Word of the day

August 18, 2014

Benthos – the flora and fauna on the bottom, or in the bottom sediments, of a sea or lake; the community of organisms which live on, in, or near the seabed.


Rural round-up

August 18, 2014

The circus of foreign ownership – Dr William Rolleston:

The Election has suddenly sparked into life. It was not a policy, a pratfall or a stunt, but Shanghai Pengxin Group’s Overseas Investment Office (OIO) application to buy Lochinver Station.

While Federated Farmers has taken the principled position of trying to learn what the ‘substantial and identifiable benefit’ to New Zealand is of this proposed sale, others have gone off the proverbial deep end.  National has been far too dismissive of concerns being raised in some quarters. Labour has gone to the opposite end by announcing they’d block the sale, along with the Greens.  Meanwhile, NZ First will go further and stop all foreign sales of New Zealand farmland.  That seems to be the position of Colin Craig, who stepped into Mr Peters shoes by breaking this story.

What everyone seems to have forgotten is process.  Our overseas investment rules are meant to operate on fair play under the guise of the OIO.  Instead, it has turned into an election political circus. The coverage of which, has gone global, given the media who have contacted me. . .

Meat and fibre’s time to shine – Rick Powdrell:

Boy oh boy, doesn’t it feel good to be a sheep and beef farmer for once. Of course it wasn’t always that way.  We were the dairy industry for decades, almost as soon as the Dunedin slipped out of Port Chalmers in1882, we rode the sheep’s back.  The good times operated under a simple business model.  We grew meat and fibre and Britain needed it.

Through war and peace, these good times seemed destined to run forever.  Our success blinded us to what the bright sparks at companies like DuPont were doing.  That was until they ‘wool-jacked’ us with oil based fibres.  That wasn’t helped by lamb being seen in the 1970s as your grans’ meal. You could have lamb cooked anyway you wanted as long as it came in a roasting tin.  Other meats became trendier and in some instances, cheaper, while our industry was trapped in a Sunday roast.  . .

*******************************************************

 

*************************************************************

Demand drops for malting barley – Annette Scott:

A shrinking number of Kiwi beer drinkers is creating less demand for malting barley.

As beer consumption falls, coupled with higher prices for New Zealand barley, breweries require less malt and malting companies less barley.

Marton-based malting company Malteurop NZ operations manager Tiago Cabral said New Zealanders’ drinking habits were having an impact on the company. . .

 

Worth sharing - thanks The Horse Mafia

NSW $10m beef deal with China – Roderick Makim:

NSW beef suppliers have secured a $10 million export deal to the Chinese market.

Producers including Andrews Meat Industries in Lidcombe and the Northern Co-operative Meat Company Ltd in Casino are among the NSW suppliers involved in the deal, Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner said today.

Mr Stoner announced the deal while visiting Hong Kong and Shenzhen for a three-day trade mission along with representatives from a range of NSW food companies. . . .


Green for slow

August 18, 2014

The Green Party wants to give in-work tax credits to people who aren’t working and fund it with an envy tax.

The motivation to end child poverty is noble.

But in taking away the incentive to work they are going to increase benefit dependency, which as Lindsay Mitchell, says is one of the major determinants of poverty:

Let’s remember is was Labour that introduced the IWTC, the rationale being to attract more parents, mainly single, into employment. Clark and Cullen believed that the best way to get children out of poverty was to get their parents into paid work. From Cullen’s 2006 budget speech:

The Government believes that ultimately work is the best way out of poverty, and provides the best social and economic outcomes for families in the long run. Making work pay through the In-Work Payment component of the Working for Families package improves people’s opportunities to make a better life for themselves and their families.

In Social Developments author Tim Garlick wrote

The decision to strengthen work incentives by not increasing the income of non-working families was strongly criticised by some academics and community groups…

 But they stood by their conviction.

And the courts have upheld the policy’s legitimacy against multiple challenges from the Child Poverty Action Group.

Yet the Greens see no value in paid work. No value in children growing up with working role models.No value in actually earning an income; participating, contributing and producing.

All they see is a quick cash cure (with no gaurantee the money will be spent on the children) which comes with the almighty risk that more children will grow up welfare dependent as the financial rewards of working, as meagre as they are, disappear.

I must have said it hundreds of times. Welfare made families poor. More of it is not the answer.

Contrary to what the Greens believe, neither more welfare nor higher taxes are the answer to reducing poverty:

The Greens/Labour recipe of more and higher taxes would stall New Zealand’s economic recovery just when we are getting back on our feet after the Global Financial Crisis, National’s Associate Finance spokesman Steven Joyce says.

“The Greens have proposed a 40 per cent top tax rate that would affect many hard-working New Zealanders, including school principals, doctors, and many small business owners,” Mr Joyce says.

“We’ve been here before. A 40 per cent tax rate is damaging to the economy because it increases tax avoidance, penalises hard work, and sends some of our best and brightest offshore.

“And it is of course just another in a long list of new taxes Labour and the Greens want to introduce including a capital gains tax, a big carbon tax, taxes on water use, higher personal taxes, and regional fuel taxes.

“Just when the New Zealand economy is heading in the right direction and we are growing the largest number of new jobs in a decade, the Greens want to go back to the old tax and spend approach that clearly didn’t work in the lead up to the GFC.

“Back then, our best and brightest were flooding out the door for better opportunities in Australia. Now migration out to Australia has stopped.

“Back then, welfare rolls were already growing because of our domestic recession. Now 1600 people a week are moving off welfare and into work because of our growing economy.

“Back then, government spending had jumped by 50 per cent in just five years, pushing floating mortgage rates close to 11 per cent and leaving us with forecasts of budget deficits and soaring debt into the future.

Mr Joyce says the economic recipe that’s working includes lower, not higher, taxes and a government that is relentlessly focussed on growing jobs and getting people off welfare support and into meaningful work.

“National’s economic plan is working for New Zealand. We have just become one of the fastest growing economies in the OECD. Keeping with the plan is the best way of helping people the opportunity to get off welfare and into work. We should not go back to the failed recipes of the past,” Mr Joyce says.

And let’s not forget that the Greens are also promising a carbon tax which would impact directly on every individual and business adding costs not just to luxuries but to basic necessities including food and heating.

Anything they “give” to reduce poverty will be more than counteracted by what they take away in direct and indirect cost increases and the brake their policies would impose on the economy.

Green is supposed to be for go, but Green influence in government would be for slow and low when it comes to economic growth and the social progress and environmental protection and enhancement that depend on that.


Hoardings hooligans

August 18, 2014

Another election, another spate of attacks on hoardings.

And who wins from the hooliganism?

This letter from today’s ODT makes it clear:

I own a sign company. Local body and national elections are good business for me and others in our trade. We get commissioned to produce and erect party signs and predetermined locations around the country. Every party has the same rights to advertise in these spaces.

My question is, why do folk feel the need to pull dow, deface and destroy these hoardings> It is a total waste of time and money, and to be fair we (sing writers) are the only winners. Drawing phallic symbols, horns, of Nazi symbols on oppositions’ signs does not promoted your own cause – if anything it only shows the mentality behind your own ideology.

Here is an out-there idea: why not just accept that every party will try to promote itself this way and get on with selling your own policies and values?

I’m no social political expert but I know many of us look at Gaza and wonder how the parties involved can be so hell-bent on destroying each other, yet the behaviour of the sign smashers, while not life-threatening, is not a million miles way.

Show some leadership and if that’s too hard, just grow up.

Bruce Carvell, Managing director Williams Signs & Graphix Ltd.

Some of the hooliganism is politically motivated, some isn’t.

This year the has been a disturbing level of anti-Semitism and personal denigration in some areas.

All of it is expensive in time, energy and money for the volunteers who fund, erect, clean and re-erect the damaged hoardings.

I’d like to think that people make their decisions on how to vote on a lot more than hoardings.

But they’re legitimate advertising and should be left alone to give their message rather than demonstrate the idiocy of those who for political or other reasons deface, destroy or steal them.


Another political test

August 18, 2014

This test comes from the Pew Institute in the USA .

The questions reflect that and are binary which doesn’t take into account most people fall into the grey areas between the black and white extremes.

That said, I come out as a business conservative:

Business Conservatives generally are traditional small-government Republicans. Overwhelming percentages think that government is almost always wasteful and it does too much better left to businesses and individuals. Business Conservatives differ from Steadfast Conservatives in their positive attitudes toward business and in their strong support for Wall Street in particular. Most think that immigrants strengthen the country and take a positive view of U.S. global involvement. As a group, they are less socially conservative than Steadfast Conservatives.

 

 


How NZ ranks

August 18, 2014

Lots to celebrate:

And last week we came first in the Social Progress Index

 


Meanwhile what matters

August 18, 2014

Sideshows dominated last week’s news.

Policies which will make a positive difference to the lives, and deaths, of people went largely unnoticed.

But it is initiatives like this which really matter.
Strong stable leadership by the National led government over the last six years means we can afford to spend more money on our public services. Here is an overview of this weeks policy announcements.


%d bloggers like this: