always buy their way out of catastrophe
    • More open-door immigration, roads and guns…

    …sorry, what was the question again?

  15. cleangreen 15
    1 April 2019 at 5:51 pm

    Today at 11 and 12 both psycho Milt and I were talking about how dangerous our NZ roads are.

    Then I signed off to turn on today’s news to find 9 people died today on our roads as the worst number since 2005 so I am now in total shock as we me and psycho Milt were talking together people were dying on our roads.

    So now we need the speed on our single lane roads lowered now before others get to be another statistic.

    Hastings District Council has lowered all local roads outside the city to 80kms last year and now the death rate is lowered to half of what it was when it was 100 kms.

    We hope now NZTA swiftly move to do the same all over the country as single lane roads should not be 100kms and only motorways outside the city boundaries should be 100kms.

    To think that it was just a year and a half ago the truck road transport industry was seeking that the speed be raised to 110 kms. What planet do they come from?

    Lower the road speed NZTA.

  16. David Mac 16
    1 April 2019 at 6:51 pm

    A shot in the arm for the min wage makes small differences for those on a min wage. They’re presented with that harrowing choice between a kg of cheese or 4 litres of petrol.

    The benefits push on up. The guy running the fruit and vege dept at Countdown on $20 per hour now has a strengthened case to knock on his boss’s door and ask for $25.

  17. David Mac 17
    1 April 2019 at 7:09 pm

    The business that faces bankruptcy because their wages overhead has increased by a few percentage points has 9 toes already in the grave.

    A smart business is looking for ways they can increase wages, not slash them. Pay well, attract the best.

  18. Pat 18
    1 April 2019 at 7:36 pm

    Is a positive move….though it would be better if combined with an increase in progressive taxation….that however has been ruled out sadly, so ultimately it will be of little impact.

  19. David Mac 19
    1 April 2019 at 7:36 pm

    I think an intrinsic contributor to our nation’s tourism success are long haul Air NZ cabin staff. I’m sure they have their critics but I think they’re ambassadors extraordinaire.

    Technically, they’re restaurant floor staff with first aid certificates and flexible diaries. They fall into the $18-$22 per hour pay grade sector.

    Largely because of a ‘bang the table’ union and partly because the Air NZ corporate swirl can see benefit in attracting and retaining the best it’s still a viable career choice.

    Much weight is placed in loyalty, each anniversary salaries take a $5k? pa hike. That’s why we see master hosts and hostesses, fabulous NZ ambassadors still pushing drinks carts up aisles 20 years after their first flight. They’re waiting staff with St John certs on $155k a year.

    It’s an outcome that shouldn’t be exclusive to a few like Airnz.

  20. my view 20
    1 April 2019 at 7:39 pm

    As a national supporter I have to confess I believe this wage adjustment is long overdue and nationals caution is all about protecting business, and nothing about people’s well-being.

  21. Tuppence Shrewsburyi 21
    1 April 2019 at 7:45 pm

    This is the first substantial benefit thus government has given the electorate. I suppose it’s important to make a big deal of it. Kind of pales in comparison to what could have been achieved in 18 months of government though

  22. David Mac 22
    1 April 2019 at 8:26 pm

    Henry Ford doubled the average labourer’s wage, workers on his Model T line were paid $5 a day.

    It was a double edged sword, with the extra money came the pace of an assembly line and the monotony of getting really efficient at a mindless repetitive mundane task.

    It was a compromise, ‘my sweat for your coin’. Ford said ‘I want the people who work for me to have a Model T of their own.’

    It’s an ideal that we’re tending to cast aside. The thought that the best way for me to be successful is to assist you to be successful.

    • peterlepaysan 22.1
      1 April 2019 at 11:29 pm

      Exactly. Ford was no bleeding heart liberal but saw the value in in having his employees having enough money to buy his product.

      If the current darlings of the media chatterers and politicians (kiwi small business) cannot afford to pay the minimum wage, or (good grief) the living wage they should get out of business and get a real job that pays (gasp) a living wage.

      Greed drives capitalism. Greed drives my cattle, sheep, chickens, cat and and dog as well as me. It is manageable, and has to be if we are to survive.

      It has to be managed. The “economy” has to be managed.

      If a business cannot afford to pay an employee the minimum wage let alone (gasp) the living wage it should not be in business.

      The owners should give up their “business” and get a real job that pays a living wage.
      Just share th wealth equitably. How hwrd is that? Sigh.