Where are the savings?

July 7, 2020

When the milk payout plummeted a few years ago we did what every sensible business did – looked at every single item of expenditure in our budget, worked out what was and wasn’t necessary and adjusted it accordingly.

Anything that wasn’t absolutely necessary was removed, anything that was necessary was looked at carefully to see if we could find a way of reducing its cost.

The Key government took a similar approach with its budgeting during the GFC – requiring savings wherever possible while maintaining essential services.

Where is this government making savings?

The country is facing a far bleaker outlook than we did during the GFC but has yet to mention anything about making cutting costs to reduce the amount of borrowing it is doing.

Most councils have reduced the forecast rates rises, some impsing no increase at all but there is no sign that central government is planning to follow that good example from local government and re-examine its budget to reduce the burden of debt that will dog the country for many, many years.

Hardly a day goes by we don’t get media releases telling of government giving money to at least one project or initiative.

A responsible and caring government would put at least as much effort into saving money as it does to spending it.

There is a good case for spending during a recession, as the Key government did to take the hardest edges off the impact on the most vulnerable. But that spending was carefully targeted and the burden of debt was reduced by a concentration on making savings in other areas at the same time.

If the necessity of doing that has occured to this government it’s been very quiet about it but I doubt that it has even crossed its mind.

An administration that has failed to deliver on its big promises, threw money at ill-thought out policies as varied as fees-free tertiary education for all and good looking horses, is one that pays far more attention to the amount it spends than the value.

It has failed to differentiate between the quantity and the quality of its spend, between must-haves, to grasp the necessity of restricting itself to must-haves rather than nice-to-haves and to deliver on its promises when it was in surplus.

It doesn’t have the wit or the will to spend wisely and make savings where it can and must. We can’t afford another three years of that.


Planning to fail

July 3, 2020

Ensuring Covid-19 doesn’t get past the border has widespread support, but it’s time for a plan that keeps it there and lets more people in:

The Prime Minister needs to stop misrepresenting the border issue and tell New Zealanders what her strategy is to protect the economy long-term, Leader of the Opposition Todd Muller says.

“The Government’s clumsy and incompetent management of our quarantine procedures means it is impossible for New Zealand’s border to open tomorrow, next week or even next month.

“That simply would not be safe.

“However, New Zealanders also need to know how and when the border will progressively be reopened, because not doing that is untenable.

“New Zealanders deserve the highest standards to protect them from getting Covid-19, both at the border and when it comes to tracking and tracing in the event of cases in the community.

“We need to know when those standards will be in place so that New Zealanders have confidence to progressively and safely open the border and grow the economy.

“Locking down what’s left of the economy and waiting for a vaccine isn’t an option.”

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s response ignores the issue:

 . . .”It is untenable to consider the idea of opening up New Zealand’s borders to Covid-19.

“In some parts of the world where we have had frequent movement of people they are not estimating that they will reach a peak for at least a month,” Ardern said.

“Any suggestion of borders opening at this point, frankly, is dangerous.” . . .

No-one is asking for the borders to open at this point.

A lot of people, businesses and organisations are asking for information on the plan for when and how the borders will open at some point in the future.

Farmers and contractors need experienced workers, principals facing teacher shortages are looking for staff, secondary schools and tertiary institutions want to be able to host foreign students again . . .

None of these is asking for anything that would risk Covid-19 getting past the border, but all want to know the government’s plan for safe entry of more than returning New Zealanders and the heavily restricted number and categories of people deemed essential workers so they can plan.

Any half competent government would have had people planning ahead months ago.

The omnishambles at the border that required the military and another minister to take over running it, shows that wasn’t done.

The current situation needs a strong focus but the inability for someone in government to look further ahead while others deal with immediate priorities reinforces Todd Muller’s observation there are three or four competent ministers and a whole lot of empty chairs in Cabinet.

Had there been anyone with more ability in any of those chairs, perhaps one of the three deputy Health Ministers for example, Chris Hipkins who already had a very heavy workload wouldn’t have been the only one capable of taking over as Health Minister yesterday after David Clark resigned.

That appointment highlights the shallowness of the Cabinet pond and explains why Muller’s request for details of the strategy for opening the border is being ignored.

There doesn’t appear to be anyone in the government with the time and ability to plan that far ahead which is a very serious problem because as the adage says, if you fail to plan then you’ll plan to fail.


Reds’ policy path to poverty

June 29, 2020

The Reds have announced an $8 billion tax grab:

The Green Party have unveiled a sweeping new welfare policy that would guarantee a weekly income of at least $325, paid for by a wealth tax on millionaires and two new income tax brackets on high-earners. . . 

The $325 after-tax payment would be paid to every adult not in fulltime paid work – including students, part-time workers, and the unemployed. The student allowance and Jobseekers benefit would be replaced. . . 

It would be topped up by $110 for sole parents, and the current best start payment would be expanded from $60 per child to $100 per child, and made universal for children up to three instead of two.

This guaranteed minimum income plan would cost $7.9b a year – roughly half what is spent on NZ Super, but almost twice what is spent on current working age benefits.

Paying for all this would be a wealth tax of one per cent on net wealth of over $1 million and two per cent for assets over $2 million. The party expects this would hit only the wealthiest 6 per cent of Kiwis.

This would take the form of an annual payment and would only apply to those who owned those assets outright – not someone who still had a mortgage on their million-dollar home, for example.

That looks like everyone could avoid the tax by never paying off their mortgage, but the party wouldn’t be that stupid, would it?

Any party that thinks up this sort of economic vandalism could be.

The Taxpayers’ Union is slamming the Green Party’s proposed wealth tax as bureaucratic economic vandalism that would hammer job creators.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Jordan Williams says, “The proposed wealth tax would mean the return of the dreaded compulsory asset valuations that made a capital gains tax so unpopular. A bureaucratic valuation scheme would incentivise people to hide their wealth, or shift it offshore. It would be a dream for tax accountants but hell for small business owners.”

“The policy also appears not to differentiate between asset types.  It would tax entrepreneurs creating jobs the same as someone sitting on an art collection. Ultimately it would cost jobs at the very time New Zealanders need entrepreneurs to create them.”

“Wealthy iwi groups sitting on often unproductive land would also be smashed under this scheme.  It’s bumper sticker type policy which is poorly thought through.”

“Any party that says you should raise taxes in the middle of a recession is divorced from reality. It is scary that all the work James Shaw has done to try and make the Greens more economically credible appears to be for nothing.”

Commenting specifically on the Green Party’s income support policy, Mr Williams says, “Under the Greens’ policy, a family of five with both parents on the dole would receive $1180 a week in taxpayer funds, assuming one of the kids is younger than three. That goes beyond generosity: it is using taxpayer funds to encourage long-term unemployment. Combined with the policies to tax job creators, this package would take a sledgehammer to New Zealand’s productivity.”

There’s no good time to increase taxes and a recession is an even worse time.

Recovery from the economic carnage wrought by the Covid-19 response requires investment, expansion and increased employment opportunities.

This policy will be a handbrake on all of those and an accelerator for benefit dependency which is a pathway to increased poverty.

This policy is typical of a party that’s more red than green and doesn’t understand that a greener country has to be well and truly in the black and you don’t there by taxing more.

New Zealanders gained a glimpse today of what a Labour Greens government would look like, and it involves a lot more taxes, National’s Finance spokesperson, Paul Goldsmith, said today. . . 

At a time when we need our successful small business people to invest and create more jobs, the Greens want to tax them more.

Rather than celebrating Kiwis doing well, the Greens seem to want to punish them.

The Greens never have the influence to get their way entirely, but they would push a Labour Greens coalition in the direction of higher taxes.

Labour have so far refused to rule out taxing people more if they win the election.

The very real fear many New Zealanders have is that this current government, which has $20 billion available for election spending, will spend whatever it takes to try to keep its poll numbers up until the 19 September election.

Then on the 20th, if they win, the smiles will drop and New Zealanders will be presented with the bill – higher taxes.

National has committed to no new taxes for Kiwis in our first term.

While the economy is going down, the Greens want to tax us more, and Labour haven’t ruled out doing the same.

That’s another very good reason to vote for a National/Act government that will focus on policies which foster the economic growth necessary to provide a pathway for progress.


Why are we waiting?

May 8, 2020

The Ministry of Health’s Covid-19 website gives details of case numbers as at 9am each day.

But it’s not updated until at least 1pm.

Why are we waiting until then?

Is there a good reason, or is it only so we can have what is becoming an increasingly tiresome double act for the media from the Beehive?

In the first few days it was a good idea for the Director General of Health Ashley Bloomfield and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to give daily briefings, to inform, reassure the public and to answer questions from journalists.

The DG fronting each day is probably still a good idea but the daily pairing with the PM is not.

Seeing only her, highlights the absence of other Ministers. It raises questions about why they aren’t fronting and none more so than Minister, Tourism Minister Kelvin Davis is nowhere to be seen when that sector has been hardest hit by the lockdown.

The tourism sector is imploding, countless jobs are being lost, and many are left with a feeling of uncertainty. . .

What tourism businesses desperately need is a leader to articulate a message of hope. It needs Davis to proactively front the media, on a regular basis, to give an idea of what the Government is doing to save the sector. Because fronting the media gets the message out to operators, who are in the middle of making big decisions about their futures. . .

Davis, like most other Ministers is kept well away from the media.  Giving us only the daily duet is in danger of politicising the Director General because as each day goes by it looks more and more like the purpose is not so much to inform the public as to promote the PM.

Take yesterday’s announcement of what the step down to Level 2 will entail.

It could have been issued as a media release followed by the opportunity for questions from media.

Instead the PM read it out in minute detail as if to a group of young children, and ones with comprehension problems at that.

Or at least that’s what the first bit sounded like. I gave up listening after a very few minutes because I had better things to do with my time and a PM overseeing what could well turn into the worst economic depression in our history  ought to have too.

Ardern is Labour’s, and the government’s, most popular figure but these daily deliveries are in danger of turning into far too much of a good thing.

Much more of this and she’ll find more and more of her audience will be following Pooh’s example of getting into a comfortable position for not listening.


Straining social licence

May 5, 2020

Yesterday we got the welcome news that no new cases of Covid-19 had been detected.

That follows several days of new cases in single digits.

To most of us that looks like it would be safe to drop to Level 2 or may even Level 1:

At Level 2:

The disease is contained, but the risk of community transmission remains.

Risk assessment

    • Household transmission could be occurring.
    • Single or isolated cluster outbreaks. . . 

At Level 1:

The disease is contained in New Zealand.

Risk assessment

    • COVID-19 is uncontrolled overseas.
    • Isolated household transmission could be occurring in New Zealand. . .

So why aren’t we moving down at least one level, or at least knowing when we will?

The government has explained that elimination doesn’t mean no cases. That means that at whatever level we’re at there will almost certainly be some new ones.

But the health risk now appears to be less serious than the risk to the economy:

National Party leader Simon Bridges admits moving to pandemic alert level 2 could result in more COVID-19 cases, but says this could happen under any level and the lockdown has to end for the sake of the economy. . .

While the unprecedented restrictions have been successful in dramatically reducing the number of new infections of the virus – which has killed hundreds of thousands of people overseas – they’ve also taken a toll on the economy.

Bridges says there are 1000 jobs being lost every day under level 3, based on new applications for the Jobseeker benefit. This is similar to the rate of new applications under level 4, when far fewer businesses were able to operate – there were 30,000 applications in the month to April 17, despite the Government’s wage subsidy being paid out to organisations employing 1.6 million people.

“This has gone on too long,” he told Newshub. “We need to get New Zealand working again. Quite simply we’ve got to end lockdown because it’s so much easier to keep someone in a job.”

He said officials “from Ashley Bloomfield down” have said COVID-19 is “eliminated”.

“Having flattened the curve, let’s not flatten the economy as well. We have to come out at some point. We can’t just wait until there’s a vaccine.”   . . 

A thousand jobs lost a day is 1,000 people a day at risk financially and at risk of poorer physical and mental health as a consequence of that.

It’s not just jobs but whole businesses that have been lost and the longer we’re stuck at Level 3 the greater the risk and the greater the economic and social costs which also have health costs.

Compounding the frustration is the continuing dearth of information on what will happen and when it will happen.

We were initially told we’d be at Level 4 for four weeks. That turned into nearly five.

We were then told we’d be at Level 3 for at least two weeks. Given we’re not going to know until next Monday if there’s going to be a drop in levels, it’s likely that we’ll be stuck at Level 3 for at least a few more days longer.

Uncertainty about the legality of police action isn’t helping:

New Zealand Police’s decision to arrest Kiwis during alert level 4 despite being advised they had little legal basis to do so “undermines the rule of law” in New Zealand, the former Attorney-General believes.

The comment from Chris Finlayson comes just hours after leaked emails to NZ Herald revealed that police were told by Crown Law that they had little to no power to enforce lockdown rules.

Finlayson, a former National MP who served as Attorney-General for nine years between 2008 and 2017, says it’s clear the police have acted beyond their powers during the coronavirus crisis.  . . 

The refusal to release Crown Law advice makes it even worse.

Incumbent Attorney-General David Parker has thus far refused to make public the advice, despite mounting pressure from the Epidemic Response Committee and MPs to do so.

Finlayson believes Parker’s refusal means there are parts of the advice “he may not like” – but says that shouldn’t change whether it’s released or not.

“There’s an overwhelming public interest, for people whose freedoms have been curtailed over the last few months, to know exactly the legal basis upon which certain decisions were made,” he said. . . 

Last week the government accidently passed legislation that differed from the Bill MPs had seen. That undermines confidence, but Jenée Tibshraeny writes:

. . .The public is putting an immense amount of trust in the Government as it circumvents the usual checks and balances to get us through this crisis. But trust is earned. It’s also key to maintaining social cohesion.

Oddly, I can dismiss Thursday’s passing of the wrong legislation as an extraordinary genuine mistake.

But the lack of transparency around decision-making and incoherent way of announcing a billion-dollar policy change, are inexcusable.

The government has imposed unprecedented restrictions on us at an enormous economic and social cost.

The willingness of most of us to abide by the lockdown requires a social licence which must be based on trust.

The government’s refusal to give us all the information we need, and to which we are entitled, is undermining trust and straining that social licence, and that is putting strict compliance at risk.


Social Market Economy explained

May 2, 2020

The New Zealand Initiative’s Executive Director Oliver Hartwich presented to the Epidemic Response Committee on 23 April 2020, where he outlined his vision for New Zealand’s social, political and economic future.

Oliver recommended economist Ludwig Erhard’s principles-based approach to New Zealand, which Erhard called the “Social Market Economy.”

But what is a Social Market Economy? Our Research Intern Luke Redward explains all the details in this video.

Oliver Hartwich’s full speech to the Epidemic Response Committee is available here:


What else will go?

April 23, 2020

Covid-19 has claimed another victim:

Pharmac has frozen plans to fund a lung cancer drug that would have helped at least 1400 patients a year, saying it can no longer afford to make the investment.

The move has dashed hopes that Keytruda would soon be publicly funded for lung cancer – New Zealand’s biggest cancer killer. . .

What will follow?

Other drugs, other treatments, more research.

Health received $19.871 billion in the 2019/20 Budget. More than $9 billion has already been spent on wage subsidies as part of the response to the Covid-19 lockdown.

That’s a big hole to fill and it won’t just be health that gets less.

What was expected to be a vote-buying spend-up Budget next month will be much, much more restrained.

We’re told that most people support the lockdown, but how many understand the full costs, and not just in money but in businesses, livelihoods and lives?

How many would have been at least as supportive of a response that safe-guarded people from the rampant spread of Covid-19 while letting more businesses operate?

The insistence on using the arbitrary view of what’s essential rather than what’s safe has increased the economic and social costs of the lockdown while doing nothing at all to make it more effective.

I got an email last week telling me I could buy text books and any children’s reading material from Dunedin’s University Book Shop but I couldn’t get adult novels until after the lockdown was eased.

How could delivering an adult novel be any more risky than the other books deemed essential?

A friend needed a merino t-shirt as the one she uses for her daily walks is falling to bits. She went on line and found she could buy long-sleeved merino garments but not t-shirts.

Why is a t-shirt not essential when something with longer sleeves is, and how much more risk is there in packing, dispatching and delivering a t-shirt than in doing it for something with long sleeves?

Another friend’s elderly mother has her lawns mown by a man who brings his own mower.

Providing he stayed outside and kept at least two metres from her, how is that any more risky than her grandson coming with his mower, and keeping a safe distance, to cut her lawn?

There are very small examples, there are plenty more much bigger ones of constraints on commerce that should not have been imposed.

Health and safety in employment law is rigorous at the best of times, its requirements should be fit for the purpose of safeguarding employees and customers in these worst of times.

Had businesses which could have operated safely been able to do so the government would be spending less on welfare, staff subsidies and business support.

These businesses, and their employees, would be then be contributing to public coffers through tax, rather than taking from them.

That would have gone someway to reducing the cost of the lockdown and contributing to a swifter recovery.

It might not have been enough to save Pharmac from reversing its decision to fund Keytruda for lung cancer, but it would have made the difference between life and death for some businesses and the livelihoods of their staff.


Stopping the spread vs economic meltdown

April 18, 2020

Trend is down

April 9, 2020

It is too early to relax, but the trend of newly identified cases of Covid-19 is down.

Recoveries outnumbering new cases is grounds for cautious optimism.

Other trends are beginning to show the economic cost of the battle against the disease:

Spending on eating out and accommodation plunged more than $300 million or almost one-third in March in the wake of measures to slow the spread of COVID-19, Stats NZ said today.

Groceries had record-high sales in March, but retail card spending fell across the board during the month from clothes to fuel.

Total retail sales fell $231 million (3.9 percent) in March 2020, after adjusting for seasonal effects, the biggest fall on record in both percentage and dollar terms. . .

While these trends are down, business failures and job losses are trending up.

All of these will be leading to a decrease in the  (a survey shows 1/3 don’t expect to survive) tax take just when the demands for public spending are increasing.


The other curve

April 6, 2020

In ordering a lockdown and putting New Zealand into a state of emergency, the government is firmly fixed on reducing the spread of Covid-19 to save lives and, ultimately, eliminate the disease.

That’s the health side of the equation. Roger Partridge argues a coherent Covid-19 strategy would also taken into account the economic one:

Professor Sir David Skegg raised the 64-thousand-dollar (or perhaps 64 billion-dollar) question in his testimony before Parliament’s Epidemic Response Committee this week. He asked whether the government had a clear the strategic objective for its unprecedented level-four lockdown.

Since the subtitle of Alert Level 4 is “Eliminate”, Sir David’s question might seem unfair. And Director General of Health, Dr Ashly Bloomfield, quickly clarified to media that elimination is indeed the goal.

But if elimination is the objective, it is troubling that Minister of Health David Clark referred to a goal of reducing the epidemic’s effect to successive “waves” of infection in his testimony before the Committee. There will be no waves of infection if elimination is successful.

Lack of consistency in messaging about the Government’s strategic objective is worrying. But there is a more fundamental concern with the elimination objective: the absence of a clear timeframe. Of course, we can eliminate the disease. If the four-week lockdown does not work, the government simply forces us into lockdown for longer. But at what cost?

A cost-benefit assessment sounds heartless when the goal of the lockdown policy is to save lives. But the country-wide pause has already triggered a domino-effect of business failures and job losses. Just as the coronavirus spreads exponentially, so does harm from the lockdown. For firms and workers, each day of lockdown causes more business failures and job losses.

It is easy to count the deaths of, or at least with, Covid-19. It will be harder to count the social costs, including lives lost, from both later treatment of other health conditions and the economic devastation, but they will be real.

These economic effects have health and wellbeing implications too. And at some point, the harm to the wellbeing of Kiwis from the lockdown may become greater than the benefit to the wellbeing of New Zealanders from continuing with it.

This will include more suicides, more domestic violence, more alcohol and drug abuse and delayed treatment for health conditions including cancer which could make a life or death difference.

Most estimates show unemployment soon running into double figures. Overseas estimates suggest if Governments are not careful unemployment could exceed 20% or even 30% – levels not seen since the Great Depression.

The hardship caused to hundreds of thousands of Kiwi families from widespread unemployment, the evaporation of job opportunities for the new generation of school leavers and the losses to the productive side of the economy which funds our social services and most of the population’s livelihoods, must all be factored into the Government’s strategic choices.

The business failures and job losses have both and economic and social cost that will feed off each other.

They will also result in less tax paid while demands on the public purse will increase.

Until it addresses this complicated equation, the Government’s Covid-19 strategy is at best only half complete. A well-informed strategy must consider both curves – the epidemiological curve and the economic curve.

In the meantime, Professor Skegg had some clear advice for the Government on the areas it must lift its game to give us the best chance of achieving the goal of elimination. The Government must fix the shortcomings with Covid-19 testing. It must enforce strict quarantining at the border. And it must improve contact tracing.

If the Government gets these tactics right, perhaps it can sidestep the bigger strategic decision. But it is fast bearing down on us.

In the meantime, the Government must be more transparent with New Zealanders on the difficult strategic choices the country is facing. If it isn’t, we risk drifting in a direction that may do more harm than good.

This response form the Prime Minister suggests she doesn’t understand that:

“A strategy that sacrifices people in favour of, supposedly, a better economic outcome is a false dichotomy and has been shown to produce the worst of both worlds: loss of life and prolonged economic pain,” Ardern said. . .

She is saying there would be fewer lives lost and less economic pain if the lockdown continues as it is which is not necessarily so. A better economic one would be a better social and health one too with fewer deaths from other causes.

The economic and social costs wouldn’t be so high if the government was to opt for safety rather than essential as the guide for which businesses can operate.

National on Sunday called for more businesses to be allowed to open up if they could prove they could operate safely.

“Our economy has already faced unprecedented devastation since the Government closed it down, we should be doing all we can help revive it and protect businesses and jobs,” economic development spokesman Todd McClay said.

“To date the decision making has been too arbitrary and there are too many inconsistencies. For instance, allowing dairies to open but not local butchers or greengrocers, agriculture to continue but not forestry, cigarettes to be manufactured but community newspapers cannot be printed.”

“If a business proves it can operate safely, provide contactless selling and ensure physical distancing then they should be able to operate.”

What’s the difference between butcheries, greengrocers and fishmongers following practices that keep their staff and customers safe, and supermarkets operating as they are now?

What’s the risk in greens keepers working by themselves on a golf course?

Why can’t  more businesses that sell online be able to do so? If it’s safe to sell a heater or a winter jumper why not a scanner or a shirt?

Why couldn’t some road works be done safely while there’s so little traffic? Why can’t some building continue as long as the tradies work alone or at safe distances from each other and without sharing tools? If an urgent repair to a vehicle can be done safely, why not a warrant of fitness?

All the arbitrary emphasis on essential rather than safe is doing is allow overseas online businesses to compete with domestic ones which might not survive the shutdown.

While Baur might have pulled out of New Zealand anyway, the government’s declaration that only daily media was essential has killed some of our best magazines.

The latest update on Covid-19 cases does show that the lockdown appears to have stopped the steep spike in cases seen elsewhere.

That doesn’t mean we can relax, but it ought to allow the government to take a broader look at its strategy and its social and economic costs.

The lockdown does appear to be achieving its aim of flattening the epidemiological curve, but the government is not doing nearly enough to consider the economic curve and the social costs that will result from that.

Flattening the Covid-19 curve is good but not at the cost of flattening the economy more than is necessary.


Labour pains, National delivers

December 18, 2019

National promised eight policy papers this year and they’ve delivered.

The government promised this year would be their year of delivery and they haven’t.

You’ll find National discussion documents here.

You’ll find the government’s broken promises here.

They include: child poverty heading in the wrong direction, the level of homelessness is appalling, elective surgery numbers have dropped, economic growth has dropped from 4% under National to 2.1%; job growth has fallen from 10,000 a month under National to just 3,000 under Labour; per capita growth is only 0.5 per cent a year compared with average of 1.7% a year during the last five years under National; the number of people on the dole is up by 22,000, the number of New Zealanders heading overseas has increased by 10,000 a year, the billion trees promise isn’t being delivered and won’t be, not a single cent of the the $100 million Green Investment Fund that was supposed to kick-start $1 billion of investment in ‘low carbon’ industries has been invested, the  commitment this year to making the entire Government fleet emissions-free by mid-2025 was dropped, the government hasn’t been able to find a credible way to introduce a royalty on bottled water exports without trampling all over trade and other agreements with countries New Zealand does business with, yet another working group was set up to address waste minimisation but hasn’t come up with anything yet, the bold goals for housing have been dropped, The 4000 new apprentices target has been quietly dropped. Only 417 have started the Mana in Mahi programme and 32% of them dropped out . . .

Rodney Hide sums it up saying the year of delivery got lost in the post:

This was supposed to be the turnaround year. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern declared 2019 her Year of Delivery. Nothing has been delivered. Her promise has proved, like her government, empty and meaningless. 

The tragedy is that we accept it. It’s enough that politicians feel and emote; there’s no need to do or achieve anything. We should perhaps rename the country New Feel-Land. . . 

That’s the Year of Delivery done and dusted.

But there’s always next year. The prime minister has plastics again in her sights. She says it’s what children write to her about most. There are news reports she’s planning on banning plastic stickers on fruit.

I scoffed when we had government by focus group. We now have government by school project. . . 

Garrick Tremain sums it up:

What’s all that hot air doing to our emissions profile?

Reducing those is another failure, in spite of the commitment to reducing them being the PM’s nuclear-free moment, they’re increasing and will continue to for the next five years.

A new government ill-prepared for the role might have been excused a first year finding its feet but there’s no excuse for failing so badly to deliver in on its promises in what was supposed to be its year of delivery.


Delivering broken promises

December 12, 2019

When the Prime Minister declared this the year of delivery, did she mean delivering broken promises?

Today’s half year economic and fiscal update is a damning indictment on Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s economic management as she puts New Zealand back in the red, National’s Finance Spokesperson Paul Goldsmith says.

“This Government inherited massive surpluses as far as the eye could see, and has blown them in two years.

The previous Labour government left a decade of deficits and National managed to get back into surplus in spite of the Canterbury earthquakes and GFC.

It’s taken just two years for Labour to undo that good work.

“Treasury has slashed its economic growth forecasts which means fewer opportunities for Kiwis to get ahead, less money to go around and more debt. The Government has turned the strong growth and huge surpluses it inherited into deficits, weak growth and more debt with nothing to show for it.

“The Government is pulling the economy down with one hand through added costs, uncertainty and incompetence, and trying to pull it up with other through more debt. It’s confused, incoherent and chaotic.

The Government has also broken its promise to New Zealanders to reduce debt below 20 per cent of GDP by 2022. This promise was only made because Labour knew New Zealanders didn’t trust them to spend wisely.

“That lack of trust has been fully justified.

“The Government would not need to break their debt promise by almost $5 billion if they had not wasted billions of taxpayer money on failed experimental policies like KiwiBuild, Fees Free or the Provincial Growth Fund.

Borrowing when interest rates are low to fund infrastructure investment isn’t necessarily feckless, but the government wouldn’t need to borrow if it hadn’t wasted money on fripperies.

“After spending its first two years deliberately stopping planned transport infrastructure, it’s a relief the Government has finally woken up to the need to get on with things. We, however, have little confidence it will deliver anything next year either. . . 

The announcement begs some questions.

It is borrowing $19 billion of which $12 billion is earmarked for infrastructure.

What is the other $7 billion to be spent on?

And why wait?

. . But details of these projects were not announced today.

Rather, Robertson said the Government would be announcing the specific projects in early to mid-2020. . . 

Of the new spending announced today, $8 billion is for specific “shovel ready” projects, with a further $4 billion on hand for future spending. . . 

If the projects are shovel ready why not start shoveling now? Do we have enough shovelers or will the work, as Politik says, need more migrants?

Like so many times before, what the government announced is a plan to plan, not actually a plan of action and the money it’s planning to plan to spend would be borrowed because it’s squandered the surpluses that ought to have been available for this type of investment.


5.5 tonnes a minute

November 18, 2019

Sully Alsop gave some interesting numbers in a speech at the 50 Shades of Green march on parliament last week:

It took me about a minute to get up here to speak to you today. And something amazing happened in that one minute. Something truly remarkable that happens every minute of every hour of every day in NZ. Something that you are all a part of. In that one obscure minute NZ exported another 5 and a half tonnes of pastoral agriculutural product generating more than $100,000 for NZ.

That’s a lot of product and it earns a lot of money.

The average income in NZ is $52,000 so in less than a minute the pastoral sector generated the annual household income for one family.

The rural sector that you all work so hard in just paid for a school teacher, a policeman, a nurse, or maybe about a quarter of a politicians salary. Maybe that minute made it possible for one of those non farming households to take their family on a holiday, or get their children a better education.

And that is the message we all bring to parliament today. This isn’t just about rural communities or urban centres this is about all of NZ and protecting the way of life that we all enjoy, the way of life that the pastoral sector contributes to so significantly for all – every minute.

The export income primary produce generates starts on the farms but the benefits flow through rural communities and the regions into cities.

And that pastoral sector, that is so much the fabric of much of our country’s identity, is confronted with unprecedented change and challenges.

We are not here to push back against change, we are not laggards and do not have our heads buried in the sand. Quite the opposite, much of the change that is being proposed is not actually change at all, but a continuation of the good work carried out by our sector over the past decades well before water quality and climate change became daily talking points.

We should all be proud of the more than 100,000km of waterway fencing already undertaken. We should be proud that more than a quarter of the nation’s native bush is on our land that we protect and enhance.

Our rural communities are proactive problem solvers. I am personally very proud of what has been achieved in my neck of the woods – the Wairarapa. A cyclone in the 70’s caused huge damage on the delicate hill country. Soon after poplar and willow planting trials were undertaken and since then millions of trees have been planted for erosion control. This was not legislated, it was not compulsory, it was just motivation of farmers and some education from Regional Land Managers.

That’s right Shane Jones, if you’re still trying to work out how to plant half a billion trees, you don’t need to be up all night researching on your laptop in a hotel room, you just need to pop over the hill and ask the farmers and land managers in the Wairarapa.

We are not here to push back against change, we are here to make sure that change is done right. And what you have proposed in the Healthy Waterways legislation is not right. To be blunt, it is a lazy, unimaginative, piece of legislation that at best will be clunky, inefficient, ineffective, and demotivating. New Zealanders, all New Zealanders deserved better. We are not here to push back against intended outcomes of this legislation, but we are here to push back strongly against how you have proposed to achieve those outcomes.

Few have any argument about the goal, it’s about how to reach it, how quickly and at what cost that is debated.

The Healthy Waterways legislation gives a broad brush, one size fits all attempt at dictating terms on a national level. Landowners in this country were never consulted as to the relevance and practicalities of this plan. This is either arrogant or lazy and NZ deserves better.

How can one document cover all the different soil types, topography, and climates in this diverse country. The issues on Canterburys stony plains will be different to the high country, which will be different to the peaty soils of Waikato, to the beaches of Auckland, to the dry hills of the east coast.

If this government really wanted to show leadership in this area they would have taken the time to clearly define the issues, and work with all stakeholders to come up with a practical solution, that would work on the ground, rather than cave to public perception.

This lack of consultation showed in the 17,500 submissions highlighting the weaknesses of the legislation. Why the pastoral sector were not consulted is beyond me. What you are proposing will have massive impacts on our businesses, our families, our communities, and in turn the rest of NZ, the teachers, the nurses, the policemen that agriculture supports, every minute. It would be nice to think we were at the table and not simply on the menu.

The lack of research was evident by ideas such as grandparenting land use change and audited farm plans being included. These have been proven to be unfair and ineffective tools in regional plans throughout the country. The fact they showed up again in the Healthy Waterways legislation shows the lack of imagination and research.

It was lazy and NZers, all NZers deserved better.

It was worse than lazy, it was impractical and expensive in both economic and social terms without the scientific backing to ensure real environmental gains.

So I challenge our leaders, instead of clunky, one size fits all, legislation give us the space and flexibility to come up with our own solutions taylor made to our individual land and water quality issues.

Instead of audits and box tickers that we will pay for either directly or indirectly, pour money into science. Our universities, Massey and Lincoln were so vital to the production gains made over the last 40 years can again be vital in this next stage of NZ pastoral agriculture that is less about production and more about maximising the value of that product. Give us less box tickers and more research and development.

Instead of box tickers give us support and expert advice. We will come up with great solutions that even the universities cannot if you give us support, confidence, and education where we need it.

Instead of audits give us flexibility to come up with our own solutions.

Instead of being stick wavers, be our partners. All NZers, the nurses and policemen and teachers rely on it.

The government is promoting policies that will harm not just farms, farming and farmers, but the economic and social fabric of the whole country without a single policy to mitigate the harm and replace the income.

I’m not scared of this change because it is not really change but a continuation of the good work we already do.

I’m not scared of this change because it our sector has been challenged before and we rose to that challenge and adapted.

But we cannot do it without pastoral land. We have to stop the sale of productive land into foreign ownership. We cannot meet the challenges ahead and continue to provide all NZers, the teachers, nurses, and policemen with the NZ we currently enjoy without pastoral land.

We have to stop prostituting NZ out as the dumping ground for the worlds carbon addiction.

What makes this policy worse is that the science says forests are only a short-term band-aid for offsetting fossil fuel emissions.

Our rural communities matter.

Our schools matter.

And not just for our rural communities but for all those non rural households whose incomes our exports support every minute.

These international owners don’t care about NZ’s future, they don’t care about our communities. They are simply here to dump their carbon rubbish and move on leaving our grandchildren to wonder what happened. What happened to the NZ we, their grandparents talked about, what happened to all those nurses, teachers, policemen that are no longer supported.

I know this was never the intention of this legislation. But by signing off on the first 30 year band-aid of an idea that springs to mind is short sighted, lazy, and NZ deserves better. Show true leadership. Look for long term solutions, don’t just settle for the best idea in a bad bunch. NZ relies on you doing so.

To you all thank you, and feel proud about what you do in every unremarkable minute of the day and the impact it has on this country.

It’s hard to feel proud when government policies would sabotage not just individual businesses but communities and eventually the economic and social wellbeing of the country.


GDP matters

November 4, 2019

Pew Research on the importance of GDP:

…Life satisfaction is also strongly associated with positive views about the nation’s economic situation.

In all countries originally surveyed in 1991, life satisfaction has improved, sometimes dramatically. The largest changes have occurred in Central and Eastern European countries such as Poland, where the percentage of people placing themselves as a 7 or higher on the ladder of life has increased by 44 percentage points since 1991. Whereas only 12% of Poles rated themselves highly nearly 30 years ago, now 56% do so.

Those who live in former East Germany have also experienced a considerable increase in life satisfaction. In 1991, only 15% of East Germans rated their life highly; today around six-in-ten say their life is a 7 or higher on the ladder of life. West Germans – those in pre-1990 Federal Republic of Germany – have also seen an increase in the share who rate their life highly (+12 percentage points).

In the three former Soviet republics surveyed, life satisfaction has improved, but fewer than half place themselves high on the ladder of life. Russians are 21 percentage points more likely to rate themselves highly in 2019 than in 1991. Despite this improvement, though, only around one-quarter of Russians say they are a 7 or higher on the ladder today. Russians were the only group to see a significant decline in life satisfaction from 2009 to 2019: More Russians placed themselves highly on the ladder of life in 2009 than in 2019 (35% vs. 28%)…

 

Money doesn’t buy happiness but it does give choices, and provide more opportunities and more security.


Too much of a good thing

October 9, 2019

The government has posted a $7.5 billion surplus:

The Government has unveiled a bumper $7.5 billion surplus and the lowest debt levels in almost a decade, the latest Crown accounts reveal.

That level of Government surplus has not been seen since at least 2008, just before New Zealand felt the full effect of the global financial crisis. . . 

It’s taking all that money yet failing to deliver on its promises.

Surpluses are good, but $7.5 billion looks like too much of a good thing.

The government is either taking too much, spending too little, or both.

National’s Economic Development spokesman Todd McLay says:

“The Government should be looking to stimulate the economy by letting New Zealanders keep more of what they earn.

“Instead, it has piled on more and more taxes to the point where Grant Robertson is sitting on a big surplus while those living outside Wellington’s beltway struggle with rising living costs.

“One of the reasons debt is lower than forecast is because the Government is failing to invest in the infrastructure New Zealand needs.

“It has cancelled or delayed a dozen major new roading projects right across the country and replaced them with projects that weren’t ready, and won’t be ready for some time yet.

This isn’t just taking more tax and doing less with it. Stalling new roading work risks a loss of skilled people who will head overseas if there’s a gap between current projects finishing and new ones starting.

“Meanwhile, the Government has been piling on taxes. It has legislated to milk an extra $1.7 billion from motorists through fuel tax hikes and extra GST, while its misguided housing policies have pushed up rents and burdened landlords with extra costs and regulation.

“National legislated for tax relief that would have put more than $1000 a year extra into the back pockets of New Zealanders. This Government cancelled that. 

“We will index tax thresholds to inflation so that New Zealanders aren’t taxed more by stealth every year because of the rising cost of living.”

Sound economic management requires much more than creating surpluses.

The government must take enough, but not too much, and it must scrutinise all its decisions to ensure its spending effectively and prudently.

The large surplus suggests the government could be investing more in infrastructure and filling some of the gaping holes in the health system.

It also shows it is taking far more than it needs and it could be leaving us all with a little more of our own money by way of tax cuts.


3/5s of not very much

September 23, 2019

Steven Joyce gives the government some much-needed advice:

It was confirmed this week that New Zealand is now running at little more than half speed.

From growing at rates of 3½ to 4 per cent three years ago our economy at the end of June was only 2.1 per cent larger than it was the previous June.

That’s a problem firstly because our population is growing at about 1.6 per cent a year, so if our economy grows at 2 per cent then the amount of additional wellbeing per person (to coin a phrase) is three fifths of not very much.

Not very much is far less than we need for economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing.

The second problem is that our terms of trade (the prices of our exports versus our imports) are still very strong so we should still be cranking along. It’s a problem if we are slowing down when the world really wants to buy what we are selling. What happens if the world actually falls out of bed?

What happens is recession and maybe even depression.

The government has been quick to blame the world economy for our lower growth rate this week, but our terms of trade put the lie to that.

The third problem is that there is no sign of anything on the horizon that will lead to much of an upturn, and in fact all the signs are that we are going to slow further. Our businesses are in a funk because of what is known as regulatory overhang. In short, they are too fearful to invest because the government is making lots of rule changes that could mean they don’t get much of a return for the risk they take.

It’s not just farmers, other businesses are too scared to invest.

The government for its part seems inclined to shrug its shoulders and say “nothing to see here”. They observe we are still growing (slightly) faster than Australia so what’s the problem? That story is likely to change in the next six months as Australia’s tax cuts come through and their housing market picks up. Anyway weren’t we trying to grow a lot faster than Australia so we could close the income gap with our cousins across the Tasman – what happened to that ambition?

This government has no ambition for growth, only for regulate, tax and spend.

The fourth problem is that lower growth means less to go around. If we were still growing as fast as we were then in real terms our economy would be around $5 billion bigger this year than it is. That means more money for higher pay and more jobs, and of course about 30 per cent of it goes into the government coffers – which would pay for a lot more cancer drugs, teachers or electric vehicle subsidies.

How hard is it to join the dots between higher growth and more for essential services and infrastructure?

So what to do? Well if I could offer some gratuitous advice to the Finance Minister I think he should be working on baking a bigger cake, and I think the recipe is pretty straightforward. Its time to rein in some of his ministerial colleagues who are wreaking havoc with business confidence.

For example he should suggest the Minister of Immigration sort out his portfolio so that horticulturists can find seasonal workers and the international education sector can get up off its knees. He should tell the Minister for the Environment to come up with a more reasonable plan for water quality improvements and methane emissions reductions so farmers step back from the cliff edge, and the Minister of Education to stop stuffing about with the apprenticeship system.

He should encourage the Reserve Bank Governor to be less heroic on bank capital requirements, persuade his colleagues to do a backtrack on gas exploration now it is proven the ban is simply value destroying and does nothing for climate change, overrule the Greens to permit some gold mining, and stop taxing tourists more so the tourism sector starts growing again. He should cancel the return to industry-wide pay bargaining given that NZ First are never going to vote for it anyway, tell the Transport Minister to get on with building at least some of the stalled roading projects, particularly given that light rail is years away, and reverse at least one of the petrol tax increases.

Then he could watch the economy recover and start thinking about how he’s going to allocate the increased government revenues. And New Zealand will be in much better shape if the world economy does get worse. . .

He won’t of course and nor will he see that it’s the poor and the struggling middle that will be hurt the hardest by policies which hamper growth.


Another sign of softening economy

September 3, 2019

Fewer new vehicles are being sold:

For the fourth month in a row, fewer new vehicles were sold in August compared to the same month last year confirming that the overall market for the year will be down on 2018.

Motor Industry Association Chief Executive David Crawford says that for the month of August the number of new vehicle sales were 4.5% lower than August last year.

He says overall year-to-date sales were down by 5.1% percent on the first eight months of 2018, a reduction of just over 5,400 fewer vehicles sold in 2019 to date.

“Growth has disappeared from the 2019 market and we are expecting an out turn for 2019 at about 6% below 2018 levels.” . . 

 Commercial vehicle registrations of 4,101 were down 10.1%,  which is 460 vehicles compared with sales last August. That is another sign the economy is softening and confirms surveys showing business confidence is low.

The anti-car brigade might be pleased with this news, but it’s not fewer vehicles in total, it’s fewer new ones.

This means people are buying second-hand or keeping older vehicles longer rather than buying new more fuel-efficient and safer ones.

 


Business blues deepen

August 30, 2019

Business confidence has fallen to the lowest point since the global financial crisis a decade ago:

The further collapse in businesses’ confidence and in expectations of their own activity is an indictment on the Ardern Government’s economic management, National’s Finance spokesperson Paul Goldsmith says.

“The most recent ANZ Business Outlook survey shows a net negative 52 per cent of businesses are pessimistic about the economy under the bad economic management of the current Government.

“To make it worse, businesses’ expectations of their own activity have fallen to a net negative for the first time since 2009 when the New Zealand economy was in the midst of the Global Financial Crisis. . . 

“When businesses lack confidence in the economy, as they do under the current Government, they are less likely to expand, invest in new staff or lift wages.

Reluctance to expand, invest or lift wages is even more likely when businesses’ expectations of their own activity are so gloomy.

“There has been a sharp decline in the New Zealand economy under this Government. Economic growth has decreased from around 4 per cent down to 2.5 per cent, per-person growth is amongst the worst in the OECD and business investment has fallen from 5 per cent a year under National to just 0.6 per cent under Labour.

“New Zealand should be doing well. The prices for goods we export are near historical highs meaning any effects from global uncertainty and trade tensions haven’t affected our exporters as of yet.

In spite of that farmers are in a similar frame of mind to that during the ag-sag of the 1980s. Uncertainty and  lack of trust in the government are compounded by fear of what it is going through inflict on the farming sector.

The ANZ survey shows the business blues have deepened in towns and cities too.

“Sadly the current Government’s bad economic management have hurt our economy.

“The Government have added costs to businesses and families with higher taxes and more regulations, they’ve created massive uncertainty and they’ve demonstrated incompetence, most famously with KiwiBuild and their woeful infrastructure policies.

“National will restore business confidence and revive our economy so that we can lift our aspirations, both in what we can earn and in what social challenges we can overcome.”

A thriving economy isn’t just about businesses doing well, it’s about job security, export income and the ability to invest in solutions for social problems.

The government has gone quiet on wellbeing with good reason. Businesses without the confidence to expand, invest and lift wages are a symptom of economic illness and that makes a very shaky foundation for wellbeing.


Labour pains National delivers

July 31, 2019

Is this how the National Party and its supporters are seen from the outside?

This is not the kind of stuff to you would expect to get the National Party faithful standing and applauding. It’s not a law and order policy or tax cut or a primary sector subsidy – it’s new health spending. This is the kind of thing Labour does.

Is it any wonder National is perceived as having a good head but too often not credited for having a heart if this is how a political commentator thinks?

Compassionate and effective social policy is what any good government does and it’s what motivates most members of any political party – making the country better for people.

National usually gets credit for economic management but, as the above comment show the reason that matters and what it is able to do and does do with the money it carefully manages, is lost.

A growing economy, and the policies that contribute to that are important not as an end but as the means to pay for the social policies and infrastructure that makes life better for people.

This government would have us believe it’s the first government to care about wellbeing.

Every New Zealand government in my memory has cared about wellbeing and done its best to improve it, albeit with varying success.

Making life better for people was the aim of Bill English’s social investment initiatives. They aimed to not only make life better for the people who were helped into independence, but better for us all by reducing the long term financial and social costs of benefit dependence.

Under this policy the number of people on benefits, and the long term cost of that, were dropping. Under this government both are increasing.

The big difference between this government and the last one, is that National understands the difference between the quality of spending and quantity and that sustainable wellbeing depends on a foundation of a strong and growing economy.

By contrast, the current government thinks more spending is better spending regardless of the results and the cost to those who pay.

National governs with head and heart, the Labour-led one puts feeling ahead of thinking.

That’s why National is able to deliver but in the long term Labour only pains.

National Finance Spokesman Paul Goldsmith explained the link between the economy and services in his speech to the party’s annual conference.

You will have noticed a strong economic theme to the start of the conference.

It’s true, we in the National Party do bang on a lot about the economy.

It makes me think of my old Nana, who always said, ‘money isn’t everything’.

Of course it isn’t.

As one of the richest men in the world, Warren Buffett, put it, ‘it doesn’t matter how much money you’ve got, if you’re not loved by the people you want to love you, life is a disaster’.

It’s similar with countries. Good government is just as much about preserving and enhancing what is special about this country.

That, to me, is the quality of our environment, our social cohesion, our relatively high trust and low corruption traditions, our commitment to the rule of law, freedom and tolerance of different views, our sense of security.

All these things are incredibly important and should never be taken for granted.

So the economy is not everything, but it is important.

Not because we revere the great machine for itself – it’s simply a means to an end.

The economy is about people. It’s about you, me, our families and our neighbourhoods.

To me, the point of a strong economy is to enable New Zealanders to do the most basic things in life well.

A strong economy improves our chances of finding satisfying and well-paying work so that we can look after ourselves and our families – the most fundamental task each of us have.

A society based on the assumption that its average citizen can’t or shouldn’t be expected to look after themselves and their families is doomed.   

That’s not what we believe.

Work itself, in its countless varieties, brings the opportunity to make a contribution to our world and the people in it, whether we’re providing someone with a new hip, a new app, or a cup of coffee with a smile.

And third, if we do well, we can afford to have some fun in our leisure time, and maybe if we have some energy left do something in the neighbourhood; on the barbecue for the school committee, or whatever.

That, to me, is the good life to which we aspire. 

As well as generating work and opportunities, good economic management and a strong economy enables the country to have better public services that improve our lives – a quality education, access to world-class healthcare when we need it, decent transport infrastructure so we can get home on time, the reassurance of superannuation when we’re old.

There are times in everyone’s life when we need help. At certain times of their lives some people can’t look after themselves and their families; the stronger our economy is, the more we can help.

Now, good economic management is not just about spending money, it’s about generating it. . . 

What’s the goal? To deliver a strong economy and world-class public services that enable Kiwis to look after themselves and their families, to find satisfying work, and to lead full lives.


Reject blanket afforestation of farmland

June 10, 2019

Government policy which subsidises forestry is a bigger threat to food production, rural communities and the New Zealand economy than the ag-sag of the 1980s.

North Otago was particularly hard-hit by the stripping of subsidies that coincided with high interest rates and soaring inflation.

Many farms were too small to be economic and the district was plagued by recurring droughts.

Predictions that farmers would be driven off the land in great numbers proved to be an exaggeration. But many jobs on farm and in businesses that serviced and supplied them were lost and very few of the farmers’ adult children who left the district for education or work returned.

Farmers gradually adjusted to life without subsidies and are stronger for it. Inflation and interest rates returned to manageable levels, irrigation provided protection from droughts and created jobs on and off farm.

There will be no recovery and resurgence of rural communities when productive farmland is replaced by forests.

Subsidising forestry and making it easier for foreign buyers to buy land for forestry than farming is already killing on-farm jobs.

50 Shades of Green paints the local picture:

  • 100,000 stock units sold to forestry in the Wairarapa these last twelve months
  • Economic impact on Wairarapa community? Direct spend at $125/stock unit: $12.5m. Plus four times multiplier effect.
  • — 1,000 hectares sheep/beef farm creates seven jobs.
  • 1,000 hectares plantation forestry creates one job.
  • Tree planting by temporary immigrants… most of the wages are sent home.
  • — Rural communities will be decimated.
  • — Farm land prices have been pushed up by these taxpayer
    subsidies
    .

It’s not just in the Wairarapa and it’s not just farming jobs that are lost. Fewer people on farms means fewer children in schools, fewer people buying locally and fewer work opportunities servicing and supplying farms and farmers.

It  means less food produced for the local market and export and less export income.

It is also counter to the Paris Climate Accord which states that climate mitigation should not be at the expense of food production.

This is the motivation for the petition asking that legislation which incentivises the blanket afforestation of farmland be rejected:

. . .There has never been such an imminent threat to food production in New Zealand as that which looms over us in the form of current government policies which align across multiple government portfolios designed to meet specific policy agendas.  These agendas combined, create a massive assault on the viability of rural businesses, on sustainable land use, on infrastructure and ultimately on the lives of those living the experience of this assault.

We need your support as we fight to provide a voice for the industries and communities rendered defenceless in the face of ill-conceived afforestation incentives which are already leading to unemployment, displacement and declining standards of living for those left behind.

The tension between competing land uses has long existed between forestry and pastoral farming; however never before has a government provided the mechanisms for one to obliterate the other to the extent that this potential now exists.

It is this case that we ask your support in defending.

Not that forestry should be maligned, but that the Government of today and Governments going forward must be made to see that crippling small towns through distorted market incentives is morally wrong, economically foolish and will impact vulnerable individuals and communities for generations to come.

It’s not just morally wrong and economically foolish, it’s socially destructive, it’s not backed up by science and will do more harm than good to the environment.

The government ignored advice from Environment Commissioner Simon Upton who said the science shows trees could off-set methane emissions but would not offset fossil fuel emissions.

If New Zealand produces less food, it will be replaced by meat and milk from other countries whose farmers are far less efficient than ours.

We have already picked up the torch of environmental restoration and we willingly carry it as the legacy we leave for those who come after us; in this we are already united, but a crippled community can restore nothing, and an empty community will not care.

We ask you to join your name to our petition and stand alongside us as we defend our common right to live and work on the land, growing food for our country sustainably, ethically and for the benefit of all New Zealand. 

Some areas should never have been cleared and should be replanted in trees.

But there is no economic, environmental or scientific justification for turning productive farmland into forests.

 

 


%d bloggers like this: