Fewer police, fewer prisoners

11/01/2021

Labour’s promise to give us more police is on hold:

The Government has lived up to its soft-on-crime reputation by pushing pause on its plans to increase police numbers by 1800, National’s Police spokesperson Simeon Brown says.

In 2017, Labour promised to grow the Police’s ranks by 1800 over three years, but it never got close. Instead, it tried to fool the public by claiming its promise never included attrition. Former Police Minister Stuart Nash shifted the goalposts last year, saying the net increase of 1800 officers wouldn’t actually happen until 2021.

Now it’s been revealed that police stopped training because they got ahead of their five-year budget, according to the Police Association. The 1800 target is unlikely to be met until 2023.

“It is disappointing to learn that Police have deferred all upcoming intakes until at least May because it feels there is now ‘less of a need for recruits’,” Mr Brown says.

Less need? That’s not what the crime statistics show.

“There were more than 270,000 victims of crime in the year ending October 2020. I don’t think they would agree there is less need for police officers out on the beat.

A six-month drought of new cops hitting the streets doesn’t make sense when there has been a 13 per cent increase in gang membership over the past year and we have seen an increasing amount of gang and gun violence on our streets, Mr Brown says.

“Many of these promised new police officers were meant to be focussed on organised crime and drugs.

“This is yet another broken promise from the Labour Government, which shows it is not fully committed to stamping out crime and keeping New Zealand’s communities safe.

“National is committed to keeping New Zealanders safe and giving Police the resources they need. We will grow police numbers and increase the allocation of officers to rural areas, including expanding one-person police stations to two-person police stations.”

Remember that Labour not only pledged to increase police numbers, it also wanted to reduce the number of people in prison?

Could it be the delay in increasing police recruits is a cunning plan to reduce the prison population? No, not deliberately but that will be a consequence.

After all if there are fewer police there will almost certainly be more crime that isn’t solved and therefore fewer prisoners.

 


No coincidence

15/12/2020

Had it not been for Barry Soper who had an exclusive interview with the man Trevor Mallard accused of being a rapist, we might never have known the disastrous impact Trevor Mallard’s loose lips had on his victim.

. . . In a two hour sit down discussion in his home, the devastated man said “The accusation of rape has put me in a very dark place”. 

“I was driving to Parliament the day after the bullying and harassment report on the place was delivered and heard on the radio that a ‘rapist’ could be stalking the corridors and it disturbed me greatly,” he said.

However early that afternoon he realised he was the so called ‘rapist’ when he was summoned into the office of the Parliamentary Service boss Rafael Gonzalez-Montero to be stood down. A colleague at the centre of an unsubstantiated complaint against him three years earlier had come forward again after complainants were urged to do so by The Speaker.

“At no time was I spoken to by the review’s head Debbie Francis which I thought I would have been considering an alleged incident had been investigated and was found to be without merit.

“It’s ironic that the review was about bullying and harassment. I feel I’ve been bullied out of Parliament and harassed within it, particularly by the Speaker’s claim,” the teary-eyed man said.

He said his family was dumbfounded, they couldn’t believe he could be accused of sexual misconduct. . . 

That interview was in May last year.

Last week, on the day most media and public attention was on the release of the Royal Commission’s report on the Mosque murders, Mallard released an apology?

Are we expected to believe the timing was coincidental?

Are we also expected to believe the timing of the rule change allowing costs for all MPs’ court settlements to be covered by taxpayer funds, after Mallard was sued for making the remarks, was coincidental?

At the same time Speaker Trevor Mallard was being sued for defamation, he changed the rules so other MPs could also have theirs covered by the taxpayer without disclosing it publicly.

National and Act leaders yesterday said they no longer had confidence in the Speaker after he revealed he’d cost the taxpayer more than $330,600 settling a case after incorrectly calling a former Parliamentary staffer a rapist.

It has also now come to light that the rules for when MPs can claim legal costs when they’re being sued were expanded by the Speaker in August so damages and settlements can come from the public purse.

Those applications have to be signed off by the party leader, the Speaker and chief executive of Parliamentary Service. . . 

The timing of neither was a coincidence.

Releasing the apology that day must have been a deliberate attempt to bury it while attention was focused elsewhere. Changing the rules at the very least was opportunistic.

National and Act have both announced they have lost confidence in Mallard as speaker and they are not alone:

Barry Soper explains why he should resign:

National’s lost confidence in him and Labour, the party that preaches wellbeing and kindness, surely will have no choice but to vote against his continuing in the role.

Labour does have a choice : do they, and their leader want to squander political capital protecting Mallard?

It’s been confirmed that the almost $334,000 in legal costs have been paid out by the taxpayer. Why? Well Mallard had the rules changed after he made his outrageous comment to protect him from having to pay the bill for something he should have known would go against him.

The tragedy in all of this is that the man he accused of a terrible crime, who spoke exclusively to me after the Mallard allegation last year, has suffered serious health issues since he was sent packing and it looks as though he will get nothing from the settlement.

Lawyers for both sides got five-figure payments, The accused man lost his job and his health but it appears he got no compensation.

Mallard must have known his rape claim was false last year, but waited until after the election and much litigation to apologise. If he’d done it last year he would have faced a no confidence vote in Parliament and would likely be gone, as New Zealand First was unlikely to support him.

It’s difficult to fathom why he unsuccessfully demanded the man’s name be made public, other than to cause embarrassment.

It demeans the inquiry into bullying and harassment Parliament launched with great fanfare by Mallard and consultant Debbie Francis. The silence of Francis was deafening when the claim of rape was made.

It shows how the powerful can ride roughshod over the powerless. If the Parliamentary staffer hadn’t spoken to me, this would have been swept under the carpet.

It shows how manipulative the Speaker, ranked as the third most important role in the country after the Governor-General and the Prime Minister, can be in releasing his apology late on the day of the Royal Commission on the mosque shootings and on the eve of the first anniversary of the Whakaari/White Island eruption. . . 

Heather du Plessis-Allan also says Mallard must go:

. . .I don’t believe Mallard should have been given the role. In my opinion the role should have been given to someone who has the respect of their colleagues, control of their temperament and can suspend their party bias.

Mallard is, by contrast, not well-liked in Parliament, has a history of ill-judged behaviour (including punching Tau Henare and saying he wanted to shove a Heineken in an “uncomfortable” part of a rugby official’s body) and has been accused of bias in the debating chamber through his apparent attempts to protect the Prime Minister. . . 

He is a bad look for Labour. For a party that makes a big claim of kindness and wellbeing, it’s a terrible look to promote and defend a senior MP who did the opposite of kindness to a working-class Kiwi.

Mallard should resign, for the sake of his party and the Office of the Speaker. In my view, his conduct is unbecoming of both . . .

Kerre McIvor said the defamation debacle stinks:

. . .  Bad enough that Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard falsely accuses a parliamentary staffer of rape, but while he was being sued for defamation by the aforementioned staffer, he was part of a very quiet rule change. . .

There’s several things about this that stink. One, that Mallard should have been involved in a scheme to extend protection from financial consequences across all of Parliament at a time when he was trying to save his own sorry skin in a defamation suit – a suit he must have known he would lose.

And two, that on the day the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the mosque shootings released its findings, the Speaker of the House used the distraction to issue an apology to the staffer involved, knowing full well that his apology would be buried under the huge number of stories on the inquiry and its recommendations.

He’s not the first person to have done this and he won’t be the last – of any party – but it’s a cynical, shabby move. He’ll be hoping the story will simply disappear over summer and that by the time the House sits in the new year, all will be forgiven and forgotten.

National and Act have declared the Speaker must resign and that his behaviour is such that he no longer has their confidence. A vote of no confidence will surely fail because of the enormous majority Labour enjoys in the House.

But Mallard’s 36-year career has been tarnished. And he’ll likely have a very tough ride over the next two and a half years – deservedly so. 

Labour should have been finishing the year on a high as the first party to command a majority under MMP.

Instead it’s being tarnished by the actions of the Speaker.

They might think it will all go away over summer.

It won’t.

If Mallard doesn’t resign National and Act will make sure it doesn’t and that it is front and centre of attention when parliament resumes in February.


That was then

07/12/2020

Cast your mind back a few years to when a National Minister sacked Environment Canterbury councilors and appointed a commissioner.

What was the response from the Opposition?

The Labour Party has complained to the United Nations over the continuing denial of democratic elections for Environment Canterbury (ECan) councillors.

“The National government took away the right of Canterbury people to elect councillors on ECan and in doing so denied them their democratic rights contrary to international agreements we are party to,” Labour MP for Port Hills Ruth Dyson says. . . 

Ms Dyson is no longer an MP which may be just as well because Labour is now now in government and look what is about to happen:

Nanaia Mahuta, the Minister of Local Government, has revealed she plans to appoint a Commission in response to governance problems at Tauranga City Council.

The deeply divided council has recently been slammed as being made up of “petty politicians” in “desperate need of progressive thinking”, by Tauranga’s outgoing mayor Tenby Powell. . . 

“I have been closely watching the conduct of the Council for a number of months. I have grown increasingly concerned at the governance issues, and the impact this has on Tauranga ratepayers and significant investment in the region,” she said. . . 

What’s the difference between National sacking ECan councillors and replacing them with a commissioner and Labour doing the same to Tauranga City Council?

That was then, this is now.

This isn’t the first time Labour has done what they criticised National for doing. Labour in opposition had a prolonged protest against the planned Trans Pacific partnership. In government they signed up to, albeit by a slightly different name.

There’s a lesson in this – Opposition MPs should be very careful in choosing which cars to bark at lest they find they catch them in government and have to do with them what they were so critical of their opponents doing when they were in the driver’s seat.


What’s the difference?

17/11/2020

When National promoted the Trans Pacific Partnership free trade agreement, Labour, New Zealand First, the Green Party and their followers were vehement in their opposition.

When Labour added a couple of words and made it the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Trade most MPs who had been so strongly against the TPP were just as strong in their support of the CPTTP and there was hardly a whisper against it outside parliament.

The Labour government has just signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership with 10 countries from the Association for South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) plus Australia, China, Japan and South Korea.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFaT) says this anchors New Zealand in a region that is the engine room of the global economy.

The 15 RCEP economies are home to almost a third of the world’s population, include 7 of our top 10 trading partners, take over half New Zealand’s total exports and provide more than half our direct foreign investment.

RCEP deepens our trade and economic connections in the Asia-Pacific region, an important part of New Zealand’s Trade Recovery Strategy. The agreement will help ensure New Zealand is in the best possible position to recover from the impacts of COVID-19 and seize new opportunities for exports and investment. RCEP is projected to add $186 billion to the world economy and increase New Zealand’s GDP by around $2.0 billion. . . 

New Zealand is too small to benefit much from bilateral trade agreements and has a lot to gain from multi-country deals like this one.

The government has done the right thing in concluding the work started under National but could be called hypocritical after the vehemence of its criticism of the TPPP.

And while some call Federated Farmers right wing and accuse it of being National in gumboots, it has given the agreement the thumbs up:

The prospect of reduced red tape from a single set of trade rules for the Asia Pacific is a major reason why New Zealand producers and exporters will give the RCEP deal the thumbs up, Federated Farmers says.

“Anything that takes us further along the path of ironing out border costs and delays, and reducing protectionist tariffs, for our exports has to be a good thing for farmers, and for New Zealand, Feds President Andrew Hoggard said.

A degree of scepticism has been voiced about how quickly our GDP would be boosted by the estimated $2 billion a year from the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement signed at the weekend, given we already have free trade agreements in one form or another with all of the 14 other signatory nations. But new opportunities should eventually flow.

“This is now the largest free trade agreement in the world, covering nations with nearly one third of the world’s population. It includes clear mechanisms to us to address any non-tariff barriers put up against our exported goods by the other signatories,” Hoggard said.

RCEP delivers additional tariff elimination on a number of New Zealand food products into Indonesia, including sheepmeat, beef, fish and fish products, liquid milk, grated or powdered cheese, honey, avocados, tomatoes and persimmons.

The Green Party is the only one in parliament opposing the new agreement. Opposition from outside parliament has been muted and it’s not just on trade where the left is less vocal on issues than it was a few years ago.

When National was in power stories of homeless people and their plight were regularly featured in the news. Politicians and other groups on the left were happy to be quoted criticising the government and demanding action.

Homelessness and overcrowding are still be a major problem and, given the escalating price of houses, a growing one. But the stories of people living in cars and other suboptimal accommodation aren’t nearly as frequent.

What’s changed? Just the government.

Could it be that the people who advocate so loudly for the vulnerable when National is in power let their own partisan attachments get in the way of their political agitation when Labour is ruling?


National loses 2 more MPs

06/11/2020

The final election results bring more bad news for National:

National has two fewer seats and Labour and the Māori Party each have one more:

  • The number of seats in Parliament will be 120.
  • The Labour Party has 65 seats compared with 64 on election night.
  • The National Party has 33 seats compared with 35 on election night.
  • The Māori Party has 2 seats compared with 1 on election night.
  • ACT New Zealand and the Green Party remain unchanged with 10 seats each.

Electorate vote – main points

Three electorate results have changed since election night:

    • Labour Party candidate Priyanca Radhakrishnan has won Maungakiekie with a majority of 635 votes over National Party candidate Denise Lee.
    • Labour Party candidate Willow-Jean Prime has won Northland with a majority of 163 votes over National Party candidate Matt King.
    • Labour Party candidate Emily Henderson has won Whangārei with a majority of 431 votes over National Party candidate Shane Reti.
    • All other electorate candidates leading on election night have been confirmed as winning their seats.

The low party vote for National didn’t surprise me.

This was always going to be the election that Covid-19 stole and National worsened its prospects by self-sabotage. A caucus that shoots itself in the foot, stabs itself in the back and trips over its own tongue isn’t going to gain voter support.

But the loss of so many electorates, especially the provincial and rural ones, both surprises and saddens me. Generally good MPs will  be able to stand firm even if the tide swings against their party.

I am pleased that Shane Reti has a high enough place on the list to retain a seat in parliament although he lost the seat.

One new MP who withstood the red tide is Penny Simmons who has been confirmed as the MP for Invercargill.

Key statistics

  • The total number of votes cast was 2,919,086.
  • The number of special votes was 504,625, 17% of total votes (2017 – 17%).
  • 68% of votes were cast in advance (2017 – 47%).
  • 82.2% of people who were enrolled voted (2017 – 79.8%). This is the highest turnout since 1999 (84.8%).
  • The final enrolment rate was 94.1% (2017 – 92.4%), the highest since 2008 (95.3%).

A high turnout is good for democracy.

Allowing people to enroll on Election Day no doubt helped increase the enrollment rate.

The increase in advance votes might prompt a change in the law that makes Election Day campaign-free.

Labour has the numbers to change the law by itself but such changes ought to be made by consensus and passed by far more than a simple majority.


Foot in mouth outbreak at Massey

02/11/2020

A Massey University professor is suffering from foot in mouth:

National and ACT have become “vanishingly irrelevant” in Parliament following the Greens’ acceptance of the cooperation agreement offered by Labour, a politics professor believes.

The deal has locked in a political arrangement that will see Labour and the Greens “monster the Parliament” for the next three years, according to Massey University’s Richard Shaw, with a combined 74 of 120 seats held by the parties. . . 

“The National Party, ACT, and the Māori Party – assuming that the specials mean they keep Waiariki – are vanishingly irrelevant to what occurs in the Parliament,” Shaw told Newshub on Saturday.

He says the agreement – which the Greens will sign in a ceremony on Sunday – marks the largest political alliance in New Zealand’s parliamentary history.

It is the first time under MMP one party has gained more than 50% of the vote. But the political alliance isn’t very much bigger than the 2008 National-led government with 58 National MPs plus five each from Act and the Maori Party and one from United Future.

“It’s really hard to overstate how much the legislative agenda and the executive agenda will be driven by Labour with some support from the Greens, it’s a really remarkable state of affairs,” Shaw says.

Oh dear, it’s really hard to overstate what a very ill-informed remark that is. How can a professor of politics not understand how parliament works?

Unless it’s a minority government, the government has a majority as a result of which it passes the legislation it wants to. This one doesn’t have to negotiate with partners, but the major parties in previous governments could use their confidence and supply agreement to get their allies to support their Bills.

“And if you’re a National or ACT MP, you would be sitting there thinking, ‘Shit, what am I going to do for the next three years? I’m going to be surrounded by Opposition members in all of the select committees’ – it’s just dominated by Labour’s policy.” . . 

Yes it’s dominated by Labour policy and Act and National will be surrounded by government MPs. But good Opposition MPs won’t be wondering what they’ll be doing for the next three years. They’ll do what they’re paid to do – work very hard to to get better legislation, not by opposing for opposition’s sake, but by working with and against other members of select committees as appropriate, and on some, albeit rare, occasions they might even support government legislation.

If they hold a seat, they’ll also be very active in their electorate supporting and advocating for their constituents, and  a good list MP will also be doing electorate work.

They will be drawing up Members’ Bills in the hope they’ll be drawn out of the ballot too.

National MPs will be working very hard to be loyal members of a united caucus that doesn’t leak and will be contributing to policy development that is consistent with the party’s principles and philosophy unless they want to contribute to an even worse result for the party in three years time.

If they have spare time, they might also,  in an act of public service, help to extract the foot from the mouth of the professor of politics, and educate him on how the political system works and the essential democratic role a hard-working opposition plays in that no matter how outnumbered its members might be.


Rural round-up

24/10/2020

Fired up over freshwater – Hamish MacLean:

Stop the degradation, show real improvements in five years, restore New Zealand’s waterways in a generation, and infuriate how many farmers? Environment reporter Hamish MacLean checks in on the fight for healthy rivers after 100 tractors rolled through Gore last week in protest over new freshwater regulations. 

Southern farmers are facing reams of new rules and red tape as New Zealand starts to go hard on keeping sediment, E.coli, phosphorous, and nitrogen out of its rivers.

But Federated Farmers calls some of the new rules “unworkable” and prohibitively costly, and says they will need to be amended by Cabinet.

Federated Farmers environment and water spokesman Chris Allen says a parade of tractors down Gore’s main street and a gathering of hundreds of farmers in Invercargill last week amid public calls for ignoring the new rules en masse are representative of farmers’ anger about the costs and the extent of the changes being forced upon them.

Measures would squeeze businesses ‘doing it tough’ – Jacob McSweeny:

Business and farming leaders in the South are joining a chorus of similar stakeholders throughout the country hoping the Labour Party forms its own government rather than going into a coalition with the Greens.

Labour won 64 seats according to Saturday’s preliminary results and can govern alone if it chooses.

Farra Engineering chief executive and Southern Otago Regional Engineering Collective chairman Gareth Evans said he was not surprised by the result, just that it was more comprehensive than expected.

“It’s good in a sense that Labour have an absolute majority so that they have to be accountable for everything that they do from here on in.” . . 

Research funded to unlock seaweed’s potential as new ‘superfood‘ –

It is far from a staple on most Kiwi dinner tables, but AgResearch scientists are aiming to unlock the potential of seaweed as a go-to food with proven health benefits. And they have enlisted the services a of a world-class chef to help them do it.

