Chris Hipkins says Labour has become the party of fiscal responsibility and its increased spending has reduced poverty, cut emissions, and boosted pay for critical workers.
The party leader was forced to defend his Government’s fiscal record at the annual Bloomberg Address on Wednesday, when challenged over steady rise in spending.
In nominal terms, core crown expenses have increased by $41 billion—or about 47%—during the pandemic years. However, this number is boosted by inflation and a bigger economy.
Core expenses as a percentage of gross domestic product were forecast to be 32.5% this year, which would be a 16% increase from 28% in 2019.
“If you look at what is driving that increase in expenditure, I’m not going to make any apologies,” Hipkins told Bloomberg.
He said the extra spending had lifted 77,000 children out of poverty, lowered climate emissions, and provided pay rises for nurses, teachers and other public workers.
This extra spending has been spread broadly across different policy areas, according to Budget 2023 data.
Social development, which includes superannuation and a range of benefits, has increased to 10.4% of gross domestic product from 8.3% in 2019.
Health spending has increased to 6.4% of GDP, up from 5.7% three years ago. Treasury & finance costs, which includes debt servicing, has risen to 4.2% from 3.9%.
Transport was up to 2.4% from 1.5%, environment spending rose to 0.8% from 0.2%, and foreign affairs jumped to 0.5% from less than 0.2%.
A Fiscal Freaky Friday
Hipkins said Labour would focus on getting the Crown accounts back into surplus now that the Covid emergency has passed. Then, he took a jab at National’s foggy fiscal plan.
“In a somewhat unusual reversal of positions, it’s actually the Labour Party promising to be the more fiscally prudent this election,” he said.
He said balancing the budget and paying down debt was a smarter investment than “big and unaffordable tax cuts, which will add to inflation”.
In a press release, National’s deputy leader Nicola Willis said the claim lacked credibility.
“As the economy recovered after the pandemic, the Government’s tax take soared. Instead of banking the gains and saving them for a rainy day, Labour layered on more and more spending – breaking all of the spending promises they made at the last election,” she said.
She said National was the only party with a plan to manage the economy, but didn’t mention any of its own spending plans.
When asked, Willis wouldn’t comment on whether the party would return to surplus sooner than Labour, nor give any details about spending targets and fiscal rules.
“National is the party of responsible economic management and fiscal prudence, and that will be reflected in our fiscal plan which we will release after the PREFU,” she said in a statement.
The Treasury's pre-election economic and fiscal update (PREFU) will be released on September 12, next week.
Chippy’s chipper economy
Hipkins has been seeking to differentiate himself from his political rivals by taking a much more optimistic view of New Zealand’s economic state and prospects.
National’s Christopher Luxon has suggested the economy is in dire straits and needs urgent intervention, but Hipkins has a view that it's a pandemic hangover that will soon pass.
“New Zealand is bursting with opportunity and talent. And while the current period is a tough one for many businesses, I’m confident there are better days ahead,” he said on Wednesday.
Both are politically convenient perspectives. An opposition leader will almost always say urgent change is necessary and an incumbent will say things are under control.
This makes it hard to know what each leader truly believes behind the narrative they present to the public. It's not helped by the fact that governments do not control the economy.
Earlier this week, Luxon told an audience of business leaders they shouldn’t waste their time wondering what the Government would do, and focus on building businesses themselves.
Business had developed a “parent-to-child” relationship with the Government, he said, echoing the semi-infamous comments he made in the United Kingdom last year.
Soft & dependent
In a keynote speech to a British think-tank in 2022, Luxon said Kiwi businesses were “getting soft and looking to the Government for all their answers”.
He said a National government would unleash businesses and wouldn’t stack on additional costs and regulations like Labour had done.
More sick leave, a higher minimum wage, and more public holidays were offered up as examples of this in his speech.
Notably, National now supports all of these things — or at least wouldn’t unwind them.
Luxon wants the government to boost education, commercialise more research and development, attract more foreign investment, and open more export markets.
Some of these goals are shared with the Labour party, as Hipkins outlined in a policy document and subsequent speech on Wednesday.
It had focused on a similar set of priorities: more exports, agriculture technology research, infrastructure, and education/skills. Both parties plan to launch a charm offensive in India.
But is this what the economy actually needs? What policy levers can the Government pull?
Inflation remains the biggest economic challenge by far — the economy cannot grow until the Reserve Bank brings back price stability.
National has promised to remove RBNZ’s dual-mandate but this is unlikely to have any short term impact on monetary policy with employment way above sustainable levels, right now.
The government can play a role in the war on inflation, but mostly as a supporting actor. It could choose to rein in spending or impose higher taxes to pull demand out of the economy.
However, the best opportunities to do that have passed. Economists called for Labour to fund the cyclone recovery with a temporary levy, others called for spending cuts way back in 2021.
Has the worst passed?
Chipper Chippy said it seems like the economy was turning a corner and was well positioned to bounce back from the aftermath of the pandemic.
“Our job as a Government is to keep the economy as buoyant as possible, and that’s absolutely what we will be focused on”.
On Thursday, Kiwibank economists published a regional economic report which was consistent with an extension of RBNZ’s engineered recession.
“Ultimately, it’s all about inflation … the sooner we see inflation fall back towards 2%, the sooner we will see the RBNZ shift into reverse,” they wrote.
Next year, the central bank could cut interest rates which would bolster investment intentions and bring back business confidence.
“And if realised, we would expect to see the economic scores across all regions improve next year”.
132 Comments
Are we reading the same analysis?
"New Zealand’s economy is in the midst of a necessary, policy-induced slowdown following the strong post-pandemic recovery. With exemplary management of the pandemic, New Zealand recovered faster than most other advanced economies."
But you referenced the IMF analysis. Can you provide a link to your source? Is it the same Zimbabwe that is forecast to have 3% GDP growth and 172% inflation?
According to the IMF data I've found NZ's real GDP is forecast to be around 0.8 - 1% in 2024, but then 2.4% in 2025.
current account balance as a % of GDP (not GDP per se)
The money must come from somewhere otherwise we hit a recession. Pretty nasty one too. I'd rather govt spend on something, anything, than foreign capital injection and lending on overpriced existing houses.
This money must come from somewhere, so getting grumpy about an account deficit is going to do you no good unless you're ignoring the elephant in the room which is an overpriced housing market.
Either that or we all stop buying crap - something many NZers can't quite fathom yet but we're getting there.
So yea, govt spending is not the problem, it's where that money is being directed which is frustrating. Good luck with National though, buy all the houses you'd like with no income to pay rent. Flawless victory.
I assume you mean GDP growth not GDP or GDP per capita!
Poorer countries have much better GDP growth potential than us. Just like the potential growth of a start up business is much much higher than that of a very good established business. That does not make start ups better businesses than established.
It could be done easily. But nobody is volunteering to take the pain.
Ergo - Labour & National are kicking the can down the road. ACT & NZF & National are pretending they'd be no pain and/or it's a S.E.P. (Someone Else's Problem - Douglas Adams). Greens and TOP have realistic plans. TPM have loose ideas.
The public? Each wants someone else to take the pain.
And National can?
Doubt it.
Austerity (cutting operational/back office government spending) sure as heck, won't work.
Social services (emergency services, medical services, educational services, increased superannuitant numbers, increased accommodation supplement costs,,,) - none of these big ticket items in expenditure go away by having fewer back office support people. Indeed, the stress and workload placed on these direct-to-public service providers actually leads to not only higher wage demands, but resignation and increased educational and recruitment costs.
The cost of living in NZ is too high in relation to our wages.
The one thing any government needs to do is BRING THE COST OF LIVING DOWN.
And government does that through sensible regulation.
Both the left and right in NZ are still in the 'hands off' mindset of a neoliberal hangover.
We've always been generous people where the many NGO charity services are concerned. But, even I am becoming exhausted with their growing pleas for more assistance. The need of a vast number of families in NZ is wearing on all of societies wellbeing. The cost of living here must come down - people cannot afford to live on their full time wages.
The one thing any government needs to do is BRING THE COST OF LIVING DOWN.
Most would agree.
The largest part of it is shelter (rent / purchase price of houses). Prices are set based on demand and supply. No political party (NZF actions prove they don't) wants to deal with demand (population growth) even though it is far easier to control/regulate. We just proved how easy it is during covid with only citizens and residents allowed though the boarder for a period.
Immigration probably worked for a bit while we had spare capacity within existing infrastructure, but as soon as you have to start building more roads/schools/hospitals to accommodate the population growth it doesn't stack up. I'm not against those that honestly came here, I'm saying no more until we sort ourselves out.
What a load of old cobblers that is. Labour have never ever been prudent money handlers, 1st Labour government bailed out in 1939 to the tune of UKP1 Million, 1959, Black budget by Nordmeyer, 1975 NZ was broke after the third Labour government of Norman Kirk, same for the next Labour Government in 1987, same for the Clarke/Cullen Labour Government, and we knoiw the waste of the Ardern/Hipkins/Robertson Government.
So Chippy give us a break, we are intelligent people.
Unfortunately the facts dont line up with your statements
https://images.app.goo.gl/Vf7nQrw3rdmtkxjq6
Productivity is the issue, and Labour have no concept of investment cost benefit. Transport is are an example. Projects are initiated to buy votes, not to increase economic performance. Hence light rail, cycle bridges, tunnels under the harbour and North Shore, and key infrastructure not built. They'll spend any amount of money in the quest to retain power.
forgot the Get Wellington Moving? they planed to spend billions to build a tunnel just to add 2 bus lanes and 2 cycle lanes.
at the same time, they have policy to subsidize EV sales. I wonder where do those EVs run without roads, or do they actually fly instead?
now Hipkins saying they are 'prudent', I just cannot believe it.
"I wonder where do those EVs run without roads, or do they actually fly instead?" - slight exaggeration by any chance? No one is taking away the roads. Those EVs will replace older ICE vehicles, they will not need to fly.
Actually the best fix for Wellington would be to build nothing and to reallocate a small amount of parking space to electric buses and cycles. The reason Wellington is the best city centre in NZ is because it doesn't have whopping big roads and motorways passing through it.
population grows. like houses, roads will need to be improved to allow more people.
one argument about the moving to EVs and more cycle lanes was to reduce emission. another argument was to make driving more difficult so that people start to use public transport. that's why councils take away car parks, build cycle lanes on top of the already tight roads.
but this will not stop people need to drive, because public transport is not good enough, and cycling around may be supplement but will never be sufficient.
so the result of all this leads to not enough roads -> more traffic congestion -> more emission (and frustration, and reduced economic productivity).
but, who cares, right?
Have you heard of induced demand? The more roads they build, the more unnecessary traffic trips there are. It is why almost every new lane or road is congested within a few years of being built. Its like if we had free power and kept building new power stations.
"roads will need to be improved to allow more people" - not necessarily, we could change tack and invest in public transport, "because public transport is not good enough" as you say. We have already spent a lot on roads and very little on public transport which is what got us into this mess.
"cycling around may be supplement but will never be sufficient" if it got to say 5% of trips which is easily happening in other cities around the world that have invested in it, then that would be more cost effective than increasing our road capacity by 5% which would be very hard to achieve in the cities.
When it comes to travel between cities, I actually agree that road investment is best, decent rail in NZ would be too expensive.
- induced demand usually means high satisfaction, in this context it means more convenient in commutes and higher satisfaction with life in nz.
- better public transport, I agree 100%. but we don't need to this by make 'private transport' more difficult. and in the past 6 years, I didn't see any meaningful improvement public transport. trains are still breaks down every now and then, and buses are pretty much the same.
- cycling will reduce some car drives, and the price for that is reduced speed city wide (50kph -30kph is a 40% drop, and lost in productivity), and mixing cyclists with cars (dangerous! ). let alone the millions of dollars spent on it which could otherwise used in buses or trains. in Wellington alone, they had to do the cycle lanes twice in Island Bay and New Town, waste waste waste.
all in all, if we meant business in reducing emission while keep us all happy is to significantly improving public transport and more EVs, either better bus service, or more rail service in town. what the current policy does is try to slip a smaller shoes onto our even bigger feet. it won't work.
"A family top up of $215 every week for the first child, and $135 a week for every other child, with an extra $140 a week for every child under three years. If you’re out of work, this family top up will be provided in addition to the payment above."
Which will obviously result in more children growing up in poverty as poor families will have more kids to get the subsidy.
One assumption that can be made, assuming these figures are net dollar amounts, is that a Solo mum of 6 kids (not uncommon) will be paid the equivalent of what someone on a $100k salary takes home. The "unknown father" will claim his solo portion of $385 per week and suddenly you have unproductive family units moving into the top 5% of household incomes.
2% of women have 6 or more children. Add in 5 or more children and that's 6%. Add in the "object to answering" because that's most certainly the ones with a guilty conscience and we're up over 8%.
Can I fix that for you?
"Productivity is the issue, and NZ businesses have no concept of investment cost benefit."
Productivity is primarily a business issue. And NZ's businesses - especially SMEs - will blame everyone else except themselves for their poor performance.
This constant blaming of the government in NZ for everything when the fault lies elsewhere is a major problem within the NZ pysche. And a major cause for our lack of productivity.
Disagree.
Government tax settings have a big influence on where people invest their capital.
R&D can be encouraged by tax rebates and government contributions.
And migration settings that mean businesses can rely on cheap labour instead of investing in technology are government responsibility.
Not to mention all the time spent wasted trying to get from A to B because of lack of the investment and public transport needed to cater for a fast growing population (see also, migration settings).
Either we are all getting sicker, or unemployment isn't "way above sustainable levels". Due to loose benefits management, the overall beneficiary number has increased from 9 to 11% over Labour's last term.
Essentially, it's the consequence of removal of consequences.
Have you considered that this might be because of the increasing numbers of people affected by Long Covid, many of whom were previously in the healthy category? Some estimates people have told me put this issue as that we will end up going from 25% of our population with a disability (now) to about 35%. Think about the impact of that.
I can think of a number of friends in their 30s and 40s who are now on the sickness benefit and either unable to work at all, or can only work part-time because of the debilitating effects of Long Covid. Two managed to recover slightly after basically doing very little apart from rest for a year alongside specialist Long Covid care. No exertion possible, as even walking up the stairs would leave them exhausted. Two are now effectively homeless after it caused them to be unable to keep their jobs (and then to pay rent). Another is living with elderly parents because they can't get enough to rent privately from the sickness benefit, and there's a 2 year wait for council housing in their area.
These are people who were previously healthy enough to do full-time jobs, even the ones who started with underlying health conditions. So if the overall number of beneficiaries only went up by 2%, that is extremely low compared to the likely deluge of Long Covid patients hitting our healthcare and welfare systems from the last few years alone.
This is an interesting article. The risk having of having a cardiovascular related health problem is doubled the year after a Covid infection, even in the young.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/07/well/live/covids-heart-health.html?u…
I appreciate this, and of you speak to exercise physiologists they will support it. I know of 3 people with myocarditis from the vaccine which have been covered for it as an accident, only one has recovered past the symptoms you describe. As for long covid I hope that there are stats recorded for this that are utilised in future for healthcare decisions and earlier diagnoses.
We are cursed with having some of the world's most dogmatic (and wrong) economists advising our leaders and commentating in our papers. Look where we are....
- The Labour Govt is going to hold off from spending despite the ongoing collapse in our economy because swing voter focus groups (and many prominent economic commentators) think Govt debt is bad (dummies) and Treasury are advising that Govt spending always and everywhere drives inflation (despite many examples of Govt spending taming inflation overseas)
- RBNZ monetarists are insisting on holding interest rates high in the mistaken belief that this will somehow reduce global oil prices and persuade domestic businesses to restrain prices and wages (the voodoo nonsense of 'inflation expectations').
- Businesses are paying interest on $200bn of debt at a rate of almost 8% now. That's $16bn a year or 3% of total NZ business operating costs! Of course bloody prices are staying high! Our inflation is sticking around longer than other places despite import prices softening (for now) because our businesses are passing on the escalating cost of debt (and workers are pushing hard for pay increases to cope with higher prices and mortgage costs)
- High interest rates are also killing residential housing development projects up and down the country at the same time as net inward migration is booming. What might that excess demand and higher landlord costs do to rents, which make up 10% of our CPI basket?
In other countries these debates are raging as people challenge economic simpletons who parrot 'govt spending causes inflation', 'the best response to price increases in an increase in the price of money', 'we need unemployment at 10% to cleanse our neoliberal souls' etc.
But, in NZ, where is the debate? Where is the media challenge to our politicians when they nod gravely and say that higher Govt spending is (of course) 'inflationary'? Or, when Grant stresses the importance of returning the budget to surplus in a few years' time, where is the obvious response.... 'No other countries in our position run surpluses any more - why do we aim to do that, what is the actual point?'
Jfoe,
An interesting book is "Money and Government" by Robert Skidelsky.
It showed me that it is Politics that drives what becomes , the "economic fashion".
One might say that economic advisors, to politicians, are part of the political structure . ie. politicians appoint them.
You will see that the ideology of MMT will never get properly put into practice... It became fashionable when it was politically expedient to use parts of it that suited... ( predictably ...deficit spending and ultra low interest rates ).
Whether it is Marxism , keynesianism , monetarism, or MMT..... it all gets corrupted by the political economy.... in my view.
Which brings us to the idea of running deficits..... Why do you think running large ongoing deficits is such a good thing ?
The idea that running deficits/spending is a cure for inflation , is news to me... As far as i know, they dont .?... ( in the same way the Govt spending , in itself, is not the cause of inflation. )
As far as I know ..Central Banks raise interest rates to influence the demand for credit..... and I agree with u that there are ways to do that without extreme rises in interest rates. ( either way, a tightening in supply or demand for credit, leads to a downturn )
just my view..
I will save comment on the Marxism, monetarism, MMT stuff. It is all too easy to get into pointless debates about what is and what isn't a given thing. My interest is in how the economy actually works and what that understanding means for economic policy and strategy.
So, for example, in a modern economy like NZ, new cash is created by Govt spending and bank lending (and destroyed by taxation and loan repayments). If Govt spending + bank lending exceed taxation + loan repayments then the amount of NZ dollars in the economy increases. You can see this happening in various RBNZ datasets (D10, D12, C5, S31 etc). Govt's swap some of the dollars in circulations for Govt bonds (which are basically risk-free term deposits). They call the swapping of dollars for bonds 'borrowing' but it isn't anything of the sort. It is a swap of a Govt liability. The monetarists, Marxists, MMTers, Keynesians (post and new) that actually know what they are talking about would not disagree with any of the above.
Now, people expect to save some of their money for the future. This means that we know a given % of newly created money will be stashed away in domestic savings - the rest will circulate around the economy until they are used to pay taxes or pay off loans (at which point they are destroyed).
Countries with persistent trade deficits also rely on overseas savers increasing their savings in NZ dollars (either in cash, or cash equivalents like interest-earning NZ Govt Bonds).
Now, here's the point on Govt deficits... If a country runs a trade deficit, then Govt has to run a deficit of an equal amount to protect the financial wealth of households and businesses. For example, if our trade deficit is $15bn this year, and Govt run a deficit of $8bn, then household / businesses HAVE to get $7bn worse off (by taking on extra debt or reducing their savings).
So, it is not that I think that 'running large deficits is a good thing'. I just think we should be more than happy running a deficit if that is required to help us maintain full employment - preferably whilst funding things that make the country more sustainable ecologically and economically into the future.
jfoe , thks for the response.
i am most interested in the assertion that deficit spending tames inflation. .... "(despite many examples of Govt spending taming inflation overseas)"
I dont know why one needs to split hairs on things like . :
"Govt's swap some of the dollars in circulations for Govt bonds (which are basically risk-free term deposits). They call the swapping of dollars for bonds 'borrowing' but it isn't anything of the sort. It is a swap of a Govt liability. The monetarists, Marxists, MMTers, Keynesians (post and new) that actually know what they are talking about would not disagree with any of the above."
Its not as if the distinction gives some kind of special understanding or insight. ??
For me , a Bond is a type of promissory note...AND a promissory note is a legal IOU ... ie a promise to pay back. ie. borrower/lender.
That you might also be see it as a temporary asset swap .... doesnt change anything... does it ..?
Govt spending that increases productive capacity or the costs of production is deflationary.
On the valid point made on asset / liability swaps - I completely agree they're not important. So why do we dress this simple scenario as some big deal - Govt having to beg the markets for funds or some such nonsense?
"Govt spending that increases productive capacity or the costs of production is deflationary. "
I'd suggest ALL productivity gains are naturally deflationary..... Its what I call "benign deflation."
If we had a more constant/fixed money supply.... productivity gains would manifest as cheaper prices for everyone. Everyones standard of living would improve.
With a Fiat money system likes ours, productivity gains ( real wealth ) are appropriated and redistributed from the many to the few..... (the mechanism being the declining purchasing power of Fiat money.)... The expression "money illusion" comes to mind https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/money_illusion.asp
The "financialization" of our economies, facilitated thru wildly excessive credit growth, is the single biggest driver of wealth inequality in western economies, in my view.
Monetary inflation is a form of wealth transfer...
This is just my view...
Dan, I strongly suggest you look at the upsurge in the number of bureaucrat's created by the previous 2 labour governments compared to the last National lead government, and compare them to the increases in NZ population over that time frame, and you will clearly see the waste due to salaries with little or no increase in outcomes.
and we are if for more of the same for the next how ever long , we seem to have this ying and yang system which for the long term health of NZ finances is not good.
both labour and national have been not good at looking after the books and if you think labour will save us from national or national will save us from labour then i have a bridge to sell you
Yes its a matter of which party is worse really. I was starting to look at voting National as I am sick of paying tax for no real outcome, but the tax cut is almost nothing and reigniting the property party is not worth it, not to mention the spending cuts they will have to make for those tax cuts (there is no way they will do it through efficiencies and foreign house buyers). Voting for Green / ACT is really just voting for Labour / National. It would be nice to have another centre party (that isn't Winston Peters) that has some good centre policies without the blinkered vision of the National party or the socialism of the Labour party. You would think such a party would easily get 5% and be kingmaker.
It's why I really thought TOP had a shot this election. The fact that they continue to languish in the polls shows how out of touch and ignorant the general population is and how politics is for the most part decided by mainstream media coverage.
People are fed up with the direction NZ is and has been heading in the past 20 years yet we continue to vote for the same dinosaur parties who will never implement the change needed to course correct this country.
Better get to Specsavers pronto Jimbo because you are incredibly myopic!
National came into power after Clarke & Cullen had raped the economy to try and stay in power. Cullen even crowed about it publicly! A nasty little prick!
At the same time the global financial crisis hit. Then our 2nd largest city was trashed by earthquakes! When that was finally starting to settle down along came the North Canterbury quake! So a fair bit on the plate of the Government. I'm not giving National a free pass here but your statement is just rubbish!
Yeah yeah, excuses excuses. None of these was managed properly. Forward planning would have minimized the effects of all of these things but nothing was done despite repeated warnings, and what resulted was a total stuff-up of their own making. Now almost everyone realizes this, hence the polls. Bye bye, Labour.
What do you mean "a lot on their plate" with the earthquakes? The RBNZ in 2015 estimated the total rebuild cost to be $40b (including infrastructure). By 30/9/15 insurers had paid out $26b.
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/hub/publications/bulletin/2016/rbb2016-79-03
As for the GFC? Did National borrow a whole load of money on the tax payer and bail out the American banks? Well no, the OCR was dropped from 8.25% to 2.5% overnight.
I've stated this before. The number of bureaucrats is not relevant. Hiring people to do work in house is often better value than outsourcing (which is what generally happens under National). Outsourcing costs the ratepayer almost 3 times as much and you lose the IP and experience when the contractor moves on. It is a false economy and only benefits the big consulting firms.
Totally disagree. Having been right in the machine, there is a huge amount of wastage. Plenty of roles where you cut the role and you shouldn’t need a contractor, because the work doesn’t need to be done. Huge amount of waffly, vague and unnecessary work has been advanced by the current government.
That's what you get when there's an objective to spend money and no clear strategy, direction or alignment. If it was required of me to spend twice as much next week as I am this week, half of it would be wasted. Argument should be that the current spend is in a good direction, but we need a clear plan for our infrastructure and services. The spend is not the problem, it's the allocation of funds.
Agreed. Case in point from a friend who went from the private sector to working at Corrections in an office role. They said they had never seen such inefficiency in a workplace ever, people on youtube all over the office floor, meetings for meetings and of the budget allocated was the spent, then the next year they get the budget cut, therefore they find ways to spend it to ensure they have the same amount to play with the next year. Ridiculous
Why is it that the more I hear from Chippy, the less I can tolerate him?
Politics is a fundamentally dishonest business, but he seems to be a worse liar than most others in an already crooked game.
Maybe their internal polling really is that bad that he just has to throw any old crap and hope it sticks to the blanket.
What were once vices are now habits. More amusing than a serious comparison here, but when senior Nazis complained to Hitler about Hermann Goering’s habitual and incessant lies, he could only reply something like - what am I supposed to do, even Goering doesn’t know when Goering is lying.
Yes true if you choose to take it seriously. Truth hurts more than enough. Doesn’t really matter where it come from, does it. Of course Hipkins is hardly alone here. Ministers Jackson, Little have been caught out too. Just need to listen to Minister Wood’s stammering excuses for same, to illustrate that.
This basically sums up the National party:
He said a National government would unleash businesses and wouldn’t stack on additional costs and regulations like Labour had done.
More sick leave, a higher minimum wage, and more public holidays were offered up as examples of this in his speech.
Notably, National now supports all of these things — or at least wouldn’t unwind them.
Yes I agree, its a bit sad how few green ticks there are (and I obviously don't have one). In my defence we have one income and a young family, we try to keep our spending down, and I can hardly ask my wife to limit her spending while I pay for unnecessary things! But on the other hand if you use a service you really can't expect to get it for free. There are plenty of regular commentators that used to boast how rich they are that don't have a green tick.
I don't have one either, but I have no issue with the ads. Up the top right it says "Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here". I don't have the desire to go ad free.
But I certainly wouldn't come on here minus a green tick and criticize Interest.co claiming they're "clickbaiting".
Voters are applying no analysis to what they will be getting with a Nact government.Cuts to our wages and the stripping of our employment rights, increasing unemployment and cuts to government services and welfare.
I have lived through enough national governments to know what to expect.
Continuing to put the tax burden on working and business clearly fails when we enter tough times and business makes less or no money (and generates no tax or a tax loss). Having successful people rinsing their tax on housing debt does us absolutely no favour's either. Really highlights one of the key strengths of the land tax. Its a perfect annuity model completely and is totally removed from economic ups and downs
I don’t understand why the shameless incompetence is not being called out more and more. Have they really bought so many off by the misallocation of resources that there are too many with their noses in the trough now? Good Kiwis need to start shouting. Also, the deathly silence of the former PM needs to be highlighted. She shouldn’t get away with the harm she has done. If she’s “so proud” then she should stop hiding and defend her record.
"not being called out more ...misallocation of resources"
Agree - can't believe more aren't calling out the massive multimillion dollar conflicts of interest of politicians openly campaigning on policy to benefit their property portfolios. In my opinion, we should regard this as corruption.
Didnt Labour manage to save $4b from its budget the other week in one fell swoop. Pray tell how that money wasnt being continually pruned from the budget anyway... as it is our hard earned cash they had committed to waste if they hadnt been forced to trim the books.
But I am glad nthat Chippy and Co - after 6 years in office - have worked out they need to be careful with our money and not just spend it on any well meaning project the consultants suggest or hand it out in a pandemic by the bucketload with no checks in place.
Maybe in 20 years or so - because of their aesome education reforms they will consider us adult enough to decide how to spend our own money and finally adjust the tax brackets..
Sooner Labour are gone.. better
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.