Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics


For all the criticisms of the previous government not hitting targets they set out to, many aren’t being achieved by this one either and look like there’s no way they can in some areas like already saying there’s no possible way they will be recruiting 500 police as was said. It makes it look ridiculous the borrowing they did to pay out the meaningless for most tax cuts when they came into power and drove up that dept further
Every government lies..... people just vote in the one they think has told the less porkies.

Remember Winnie defending KiwiBuild saying the then government was going to meet it's target.

And, of course, John Key's government led the way with broken promises...

John Key’s 10 Broken Promises

1. GST
The promise: “National is not going to be raising GST. National wants to cut taxes, not raise taxes … what I am saying is if we do a half-decent job as a government at growing our economy I am confident that won't be happening”. (Source: Stuff, 10 February 2010) http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3311679/Key-no-GST-rise-video-emerges

The reality: GST was increased to 15 per cent.

2. Wage Gap with Australia
The promise: “That would be a fundamental purpose of our Government, to narrow the wage gap between ourselves and Australia, and to grow local wages in New Zealand.” (Nexus, Waikato University, Issue 13, 3 Jul 2007)

The reality: The wage gap with Australia has increased by $32 a week.

3. New Zealanders leaving for Australia
The promise: We're here today at Westpac Stadium. It holds nearly 35,000 people. And believe it or not, the equivalent of this entire stadium - and more - leaves every year to permanently live in Australia … I'm convinced we can give them a reason, and a purpose, to stay in New Zealand. And that's why I want to be New Zealand's next Prime Minister. (Source: John Key, Ambitious for New Zealand – Meet John Key DVD, 27 November 2007) http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0711/S00545.htm

The promise: “We’ve got an agenda which is about the economy, it’s about building opportunities, it’s about stopping 80,000 people leaving a year to other parts of the world”. (Source: TV3 Sunrise, 27 August 2008).

The reality: 100,000 New Zealanders have left for Australia under John Key.

4. Working for Families
The promise: “I personally guarantee that we will give families financial certainty by continuing all Working for Families payments at current levels”. (Source: John Key’s Commitment Card 2008)

The reality: Budget 2011 cut over $400 million from Working for Families by reducing payments through changing abatement rates and thresholds.

5. Asset Sales
The promise: “I'm not interested in selling assets – I'm all about building assets”. (John Key Speech, My Key Commitments to You, 12 October 2008) http://www.johnkey.co.nz/archives/504-SPEECH-My-Key-Commitments-to-You.html

The promise: “I personally guarantee that we will maintain and build New Zealand’s asset base by … not selling Kiwibank or any other state-owned company”. (Source: John Key’s Commitment Card 2008)

The reality: National is already spending the money from the asset sales and Treasury has already hired Australian investment banking firm Lazard Pty as an adviser on the asset sales.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-pursue-mixed-ownership-model http://business.scoop.co.nz/2011/11/01/nz-treasury-hires-australias-lazard-for-asset-sale-advice/

6. Underclass
The promise: “I have no intention of being a Prime Minister who tackles only the easy and convenient issues .. But I can tell you that dealing with the problems of our growing underclass is a priority for National, both in opposition and in government”. (Source: John Key Speech, The Kiwi Way: A Fair Go For All, 30 January 2007) http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleID=9215

The reality: The underclass has grown with 32,000 more children living in benefit dependent households over the past 3 years.

7. KiwiSaver
The promise: “Under National, KiwiSaver members will keep their current KiwiSaver entitlements”. (Source: 2008 KiwiSaver – Economic plan: Enduring, affordable KiwiSaver, Bill English).
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28684 and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10724513

The reality: National passed legislation that halved the member tax credit in year starting 1 July 2011.

8. Cycleway
The promise: The cycleway would create 4,000 jobs. (Source: Radio New Zealand, 24 March 2009) http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/12890/labour-questions-govt-costings-of-cycleway

The reality: Only a fraction of that were created – 511 (Source: Question for Written Answer 6075 (2011), John Key, 3 August 2011). http://ourhouse.parliament.nz/en-NZ...Jacinda-Ardern-to-the-Minister-of-Tourism.htm

9. ECE
The promise: “We will retain all the existing subsidies and fee controls”. (Source: National Party Media Statement, ECE Policy: Your family – your choice, 11 July 2008, Anne Tolley and Paula Bennett) http://paulabennett.co.nz/index.php...lease-ECE-policy-Your-family-your-choice.html

The reality: Budget 2010 cut ECE subsidies by removing subsidy funding rates for ECE services with 80-99% and 100% registered teachers.

10. Tax Cuts
The promise: “The Government would not embark on a policy of increasing GST unless it would benefit the New Zealand economy in the long term and unless it saw the vast bulk of New Zealanders better off”. (Source: John Key, Stuff, Key confirms GST increase being considered, 9 February 2010) http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3307911/Key-confirms-GST-increase-being-considered

The promise: “The bulk of New Zealanders should be either be no worse off or better off”. (Source: John Key, TV1, Breakfast, 26 January 2010)

The reality: NZIER released a report that found 60% of households are worse off after National’s tax switch. (Source: Stuff, Higher GST, prices eat tax-cut gains for most, 1 December 2010) http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4407809/Higher-GST-prices-eat-tax-cut-gains-for-most

The promise: “This Government introduced a balanced package of tax cuts that were fiscally neutral”. (Source: John Key, Hansard, Question Time, 11 May 2011) http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/B...ncial-Position-and-Savings-Prime-Minister.htm

The reality: Budget said the package would cost $465 million in the first year and over $1 billion over four years. In fact, it has cost $1.1 billion in just the first nine months. National is borrowing for tax cuts. (Source: Treasury, Financial Statement of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2011).
 
"P" testing was the biggest load of horseshit. Funnily enough, driven by the companies that stood to profit.
I know off at least three companies that went from installing insulation (while governments were offering grants for it), to "p" inspection and decontamination companies to companies doing Healthy Homes Reports... and now that those gravy trains have run their course, they're liquidated the companies owning tens of thousands to the IRD, banks and other creditors.
 
Every government lies..... people just vote in the one they think has told the less porkies.

Remember Winnie defending KiwiBuild saying the then government was going to meet it's target.

And, of course, John Key's government led the way with broken promises...

John Key’s 10 Broken Promises

1. GST
The promise: “National is not going to be raising GST. National wants to cut taxes, not raise taxes … what I am saying is if we do a half-decent job as a government at growing our economy I am confident that won't be happening”. (Source: Stuff, 10 February 2010) http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3311679/Key-no-GST-rise-video-emerges

The reality: GST was increased to 15 per cent.

2. Wage Gap with Australia
The promise: “That would be a fundamental purpose of our Government, to narrow the wage gap between ourselves and Australia, and to grow local wages in New Zealand.” (Nexus, Waikato University, Issue 13, 3 Jul 2007)

The reality: The wage gap with Australia has increased by $32 a week.

3. New Zealanders leaving for Australia
The promise: We're here today at Westpac Stadium. It holds nearly 35,000 people. And believe it or not, the equivalent of this entire stadium - and more - leaves every year to permanently live in Australia … I'm convinced we can give them a reason, and a purpose, to stay in New Zealand. And that's why I want to be New Zealand's next Prime Minister. (Source: John Key, Ambitious for New Zealand – Meet John Key DVD, 27 November 2007) http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0711/S00545.htm

The promise: “We’ve got an agenda which is about the economy, it’s about building opportunities, it’s about stopping 80,000 people leaving a year to other parts of the world”. (Source: TV3 Sunrise, 27 August 2008).

The reality: 100,000 New Zealanders have left for Australia under John Key.

4. Working for Families
The promise: “I personally guarantee that we will give families financial certainty by continuing all Working for Families payments at current levels”. (Source: John Key’s Commitment Card 2008)

The reality: Budget 2011 cut over $400 million from Working for Families by reducing payments through changing abatement rates and thresholds.

5. Asset Sales
The promise: “I'm not interested in selling assets – I'm all about building assets”. (John Key Speech, My Key Commitments to You, 12 October 2008) http://www.johnkey.co.nz/archives/504-SPEECH-My-Key-Commitments-to-You.html

The promise: “I personally guarantee that we will maintain and build New Zealand’s asset base by … not selling Kiwibank or any other state-owned company”. (Source: John Key’s Commitment Card 2008)

The reality: National is already spending the money from the asset sales and Treasury has already hired Australian investment banking firm Lazard Pty as an adviser on the asset sales.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-pursue-mixed-ownership-model http://business.scoop.co.nz/2011/11/01/nz-treasury-hires-australias-lazard-for-asset-sale-advice/

6. Underclass
The promise: “I have no intention of being a Prime Minister who tackles only the easy and convenient issues .. But I can tell you that dealing with the problems of our growing underclass is a priority for National, both in opposition and in government”. (Source: John Key Speech, The Kiwi Way: A Fair Go For All, 30 January 2007) http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleID=9215

The reality: The underclass has grown with 32,000 more children living in benefit dependent households over the past 3 years.

7. KiwiSaver
The promise: “Under National, KiwiSaver members will keep their current KiwiSaver entitlements”. (Source: 2008 KiwiSaver – Economic plan: Enduring, affordable KiwiSaver, Bill English).
http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28684 and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10724513

The reality: National passed legislation that halved the member tax credit in year starting 1 July 2011.

8. Cycleway
The promise: The cycleway would create 4,000 jobs. (Source: Radio New Zealand, 24 March 2009) http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/12890/labour-questions-govt-costings-of-cycleway

The reality: Only a fraction of that were created – 511 (Source: Question for Written Answer 6075 (2011), John Key, 3 August 2011). http://ourhouse.parliament.nz/en-NZ...Jacinda-Ardern-to-the-Minister-of-Tourism.htm

9. ECE
The promise: “We will retain all the existing subsidies and fee controls”. (Source: National Party Media Statement, ECE Policy: Your family – your choice, 11 July 2008, Anne Tolley and Paula Bennett) http://paulabennett.co.nz/index.php...lease-ECE-policy-Your-family-your-choice.html

The reality: Budget 2010 cut ECE subsidies by removing subsidy funding rates for ECE services with 80-99% and 100% registered teachers.

10. Tax Cuts
The promise: “The Government would not embark on a policy of increasing GST unless it would benefit the New Zealand economy in the long term and unless it saw the vast bulk of New Zealanders better off”. (Source: John Key, Stuff, Key confirms GST increase being considered, 9 February 2010) http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3307911/Key-confirms-GST-increase-being-considered

The promise: “The bulk of New Zealanders should be either be no worse off or better off”. (Source: John Key, TV1, Breakfast, 26 January 2010)

The reality: NZIER released a report that found 60% of households are worse off after National’s tax switch. (Source: Stuff, Higher GST, prices eat tax-cut gains for most, 1 December 2010) http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4407809/Higher-GST-prices-eat-tax-cut-gains-for-most

The promise: “This Government introduced a balanced package of tax cuts that were fiscally neutral”. (Source: John Key, Hansard, Question Time, 11 May 2011) http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/B...ncial-Position-and-Savings-Prime-Minister.htm

The reality: Budget said the package would cost $465 million in the first year and over $1 billion over four years. In fact, it has cost $1.1 billion in just the first nine months. National is borrowing for tax cuts. (Source: Treasury, Financial Statement of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2011).
Yes they do, and the post I responded to was of your criticism of the Green Party and their view of borrowing. Is your view also of the money borrowed to provide the tax cuts that the current government did poor also?
 
I know off at least three companies that went from installing insulation (while governments were offering grants for it), to "p" inspection and decontamination companies to companies doing Healthy Homes Reports... and now that those gravy trains have run their course, they're liquidated the companies owning tens of thousands to the IRD, banks and other creditors.
There’s a current story of a family renting that the landlord didn’t let them know, or it at least wasn’t known to them, and they’ve garbaged all their furniture because of claimed contamination
 
Yes they do, and the post I responded to was of your criticism of the Green Party and their view of borrowing. Is your view also of the money borrowed to provide the tax cuts that the current government did poor also?
Personally, I like the idea of keeping the income tax thresholds "progressive" and altering them to suit inflation. But, I think it also should happen in conjunction with something like an inheritance tax and gift duty to help reduce the amount of money being intergenerationally transferred so it's a "tax neutral" situation.... i.e. it costs the government say $2B PA in income tax cuts but they make that up by getting $2B in IT and GD. So, no, I don't like this government's approach of borrowing to fund tax cuts (even though I think the tax cuts were good).

The current government went too far with reducing the Brightline Test from ten years down to two years.... five years would have been better in my eyes.

Even David Packer admitted he took the interest mortgage deductibility too far and that he should have still allowed landlords to deduct 50% of the interest because of the way inflation effects it.
 
So, no, I don't like this government's approach of borrowing to fund tax cuts (even though I think the tax cuts were good).
Who were they good for though? It seems odd to criticise one party’s idea of borrowing and spending in consideration to debt levels without mentioning how this also deserves criticism for being added to our debt levels and didn’t move the dial whatsoever for those most in need in a cost of living crisis
 
Who were they good for though? It seems odd to criticise one party’s idea of borrowing and spending in consideration to debt levels without mentioning how this also deserves criticism for being added to our debt levels and didn’t move the dial whatsoever for those most in need in a cost of living crisis
Lower to medium paid workers who found that as their pay increased, they moved up into the next tax bracket. Think of it this way.... the CEO of a company on a multi-million salary won't noticed $25 PF in additional income but someone on the average wage would.

Plus, there's a difference between borrowing to run the government (even because of unwise tax cuts) @ $3.5 bil PA and the Greens idea of borrowing an additional $22.8 bil. average PA (change in net core Crown debt: 7.0B + 11.7B +28.6B + 44.5B divided by four years) to laden future generations with a huge amount of debt.

From the Greens Alternative Budget....

1748486330236.webp

The graph above is from page 42 of the Greens Alternative Budget linked below...

 
Lower to medium paid workers who found that as their pay increased, they moved up into the next tax bracket. Think of it this way.... the CEO of a company on a multi-million salary won't noticed $25 PF in additional income but someone on the average wage would.

Plus, there's a difference between borrowing to run the government (even because of unwise tax cuts) @ $3.5 bil PA and the Greens idea of borrowing an additional $22.8 bil. average PA (change in net core Crown debt: 7.0B + 11.7B +28.6B + 44.5B divided by four years) to laden future generations with a huge amount of debt.

From the Greens Alternative Budget....

View attachment 13189

The graph above is from page 42 of the Greens Alternative Budget linked below...

Govt should run a surplus in good times and a deficit in bad times.

Broadly, the surplus slows the economy and the deficit pumps more in and helps. By definition we’ve been in a long deep recession so we should be in deficit.

We shouldn’t fund day to day expenses by debt long term like the Greens are proposing.
 
Isn’t it the reserve bank lowering interest rates that will achieve it?

And doesn’t any incentives just push up prices?

There’s curently an oversupply of houses in Auckland with rent dropping.
Hard to know how much of the savings in interest rates will be gobbled up by power and food or whatever else that they’ve warned will go up later in the year? There is an oversupply in many areas you’re mentioning but largely because of a stagnant real estate industry with the market massively in the favour of the buyer, and also some factors like the alteration to bright line that Mike mentioned and investors pulling out and houses going on the market
 
Also Mike, I understand you’re somewhere around the construction industry? How’s the government doing in your view of stimulating the industry?
TBH, there are someways they're looking at stimulating it... some like allowing the overseas certification of building products through approved overseas testing labs will be good. The current Acceptable Solutions was set up to help the NZ suppliers/manufacturers such as the width of roof flashings here. Fletchers basically gave MBIE it's standard sizes and they were adopted into E1.... even though other countries require smaller flashings meaning they couldn't get approval to work here. BRANZ receives a huge amount of money from NZ building supply/manufacturing companies and aren't overly helpful in testing products from overseas.

Others, like allowing builders to self-certify their work is just asking for trouble.... think of the Leaky Homes crisis but worse.

There's still too many unknowns about changes to planning rules to know if they'll be successful or not.
 
Hard to know how much of the savings in interest rates will be gobbled up by power and food or whatever else that they’ve warned will go up later in the year? There is an oversupply in many areas you’re mentioning but largely because of a stagnant real estate industry with the market massively in the favour of the buyer, and also some factors like the alteration to bright line that Mike mentioned and investors pulling out and houses going on the market
Inflation is still low with things like petrol and food going down to offset rates and insurance. Families with big mortgages will be hundreds of Dallas a week better off when they next refix.

The surplus of housing is in an oversupply of units causing rent to rise (irrespective of house pricing). There was a massive amount of units built in central cities and now the population isn’t rocketing up. An oversupply indicates in some areas we don’t need much more new housing.
 
Inflation is still low with things like petrol and food going down to offset rates and insurance. Families with big mortgages will be hundreds of Dallas a week better off when they next refix.

The surplus of housing is in an oversupply of units causing rent to rise (irrespective of house pricing). There was a massive amount of units built in central cities and now the population isn’t rocketing up. An oversupply indicates in some areas we don’t need much more new housing.
I wish I had a few extra Dallas's ;)
 
Lower to medium paid workers who found that as their pay increased, they moved up into the next tax bracket. Think of it this way.... the CEO of a company on a multi-million salary won't noticed $25 PF in additional income but someone on the average wage would.

Plus, there's a difference between borrowing to run the government (even because of unwise tax cuts) @ $3.5 bil PA and the Greens idea of borrowing an additional $22.8 bil. average PA (change in net core Crown debt: 7.0B + 11.7B +28.6B + 44.5B divided by four years) to laden future generations with a huge amount of debt.

From the Greens Alternative Budget....

View attachment 13189

The graph above is from page 42 of the Greens Alternative Budget linked below...

I’m not too interested in discussing the greens proposal as it’s never going to happen and wasting my thumb typing. Just wanted to know if the debt that was added was of value, and it obviously was to you . Appreciate you’re view and probably agree that some debt is ok provided it goes to the right places, only problem is we’ve all got our different views of where the right places are
 
Back
Top Bottom