The scientists are joining counterparts in Singapore in a project funded by New Zealand government, in the amount of $3.3 million, alongside parallel funding from the Government of Singapore. The New Zealand funding is from the Catalyst Fund:Strategic – New Zealand-Singapore Future Foods Research Programme.

The research, focused on the Undaria pinnatifida species of seaweed abundant in waters around New Zealand and Singapore, also involves partners the University of Otago, University of Auckland, A*STAR, AgriSea NZ, Ideas 2 Plate and AMiLi. . . 

Waikato berry farm expecting influx of visitors due to strawberry picker shortage:

Strawberries may be harder to come by on supermarket shelves this year due to an expected shortage of pickers, so a Waikato berry farm is gearing up for a big influx of Kiwis wanting to pick their own.

Whatawhata Berry Farm, located five minutes from Hamilton on the Raglan Road will open for the summer this Friday (23 October) and is expecting record crowds during the strawberry picking season, which runs from now until late March or Easter if demand exists.

Owner Darien McFadden says commercial growers are deeply concerned there won’t be enough overseas RSE workers or those on Working Holiday Visas to pick this year’s crop, leaving fruit to go to waste and creating supply and demand issues for both export and domestic markets. . . 

Shearers were among those travelling to Melbourne via Sydney :

New Zealand shearers were on the first flights to Australia and among those who travelled on to Melbourne.

Shearers who boarded the first flights to Melbourne should have been praised for their work ethic not “poo-pooed by the Premier”, an industry representative has said.

Shearing Contractors Association of Australia secretary Jason Letchford confirmed New Zealand shearers were on the first flights out of New Zealand to Sydney, and they later went on to catch a flight to Tullamarine Airport in Melbourne.

“Anecdotally I know they were on those flights and there was nothing illegal or incorrect in what they did – they followed process and were sponsored by their employers and had the correct permit to travel from metropolitan Melbourne to rural Victoria,” he said. . . 

HappyMoo developing tools to monitor cow health :

ICBF is participating in a large-scale European research project called HappyMoo. The project aims to develop tools to identify cow welfare issues before they become a problem and affect performance. There are many different aspects to cow welfare and essential among them are freedom from hunger, stress, and disease. These are the areas that the HappyMoo research project is focusing on.

The project will use machine learning to identify patterns in milk spectral data that are associated with undesirable conditions in the cow. Milk spectral data is recorded when milk samples are analysed in a milk recording lab by mid-infrared machines. Essentially a mid-infrared laser is shined into a milk sample and the absorbance levels are recorded. Every analysed milk sample generates 1060 data points and when we consider the thousands of cows in the thousands of milk recording herds it does not take long to add up to Big Data. Therefore, these absorbance levels provide a deep dataset and in the HappyMoo project the spectral data will be correlated with phenotypes. Already, spectral data can be used to measure milk constituents, but it has also been shown to indicate difficult to measure phenotypes such as energy balance. . . 


No room for leakers

21/10/2020

People who know my National Party affiliation keep asking me if I’m in mourning. I’m not, but I am both sad and angry and I’m not the only one:

Melissa Lee – who is one of those still in a job – said the result was “devastating”.

“We’ve always been very close friends and we’ve all become, you know, brothers and sisters. I love every single one of my colleagues and I feel terrible for those who did not make it this election,” she said.

So far as the leaking during the campaign is concerned, she said: “That’s something I’m really angry about. I just think New Zealanders will be very disappointed in us. We just look like politicians who can’t actually keep it together.

“I’m really disappointed whoever it is and hopefully it will stop.” . . .

The only ones to win if the leaking doesn’t stop are Labour and the media.

Lee said the problem with emails was they were sent to not just MPs but also their staff and possibly other people. She added she was not accusing staff of being behind the leak of the email she sent.

She advised any National MP who was leaking to media about Judith Collins being dumped as leader to “shut up”.

Departing Hamilton West MP Tim Macindoe who has been in Parliament for 12 years, said his message for his colleagues was to be decent.

“To be fit to govern you must be absolutely united, you must demonstrate a very clear vision for what is important … and also demonstrate fundamental decency.

“You have to be a team that people can respect and want to have lead a nation.”

He said the National caucus needed to focus entirely on being fit to govern, otherwise “it would be a difficult way back”.

For nearly nine years Labour didn’t look like it was fit to govern. National should have learned from that.

Macindoe said Collins had done a good job in “extraordinarily challenging circumstances”, and it would be a mistake “to get the knives out” for her.

Taranaki-King Country MP Barbara Kuriger said the caucus was united behind Collins. Three leaders, departing MPs and board members and leakers had made for a difficult year but Collins had “kept a smile on her face every day”.

She said there was no room in caucus for leakers.

Whoever has been leaking obviously doesn’t understand that the media is never a politician’s friend. A journalist will welcome leaks and use them, but won’t give any favours in return.

She agreed it was ironic that the team ran on a strong team banner.

“We weren’t the best team… You can have all the best players, it’s no different to the rugby. If you’ve got people dropping the ball, or not being able to do the right thing, then you don’t win, and that’s what happened.”

This was the election that Covid-19 stole but National’s result was far worse than it would have been if it wasn’t for the damage inflicted by the disloyalty and leaks that sabotaged the team.


If you don’t learn from history . .

19/10/2020

National didn’t learn from its 1999 defeat and paid for it in 2002.

Only after that loss did the party do some serious self-examination, make necessary changes and rebuild.

John Key led National back into government in 2008 and for nearly nine years we looked at Labour focused internally, disunited and leaking and knew they weren’t a serious threat.

National could have and should have learned from that recent history but didn’t.

Until early this year the polls had both Labour and National at similar levels of support. There were ups and downs but no major drops or rises for either.

Then Covid-19 struck, the Prime Minister’s popularity soared and Labour’s followed.

National’s popularity plummeted and the leaks and disunity exacerbated that.

Covid-19 was always going to favour the incumbent. Even had caucus stayed united and loyal, some of the blue party vote was going to go red to keep the Greens out. But unity and loyalty would have kept more votes blue and safe seats might have stayed safe.

Disunity and disloyalty made National a party that didn’t deserve to win.

We must learn from this and make some big changes because those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


More debt or higher taxes?

15/10/2020

Labour policy is offering voters two bad choices:

Labour’s inability to control their spending means they will either drown New Zealand in a sea of debt or burden hardworking New Zealanders with higher taxes, National’s Finance spokesperson Paul Goldsmith says.

“Labour have a track record of failing to control their spending. When they came to office they said they would spend an additional $1.9 billion in Budget 2019. In actual fact, they blew their Budget and ended up spending an extra $3.8 billion.

“That one failure alone means Government debt will be more than $20 billion higher by 2030. That is irresponsible and reckless.

“A Government that can’t control its spending will inevitably come after New Zealanders for more tax.

“The choice under Labour is clear: higher taxes to pay for all of the uncontrolled spending, or an economy that drowns in a sea of debt.

The sensible course for individuals and businesses facing tough financial times,  is to look at what’s essential and what’s not. Governments should do the same.

There hasn’t been a single sign from this government, or the election policies of the parties forming it, that recognise that let alone plan to do it.

“There is a better alternative.

“National will take a more disciplined approach to Government spending. We will eliminate waste such as Fees Free and KiwiBuild, we will be more careful with new spending each year, and we will put a halt to nice-to-have spending such as contributions to the NZ Super Fund.

“Our plan will restore debt to 36 per cent of GDP by 2034, compared to 48 per cent under Labour. And we will balance the budget and return to surplus by 2028 compared to never ending deficits under Labour.

“Future generations do not deserve to inherit an economy crippled with higher debt and higher taxes because Labour can’t control its spending.

“We need to stop the waste, stimulate the economy with short term tax relief, and trust Kiwis to grow their businesses and create jobs.”

This government wasn’t able to deliver most of its pledges from the last election when it had surpluses and before Covid-19 struck.

Why would anyone trust them to do it now debt is high and growing and while Covid-19 is still very much part of the problem?


Spread the word

02/10/2020

David Farrar is seeking donations to fund an advertisement to show just how woeful Labour’s delivery has been:

I’ve donated – you’ll find out how you can too by clicking on the link above.

This is the advertisement:

. . . All money received will go on paid advertising to get it seen far and wide. The best value for money appears to be Facebook. If enough is donated, could look at other mediums also.

The potential views may be huge. If we get $20,000 donated, then according to this site we would get:

  • 1.87 million impressions
  • 14,000 clicks through

The good thing with this is we are not selling anything. The ad is the product. If people click through, that’s a bonus. But what we want is for them to see the advert and hopefully realise how incompetent the delivery of promises has been. . . 

The information on which the graphic is based comes from this post at Kiwiblog.


Rural round-up

29/09/2020

Southland Federated Farmers plan ‘town and country’ hui over freshwater rules  – Rachael Kelly:

Southland’s farmers are being encouraged to drive their (road registered) tractors or utes to a ‘town and country hui’ being organised to inform people about the new freshwater regulations – and townies are invited too.

Southland Federated Farmers and the Southland Chamber of Commerce are hosting the hui at Queen’s Park in Invercargill on October 9, to ‘’bring town and country together over something that affects us all,’’ Southland Federated Farmers president Geoff Young said.

“This isn’t just about farmers. We all live off the land, so this will bring town and country together to highlight some of the concerns farmers have about the new freshwater rules are, and what the ramifications are for us all.” . . 

How agritech can provide the green shoots for NZ’s post-Covid economic recovery – Wayne McNee:

In the wake of Covid-19, New Zealand should be focusing on industries that can help drive our economic recovery and growth over time.

While some of our key sectors have been hit hard, the dairy industry, and wider food sector, is well-positioned to continue to deliver for Kiwis through Covid-19 and help our economy get back on its feet.

But like all sectors, particularly at the moment, the dairy industry needs to keep evolving to meet new challenges head-on and maximise new opportunities.

With Kiwis relying on the primary sector to help lead them out of this crisis, agritech has a vital role to play. . . 

 

$50m commitment not enough for farmers — National:

Labour’s $50 million commitment to support integrated farm planning will do little for farmers, claims National’s ag spokesperson David Bennett.

He says Labour doesn’t back farmers and today’s announcement will do little to ease burden of meeting regulations.

“Today’s promises around farm environment plans will do little to alleviate the individual farm cost and won’t necessarily mean that there will be a streamlined process for all farmers,” says Bennett.

“Labour can’t be trusted to deliver reasonable and rational rules when farmers know the true intentions of their party.“. . .

Cow-shy hairdresser now cutting it – Yvonne O’Hara:

Before she met her dairy farmer partner, hairdresser Ashleigh Sinclair did not own a pair of gumboots and was scared of cows.

Now she co-owns 20.

She spends most weekends with Clint Cummings on his family’s 106ha, 230-cow Wyndham dairy farm.

“I started off being petrified of cows, and going out on the farm was a challenge for me, but now I’ve seen how friendly they are and I love spending time with them. . . 

Scholarship opportunity firms up career – Yvonne O’Hara:

Ella Zwagerman intends to follow a food science career in the meat industry, and after a recent trip to Wellington as part of the Meat Industry Association’s scholarship programme is even more convinced it is the best path for her.A trip to Wellington as part of the Meat Industry Association scholarship programme helped convince Ella Zwagerman she was on the right career path.

Ms Zwagerman’s parents are dairy farmers at Isla Bank, near Invercargill, and she is studying for a bachelor of science (human nutrition) at Otago University.

She and 10 other scholars were hosted by the MIA in Wellington earlier this month and spent the day listening to speakers from several meat industry organisations, the Ministry for Primary Industries and AgResearch, and people who had various careers within the sector such as trade, food safety, nutrition, science and engineering. . .

Kiwi farmers identify pros and cons of conservation :

New Zealand farmers identified a wide range of advantages connected with on-farm biodiversity in a recent scientific survey.

The study, which surveyed 500 sheep and beef farmers from around Aotearoa, received nearly 700 responses that described advantages to managing and protecting biodiversity on their land.

While most participants were male Pākehā/NZ European over the age of 45, responses to the questions showed a huge variety of viewpoints when it came to native biodiversity on farms.

“This study highlighted that many farmers associate a range of values and benefits with biodiversity on-farm, spanning social, environmental and economic themes,” lead author Dr Fleur Maseyk from The Catalyst Group said . . 

Countryside improvements fund could be raided – Roger Harrabin:

A budget designed to fund improvements to Britain’s countryside is set to be raided, the BBC has learned.

Cash will be diverted away from ambitious conservation projects and towards protecting farm businesses.

The government previously promised that the £3bn currently paid to farms under EU agriculture policy would be wholly used to support the environment.

Ministers had said that, after Brexit, farmers would have to earn their subsidies. . .


Business confidence tanks

29/09/2020

Business confidence has plummeted:

The New Zealand Herald’s  2020 Election Survey has been released with top business leaders saying New Zealand’s Covid-19 recovery is in peril – and they want a decisive role with Government in the country’s future.

The annual boardroom barometer of 165 CEOs and high-profile directors has business confidence at the lowest it’s ever been in the survey’s 19-year history.

When asked to rate their level of optimism in the New Zealand economy the CEOs surveyed collectively scored it a 1.36 out of 5.

These are bigger businesses and predominantly urban.

I doubt if farmers are any more confident given the fear and uncertainty around added costs and complexities that are being imposed on primary production.

Westpac CEO David McLean says the future has never been so uncertain, but that means that the need for crisp and clear policies and plans has never been greater.

“We need to see pathways mapped, not just for how to escape from the current Covid-19 crisis, but to take us toward a better future by addressing some of the big challenges we face beyond Covid-19, such as increasing our productivity and tackling climate change,” said McLean.

Many, like Mainfreight’s Don Braid, question Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s heavy reliance on Government bureaucrats for advice and execution and her apparent unwillingness to listen to the private sector for ideas.

“There are many willing to devote time, energy and ideas in areas that allow New Zealand to find the right environment to operate in a post-lockdown economy,” said Braid.

The New Zealand Herald’s Mood of the Boardroom 2020 Election Year survey, taken in association with BusinessNZ, provides an in-depth assessment of CEO opinion at what is the most concerning time in the survey’s long history.

“It’s heartening that a record number of CEOs took part in the 2020 survey against a background of the Covid-19 pandemic. Optimism may be at the lowest levels seen in the survey’s history, but the CEOs’ responses demonstrated their own commitment to turning the economy around,” said says Mood of the Boardroom executive editor and NZ Herald’s Head of Business Content, Fran O’Sullivan.

With the General Election just weeks away business leaders are looking for more from both Labour and National.

Deloitte CEO Thomas Pippos points to tax policy being a key issue.

“Though Labour’s proposal to increase the highest personal tax rate doesn’t impact on the majority, National has upped the ante by helicoptering in temporary tax relief across the board to stimulate economic growth. Tax therefore promises to be a very complicated and emotive topic, that will either be centre stage this election or not far from it,’’ says Pippos.

BusinessNZ CEO Kirk Hope said Labour’s economic policy response to Covid has underpinned the economy in a challenging time.

“However, the long-term plans are less well understood. They will need to do a hard sell. National’s plans are slightly more pro-business. But both parties need to talk about how quantitative easing enables them to maximise a reduction in borrowing costs to help grow the economy.” . . 

You can read more about the Mood From the Boardroom at the NZ Herald here.

Confidence isn’t helped by the fact that Labour hasn’t released its fiscal plan:

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is calling on the Labour Party to immediately release their fiscal plan, so it can be subjected to the same scrutiny as the National Party’s fiscal plan.

Union spokesperson Louis Houlbrooke said: “The National plan was found to have a few holes after analysis by Labour and independent economists. The Nats admitted to one $4 billion mistake but denied another. It is healthy that major spending plans are put under intense investigation before an election.”

“That is why the Taxpayers’ Union is calling on Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to immediately release Labour’s own fiscal plan. She has told the nation that her numbers ‘stack up’. That clearly means their plan is finished, fact checked, and ready to go. There is no need to wait for a September Treasury data release to unveil the plan – the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) was reported a little over a week ago. All the fiscal data is there.”

“Let people like Paul Goldsmith, David Seymour, Cameron Bagrie, and your humble Taxpayers’ Union check that Labour’s numbers really do stack up. Then, taxpayers can make an informed choice about who should manage our economy in a post-COVID recession.”

It’s not just a fiscal plan that hasn’t been released, Labour keeps telling us it has a plan for recovery but has given scant details.

Uncertainty is one of the bigger drags on business confidence.

That matters because businesses that lack confidence at best don’t invest and don’t hire more staff, at worst they retrench and make staff redundant.

That so much about Covid-19 and how it will impact the country and the world is uncertain, and to a large degree uncontrollable, makes it even more important that politicians are upfront about their plans and what they can control.


Labour policies could add $2.8 billion costs to business

28/09/2020

Labour policies will add up to $2.8 billion in costs to businesses:

“Jacinda Ardern needs to front up and explain to New Zealanders how much Labour’s policies will hurt the New Zealand, economy National’s Economic Development spokesperson,” Todd McClay says.

“Labour have not shown New Zealand any costing of the economic impact from their recent policy announcements.

“The cost of their policies might not show up in the government’s books, but they will be paid by all New Zealanders – through fewer jobs, lower wage increases and a decline in economic growth.

“So far, Labour has committed to lifting the minimum wage; increasing sick leave requirements; creating another public holiday; and less flexible working agreements.

This won’t only add costs to businesses it will reduce productivity which is already too low.

“The total cost of Labour’s policies could be as much as $2.8 billion per year for New Zealand businesses. What does Labour say the costs are?

“Business NZ said an employee’s absence is currently estimated to cost about $1000 per employee, or $1.8 billion across the economy, will Labour’s policy on sick leave double this?

“Based on previous MBIE estimates of minimum wage increases, raising the minimum wage to $20 will likely cost the economy around $280 million per year.

“An additional public holiday could cost as much as $700 million in extra costs for businesses, based on average wages and the size of the New Zealand workforce.

“The solutions businesses need to grow New Zealand out of our current recession is help with paying the bills, not even higher bills due to Labour’s costly policies.

“New Zealand needs to know what the impact of these policies will be on our weak economy. These policies have consequences.

“Time for some answers.”

These added costs imposed on businesses show Labour is building a barrier to economic recovery:

With businesses failing and unemployment rapidly increasing, Labour’s plans are like throwing petrol on a bonfire, National’s Economic Development spokesperson Todd McClay says.

“Nearly 100,000 small businesses have had to borrow $1.6 billion from the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) just to cover their cashflow under Labour.

“Grant Robertson thinks he can continue to pile costs on businesses while ignoring the real and disastrous impact. Repaying this debt will be even more difficult with Labour’s agenda to raise the cost of doing business.

“Labour’s announcements of a higher minimum wage, a new public holiday and an increased sick leave could cost the economy $2.8 billion per annum.

“These are not small costs that can be easily absorbed. They amount to over $1000 per employee.

“Despite prompting from National on Friday, Labour has been unable to make a case as to why these policies will be good for our weakened economy.

“Labour’s plans will also lead to higher power prices for businesses of over 30 per cent for industrial users.

“Labour’s idea that $5 billion to $10 billion could be spent on a pumped hydro scheme in Central Otago without raising power prices has been described by electricity company executives as ‘dreamland’.

“Labour need to front up with their assessment of the impact these policies are having on the economy.

“These higher costs will affect Kiwis through fewer jobs, lower pay rises and a smaller economy.

“National will create an environment where businesses can grow and prosper. We’re supporting businesses with $10,000 to hire new staff and provide modern, flexible working practices.

“We will work with businesses, not against them, to create more jobs and higher incomes for Kiwis and their families.”

Some commentators say there is little difference between National and Labour.

In some matters they are right, but not when it comes to the economy.

Labour plans to add costs and complexity which will make it more expensive and difficult to employ people and add other costs to business.

In stark contrast National plans to cut red tape and taxes. This will make it easier to employ people and for businesses to invest in themselves and grow.

National is focusing on what matters, Labour has lesser priorities:


Rural round-up

25/09/2020

Lower sheep and beef farmers sentiment chief contributor to rural confidence fall – Rabobank – Maja Burry:

Waning sentiment among sheep and beef farmers has pushed rural confidence deeper into negative territory in Rabobank’s latest rural confidence survey.

The survey, completed earlier this month, found net farmer confidence has slipped to -32 percent, down from -26 percent previously. In the last quarterly survey there had been a strong recovery from historic lows recorded early in the year.

Rabobank said the chief contributor to the lower net reading was markedly-lower sheep and beef farmer sentiment. That negated higher confidence levels reported among dairy farmers and horticulturalists, who were bouyed by improving demand for products.

Rabobank New Zealand chief executive, Todd Charteris, said sheep and beef farmers reported lingering concerns over government policy and the on-going impacts of Covid-19. . . 

2021 Zanda McDonald Award to crown two winners:

In an Award first, the Zanda McDonald Award, Australasia’s agricultural badge of honour, have announced today that they will crown not one, but two winners – one from each side of the Tasman – for the 2021 Award.

Eight passionate and talented young individuals in the primary sector have been named in the shortlist for the prestigious trans-Tasman award – four from Australia, and four from New Zealand.

The award, now in its seventh year, recognises talented and passionate young professionals working in agriculture, and provides an impressive prize package. The shortlist have been selected for their passion for the industry, strong leadership skills, and the contributions they’re making in the primary sector.

The change for 2021 comes as a result of COVID-19 restrictions, which prevents the award judges from being able to interview the usual shortlist of six together in one place, to determine the overall winner for Australasia. . . 

The case for trout farming – Clive Barker:

Anglers have long resisted the idea of commercial trout farming but a select committee recently recommended the Government give the idea “serious consideration”. Clive Barker makes the case for trout farming.

The species of fish used for aquaculture were at one time very limited. Carp were the fish used in pond culture originally in China. The method was transferred and developed in Europe during the Middle Ages. This was to help inland populations to follow the centuries-old law of meat abstinence on Fridays. In addition, there was the period of Lent during which eating meat was also prohibited. The 15th and 16th centuries were called the ”Golden Age” of Carp pond farming.

By the 1700s, river trout stock depletion had become a problem and in 1741 Stephen Ludwig Jacobi established the first trout hatchery in Germany. From this time, anglers have started to depend on cultured supplies of trout to increase or substitute the natural wild trout production. . . 

Feds suitably impressed with week of agriculture and horticulture announcements:

This has been a promising week for farmers.

Federated Farmers says it started with an excellent agriculture policy from ACT announced on Monday, followed by Labour’s positive farm plan policy announced by the Prime Minister and Agricultural Minister yesterday and finishing today with a well-researched and well thought out National Party Agriculture and Horticulture policies today.

National’s policy outlines a situation where the border is effectively closed, and New Zealand has lost almost a quarter of foreign earnings in the form of tourism and international education, leaving primary industries keeping the economy afloat.

Federated Farmers National President Andrew Hoggard says all these policies are the shot in the arm that our primary industries require. . . 

Shrek 2 found in Gisborne

First there was the South Island Shrek who came to our attention in 2004 – now a rival has been found in Gisborne.

She’s finally been caught at Wairakaia Station and has been given a name – Gizzy Shrek.

Farmer Rob Faulkner has been on her tail for years, he says.

“She’s been eluding me for about four or five years now and she finally came in through the back paddock”, Ron told Jesse Mulligan.

Empty meat counters – Uptown Farms:

Have you ever had your washer breakdown? It’s a real pain, and can cause a real issue around the house.
Finding someone to fix it is tough – skilled labor is hard to come by.

While you’re waiting, the laundry doesn’t stop coming. Everyone in the house keeps sending more your way. But without the washer – you’re stuck. There’s literally no where for the clothes to go.

Meanwhile, with huge piles of clothes stacking up on one side, clean clothes are becoming pretty scarce. Everyone in the house is wearing their jeans multiple times and getting nervous as they watch their underwear drawer slowly empty out…

This is what’s happening in our meat industry right now. Instead of washers and laundry it’s packing plants and livestock.
Many packing plants have been forced to shut down or run at lowered capacity because of Covid outbreaks and sick employees. Enough that it has created a massive backup on one side. . . 


Labour will make poor poorer

11/09/2020

What is Labour thinking with its plan to have 100% renewable energy generation by 2030?

Labour’s energy policy will hammer Kiwis’ back pockets by increasing the cost of electricity by as much as 40 per cent, Leader of the Opposition Judith Collins says.

The Government’s own advice from the Independent Climate Commission said the 100 per cent renewable electricity will increase power prices for New Zealand businesses and families.

“The day after Grant Robertson pledged there would be no new taxes, we’re seeing even more costs piled onto New Zealanders.

“This is a policy that will cost thousands of jobs and put even more people on to the unemployment benefit.

“While we want to see more renewable electricity, all this policy will do is increase electricity prices and reduce reliability.

“While Labour wants higher taxes and hiked power prices, National wants to get the economy moving and create jobs for New Zealanders.”

Like the ban on oil and gas exploration, this policy isn’t evidence-based:

A goal of 100% renewable electricity needs to evidence-based and thoroughly tested, according to the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand (PEPANZ).

“The Government’s own Interim Climate Change Committee (ICCC) warned against a 100% target for 2035 given that it would be very expensive and have only minimal impacts on emissions,” says PEPANZ Chief Executive John Carnegie.

Nearly as bad as the oil and gas ban that will make emissions worse.

“We’d want to see careful consideration of the costs and benefits of bringing a 100% target even further forward, as well as for all other policies.

“A Government-backed hydro scheme is likely to be a major deterrent to any private sector energy investment given it could render them unprofitable. Its need could become self-fulfilling.

What are the chances of a hydro scheme, government-backed or not, getting through the resource consent process in time for it to be operating by 2030?

“The pace and nature of our transition will ultimately be determined by global economics. New Zealand has tried to hide from market forces before without success and at massive long-term economic and social cost. We cannot subsidise our way to prosperity, especially in the current highly uncertain global environment. . . 

Why would Labour, the party that imposed significant costs on landlords with the aim of making houses warmer, plan to implement a policy that will make it more difficult for poor people to heat their houses by significantly increasing power prices?

Why would the party whose leader said reducing child poverty was one of her most important priorities even consider a policy that will make poverty worse?

Why wouldn’t the party that exhorts us to follow the science on Covid-19, follow the science on energy, the environment and economics?


Fiddling while country burns

10/09/2020

Labour’s following its base instinct with its tax policy:

No country in the world has ever taxed itself out of recession, but Labour’s first instinct is to raise your taxes, National’s Finance spokesperson Paul Goldsmith says.

“Today Grant Robertson wouldn’t say if his tax policy is a bottom line in any coalition negotiations with the Greens, leaving the door wide open for other tax increases.

“If Grant Robertson is true to his word, then he will make no other tax increases a bottom line.

“This is just the beginning. Labour will eventually widen the net and come after middle income earners.

“Labour has predictably gone back to old habits after the failure of its Capital Gains tax this term.

“It opens a door for tax avoidance that we haven’t seen for many years, which brings into question Grant Robertson’s revenue estimates.

“National won’t increase taxes and won’t introduce any new taxes.”

Labour’s plan is to impose a new top marginal tax rate of 39% on income earned over $180,000.

It says it will bring in $550 million a year.

It won’t.

Instead it will create work for accountants and lawyers as people find ways to get round it.

Even if it did, it would be a tiny contribution to the public coffers in contrast to the billions that are being borrowed.

We don’t need fiddling with tax rates while the country burns with debt.

We need plans for economic growth which is the only way to put out the fire.


Borrowing every dollar

31/08/2020

Finance Minister Grant Robertson justified not extending the wage subsidy to cover the longer period at alert level 3 by saying: we are borrowing every single dollar that we are paying out.

Did Cabinet take that into account when it signed off the $11.7 million paid to the Green School which has raised the ire of  principals, teacher unions, the Opposition and Green Party members?

Green co-leader James Shaw has copped most of the criticism and warrants it for the hypocrisy in backing the payment when his party policy opposes private schools.

But the decision must have been signed off by Cabinet.

Labour is no doubt enjoying watching Shaw squirm. But it is just as guilty of hypocrisy for agreeing to fund this small, private school with fees of up to $43,000 a year after scrapping the partnership schools which did so much for disadvantaged pupils failed by the conventional education system.

New Zealand First has been uncharacteristically quiet about this but it is in no position to criticise when so many of the projects it has funded with taxpayers’ money would not have passed the cost-benefit test.

That was bad enough when the government books were in surplus.

It is far worse now that every dollar that is spent is borrowed, accruing interest and will have to be repaid.

Robertson reminded us of that in defending his decision to not extend the wage subsidy.

If he, and his government,  took that approach to all other spending the Green School would not have been funded and the country wouldn’t be facing such a mountain of debt.


Should the election be postponed?

17/08/2020

We’ll learn this morning if the election will be postponed. Should it be?

Labour and the Green Party seem happy to stick with September 19. National, Act, and New Zealand First would prefer a delay.

There is some self-interest in these positions but elections aren’t just about politicians and political parties, they are for the people.

Delaying the election will cause a lot of work for the Electoral Commission which will already have booked places to be used as polling booths and employed people to staff them September 19.

That isn’t by itself a reason to stick with the date. The early announcement of the election date only began with John Key for the 2011 election. Before that the Prime Minister of the day used to leave it until a time he or she chose to announce the date, often only a few weeks before polling day.

In the normal course of events announcing early is better for the Commission, giving it plenty of time to get organised, makes it fairer for all parties and gives the public plenty of notice.

However, events are not coursing normally.

Auckland is in level 3 lockdown and the rest of the country is at level 2. On Friday we were told that these levels will be maintained until August 26th.

If parliament is dissolved today and the election goes ahead on September 19, overseas voting will start a week later and early voting a few days after that.

It’s not just that parties and candidates need time to campaign, it’s that people need time to get to know them, to meet them, listen to them and equally importantly talk to and question them.

And it’s not just the election but two referendums that will be held at the same time. While all of these may be of great interest to political tragics and those who feel strongly on the referendum issues, many people haven’t begun thinking about them yet.

There is also the concern many elderly people and others who are immune compromised could be unwilling to go to polling booths so soon after this cluster of community transmission.

There is no guarantee there will not be another outbreak of Covid-19 in the run up to a new date, but if the government and health officials learn from their mistakes, chances are we will be at level 1 for long enough for a near normal campaign.

The likelihood of at least a few weeks’ delay increased yesterday with a media release from deputy PM, WInston Peters in which he released an open letter to the PM telling her the election should be delayed.

Although that doesn’t alter the PM’s right to decide the election date, it does mean a majority of parliament favours a delay.

Disregarding that, and the other factors supporting a delay would be doing a disservice to democracy.


No indexation = tax increase

11/08/2020

Labour’s wrong on tax – again:

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is slamming the claim by Labour Party finance spokesman Grant Robertson that the National Party’s policy to index tax brackets to inflation is a “tax cut”.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says, “It’s dishonest to frame indexation – adjusting income tax thresholds to inflation – as a ‘tax cut’, like Mr Robertson did today.”

“Adjusting tax brackets so that people are not artificially pushed into paying higher marginal tax rates isn’t cutting tax. By definition, it’s keeping the rate of tax paid the same.”

“Mr Robertson is trying to cloud the issue so he’s not held to account for the dishonest way he, and successive Ministers of Finance, have increased tax by stealth through wage inflation. It’s a shame he is choosing to be so misleading about tax at a time many households are facing fiscal crisis.”

Adjusting tax thresholds to account for inflation is not a tax cut but failing to do so pushes people into a higher bracket  and subjects them to paying more which is in effect a tax increase.

Given Labour’s big spending plan with borrowed money is not matched by plans to reduce spending anywhere, encourage growth nor to repay the debt it will almost certainly increase some taxes.

Even if it does nothing more, by refusing to index brackets to inflation it will be increasing tax for everyone who is pushed into a higher threshold.


%d bloggers like this: