Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand, with news markets are reacting to US Fed views that 'everything is on track' and no more rate rises are likely.
Firstly though, the first indications of bricks & mortar store retail sales for last week are coming through with the US Redbook index up an impressive +6.3% from the same week a year ago. Although that isn't as big a jump as the online indexes have had, it is still a healthy real increase, well above inflation. And it is the strongest weekly gain of the year.
Also better than expected is the latest US consumer sentiment reading, this one from the Conference Board. The rise was mostly on the forward looking aspects.
There were two regional Fed survey out. The Richmond Fed's services survey also found more optimistic conditions, but that was not matched in their factory sector. And in the oil patch, both sectors turned more glum in Texas. But to be fair, none of them actually shifted much.
Fed speakers have been fueling the idea that they are done raising rates and that inflation in heading in the right downward direction now. And that is taking the top of the recent benchmark UST yields - despite the US government's need to issue much more debt paper. Lower benchmark rates is also pushing the US dollar lower.
In China, their central bank chief has opened up about local authority debt pressures, confirming authorities are worried about the situation in parts of the country.
And in a far corner of China's foreign policy analysis, they are talking up the possibilities of the change of government in New Zealand. They see our new Prime Minister as a friend who they can do business with.
In Australia, October retail sales came in weaker than expected, recording a -0.2% decline from September when markets expected a +0.2% gain. This follows monthly gains of +0.9%, +0.2% and +0.6% in the prior three months. Annual sales growth slowed to just +1.2%. With their population growth running at +2.4% per year and retail price inflation running at +3.6% in the September quarter, this October retail trade result implies a very large real, per capita decline in the -4.5% to -5% range.
The overnight GDT Pulse auction for WMP and SMP wasn't encouraging with lower prices from both the last full auction, and the prior event. We should say, lower USD prices, and because the greenback is in a weakening trajectory, prices in NZD look even weaker. Hopefully dairy company hedging mitigates the decline.
The UST 10yr yield is down another -3 bps from yesterday, now at 4.37%. The key 2-10 yield curve is less inverted, now by -43 bps. Their 1-5 curve is more inverted, by -90 bps. Their 3 mth-10yr curve inversion is now -106 bps and also more inverted. The Australian 10 year bond yield is now at 4.45% and down -5 bps from yesterday. The China 10 year bond rate is down -1 bp at 2.71%. And the NZ Government 10 year bond rate is down -9 bps at 5.06%.
Wall Street has opened its Tuesday session with the S&P500 unchanged. Overnight, European markets were mixed in the -0.2% / +0.2% range. Yesterday, Tokyo ended its Tuesday session down -0.1%. Hong Kong ended down -1.0% and Shanghai rose +0.2%. The ASX200 ended its Tuesday session up +0.4% while the NZX50 was up +0.7% with an afternoon spurt.
The price of gold will start today just on US$2040/oz and up +US$30/oz from this time yesterday. The falling greenback is behind much of this rise, but it is getting near to its all-time high of US$2075 in August 2020 (not inflation-adjusted however).
Oil prices have risen +US$2 since yesterday at just over US$77/bbl in the US. The international Brent price is now just over US$81.50/bbl.
The Kiwi dollar starts today at 61.4 USc and up +½c from yesterday, but a new high since July. Against the Aussie we are -10 bps lower at 92.2 AUc. Against the euro we are up +20 bps at 55.9 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today just under 69.9 and actually little-changed from yesterday.
The bitcoin price starts today at US$37,854 and up +2.3% from this time yesterday, although to be fair it has been meandering around this level for three weeks now. Volatility over the past 24 hours has remained modest at just on +/- 1.5%.
Join us at 2pm today for full coverage of the last RBNZ Monetary Policy Statement of 2023 before we go into a long pause until the next one in February.
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
The easiest place to stay up with event risk is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
93 Comments
(Australian) "Governments have been able to overrule the Reserve Bank for 80 years. Why stop now?"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-29/governments-been-able-to-overrul…
It's interesting isn't it? Under the existing structure the RBA can be a part of the checks and balances for the Government (on relevant policies) and vice versa, but they are talking about removing that. If politicians can't be trusted to meet their obligations, what makes the RB board any better? Who will maintain an over watch of the RBA if they, including their board, go off the rails?
The potential consequences are quite concerning.
I suspect NZ's structure is similar? I know political games are played around the RBNZ's 'independence', but tend to think it is less independent than is indicated.
"to be fair it has been meandering around this level for three weeks now"
It seems crazy, but BTC was at 34,500 three weeks ago . So around 13% up since then (not quite meandering). Although to be fair lots of other cryptos have done 100% plus moves in that time so it is all relative
absolutely agree. I read that "meandering" word and immediately thought how off the mark this word is for us Investors and Speculators. Well done for picking this up.
Investment 101 would say look for trendlines bottom left to top right.
So:
Interest.co. readers should check out https://tradingeconomics.com/btcusd:cur for Bitcoin over 2023. A 100% + return isn't meandering.
nor is the 50 % 6 month return.
or the 10% 1 month
or the 3 % right now....
Yes there is Volatilty.
Stomach that for the next 5 years. Sell on a Price Spike when Mainstream Media returns to Singing about Crypto.... Cash in the Bank for the next Investment / Speculation.
----
Check out the huge number of Bitcoin ETF's to see how easy it is to get on board.
---
Replace Meandering with "Rocketing" maybe....
Stomach that for the next 5 years. Sell on a Price Spike when Mainstream Media returns to Singing about Crypto
The OGs will never sell. But yes, you want to be accumulating for a minimum of 5 years. This could potentially be the most eye-watering cycle yet though. Some of the price modelling is mindblowing and scarcely believable.
Too much to outline here. You can possibly start with Plan B's stock-to-flow model.
https://blog.coindcx.com/blog/cryptocurrency/bitcoins-stock-to-flow-mod…
Yes, fair enough. But BTC wasn't US$34,500 about three weeks ago. That is more like at the end of October. My comment was actually about the price in NZD and I didn't make that clear. On November 10, the prices were US$36,700 / NZ$62,300. This morning when I checked they were US$37,850 / NZ$61,600. So the change in USD has been +3.1%, but down -1.0% in NZD. So most of the change has been because of the fall in the USD. The volatility in that time was +/- 3.3% / +/- 3.6%. I should have made that clear.
So most of the change has been because of the fall in the USD.
The mechanics of BTC relative to the forex markets are interesting. But I don't think we should look to currency pairs to try to explain its behavior. It still has a life of its own and quite possibly a truly uncorrelated asset.
Hi David
Thanks for the reply. Three weeks is say 8 November. Opening price was $34,677 (source below) - although that was a very wild today with strong price moves after the opening.
I haven't checked NZ prices but yes that could well be the case (although its not globally recognised except in its USD pricing)
It actually isn’t outside target it’s just the perverse way CPI is measured. If u look at RBNZ forecasts for the next 4 quarters the result will drop us under 3%. That means this quarter will print ( assuming forecasts) under the band extrapolated forward. Which is what is important to prices. So we are currently within the band real time
The methodology is faulty.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/301017044/landlord-tax-breaks…
Renney said ACT had confirmed the changes would take effect from 1 April 2023, meaning the tax reduction would be backdated: a rebate for landlords, while tenants would see no benefit.
"They will have paid the rent which should include the interest charges, but at the same time, landlords will be able to claim the tax back - tax that they have already paid on the other side.
"It's going to be Christmas for landlords fairly soon, but it's going to be austerity and cuts for anybody else."
Well he would say that wouldn't he.
Its been well established that rent levels are primarily determined by the tenants ability to pay, not the price of housing, interest rates or landlords costs.
Eg. the last 3 years fluctuations in price, interest rates, decades of rent subsidies, WFF etc
lol so much emotion for this time of the morning. Charging interest costs as an expense is normal business practice, this roll-back of a these shambolic tax changes is a good thing. They should step up to the plate and tax capital gains if they need the revenue.
Also, investors will most certainly be amongst 10% of New Zealanders that pay 71% of the net taxation.
"investors will most certainly be amongst 10% of New Zealanders that pay 71% of the net taxation." - I would be in that 10%, but I don't have an investment property, so I am missing out on tax free income (or normal business practice as you like to call it). So what that means is that you are stupid not to "invest" in existing property, which obviously drives up house prices. That in turn means the government have to hand out more accommodation supplement, which again my tax is paying for. Yet changing this massive tax incentive to invest in property is "shambolic"?
Hi Jimbo. I suggest you purchase an investment property so you can have first hand experience in how it works. You will be losing money in the first 10 years, so you won't be receiving income. The following 10 years, you will probably be making a profit, which is taxable income. In 20 years time, and you decide to sell the property, then you will have a one off income which is not taxed.
Compare this to shares, and you would be making an income from the beginning.
You only have to look as far as Luxons answers when he was questioned whether he would be reducing rents on all 7 of his investment properties when he put through the change to favour himself. He smirked and didn't answer. Rents won't come down, don't be ridiculous.
As the owner of a CBD apartment - I dropped the rent by over 20% when Covid drove the foreigners away. And I was lucky - many apartments were empty for long periods - mine was empty for two months. So one driver is demand. Look at yesterday's immigration figures. Tomorrow I meet my property manager and will get more details but I already know that all apartments are rented.
It won't reduce the rents on individual properties but it will reduce rents ON AGGREGATE by changing the type of property being rented. This seems to go over the heads of most people on here. The Labour policy of forcing landlords to buy brand new properties in order to obtain interest deductibility, or to rent to social housing providers instead of tenants, is what has pushed up average/median rents. Tenants have been forced to pay higher rents for brand new houses instead of being able to choose an older but cheaper rental property.
As an example - an tidy 1970's 2 bedroom unit in my area rents for $450 a week. A brand new townhouse rents for $550 a week. But the shortage of older properties for rent has meant that tenants can't find a $450 a week property and have been forced to pay $550 a week for somewhere to live. Restoring interest deductibility means landlords can now go back to buying older units and renting them out for $450 a week instead of buying an overpriced townhouse off a bunch of greedy developers who have been buying yachts and private jets with all the profits from their captive market. In addition, the premium that has been built into the new townhouse for having 20 years of interest deductibility will also be removed, reducing the price of them, and thus making them more attractive to investors (and FHB) so supply will still continue. The higher availability of cheaper rentals and reduced prices on new dwellings BENEFITS tenants.
It has never been very clear to me why Labour wants all tenants to be housed in brand new housing, while FHB are expected to buy the older places and then spend more money on them. Surely it should be the other way around? Renters are temporary residents, many would prefer to pay lower rents for an older house while they save up for a house deposit. That extra $100 a week they are forced to pay is $5200 (plus 6% interest) a year that they cant put towards their deposit. Then once they have bought a place, they are better off not having to find more money to do home renovations, so buying a new house is a good idea, but currently they are forced to compete with investors in the new build market and pay the built in interest deductibility premium even though tax deductions are unavailable to them anyway. In new subdivision areas, having a community of home owners instead of a revolving door of renters, also assists in creating a cohesive community. So currently the Govt policy has it completely about face.
Complete lack of creativity in the NZ rental laws.
For example I read of Germany (i think it was) where the landlord owns the home but nothing in it. All fittings, chattels etc are funded by tenants. No property inspections required, no landlord worry and tenant has an asset to sell if they move out.
Back in NZ same old same old...and now even worse with this landlord driven Govt.
At least Labor tried to help the kids. This mob and determined to keep exploiting them.
Expensive housing and Govts focused on mass immigration.
WTF are we doing?
Of interest too are the interest rates paid by property investors for their finance. Appreciate that a bank will consider collateral/security largely when arriving at a rate to apply to a mortgage but this activity is a business not a household. It means in effect that a homeowner is having to arrange their prospective finance in the same category as a business owner.
I'd agree with the position but I think the banks can lend on their property book, not their business book to an investor company. The risk ratios required are much lower and therefore it is cheaper.
The main upside of putting right the tax laws regarding interest as an expense is to provide more servicing capability for new builds. If (when) the interest rates turn, maybe June 24, we will be looking at this.
re ... "Its been well established that rent levels are primarily determined by the tenants ability to pay, not the price of housing, interest rates or landlords costs."
You do know what that means, right?
It means is that there is a supply shortage so that wealthiest, by bidding the most for the single item, set the price.
With greater supply, that won't happen. There will be less people bidding for that item. Many will not be interested in that item at that price and will look for other better priced items. The LL will be forced to meet the market ... Or miss out on rental income until they do.
You have referenced a symptom but not the cause. Once the cause is addressed, more supply, your gospel becomes nonsense.
So what's happening to supply in NZ?
NPS-UD, MDRS, higher density council zoning, etc. etc. The rental world in NZ is changing. Be ready for it.
"Its been well established that rent levels are primarily determined by the tenants ability to pay, not the price of housing, interest rates or landlords costs."
Except that that is just utter BS in the extreme. When people are desperate for a home they will go to almost any measure to achieve, often at the cost of other needs. The established rent levels stem from this. Landlords are parasitic and have trapped too many in a perpetual rent cycle.
Murray that's a well-worn trope that just does not hold water. Landlords cannot be parasitic, why do people not look up words? "parasitic - (of an organism) living as a parasite." A parasite "a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return." Clearly Landlords provide shelter in return for rent. The rent cycle you refer to allows people (some) to not live in their cars or the streets. Surely this is a good thing?
In regards to rent, if people can afford it, then this is actually their ability to pay... that was what was said.
Rubbish! Affordability of housing should not impinge on any other aspect of living, and certainly not on people's ability to get ahead. Years ago I read somewhere that a recognised standard internationally for housing costs was around 25 - 30% of take home pay. I believe that is reasonable as a description for 'affordable'. How would rents today meet that?
Stats NZ indicate the median wage is around $1273 per week, which would put rent at around $275 max per week.
Being a landlord, you will find ways to make it larger. But I firmly believe that a single income should be able to provide for families in a house, which would limit the max rent in NZ to $275 as being affordable.
Now you tell me why should should be able to fleece your tenant for more?
"Affordability of housing should not impinge on any other aspect of living, and certainly not on people's ability to get ahead" why because? (apart from goodwill feelz & academic kite flying). How will it change?
"I firmly believe that a single income should be able to provide for families in a house" so would we all, however even without debating what level of single income you really mean that is not the reality so what then?
"Now you tell me why they should be able to fleece your tenant for more?" redefine "fleece" more accurately as the not insignificant cost of private landlords providing ~75% of housing to the people who cannot provide their own capital &/or income to service the housing market.
"redefine "fleece" more accurately as the not insignificant cost of private landlords providing ~75% of housing to the people who cannot provide their own capital &/or income to service the housing market." "Fleece" = charging more than the 25 - 30% of the median take home wage for a house. (It seems your ability to undertand is a little limited)
Landlords are in business, and it is one that captures and traps people because of limited choices. Landlords make poor business decisions and get away with them because they can fleece their trapped tenants. Landlords maximise their profits while socialising their risks. By charging a more affordable rent, child poverty would be addressed, people would be in a position to choose between renting and owning. People would be able to develop lifestyles that positioned them to better cope with the daily stresses of living. Landlords stop them from doing all this. If they are charging more than $275 for a whole house then they are nothing more than parasites
BS! I used to own rental properties so I understand this process extremely well. Landlords make a business decision about how much they will pay for a property that is intended to be rented out. They must understand all their costs. And at the end of the process they need to be able to determine the rent they require to break even. If that rent is more then the "affordable" cost to a tenant, then the land lord is paying too much some where, and most likely in the initial purchase cost of the house. Landlords are not the saints you are making them out to be.
Agree. They're a business capturing a growing amount of economic activity often not tax bearing from debt loading. They don't need to make profit, as long as their minimal overheads are covered then long term they have an asset that can be sold for tax free CG, unlike most other businesses.
See how long a retail shop or manufacturer can survive on "break even". Never mind the difficulty of targeting their revenue/profit at the "breakeven" figure to avoid paying tax. Imagine if rents were $100 pw less ($480 instead of $580). How many real businesses would say no to that extra amount per household of earnings potential?
Agreed.
What you reference is the psychology the renter faces in their decision making. I.e. because there is a shortage (real or perceived) the renter feels they are forced to pay more than they'd like.
Increase the supply and the renter has many more options ... and the supplier has few ... with the main one being to drop the price.
All my rentals have been built by me. I have increased supply. I am doing my best to address the real issue.
(Wish more "investors" figured this out. That said, an investor buying new, also contributes to supply as the developer exchanges a physical object and their labor for cash which allows the building cycle to continue. If you follow that logic, you'll understand why I think many land bankers are scum ... And why I harp on about why our tax system needs a drastic overhaul.)
I fully agree that increasing supply will constrain & tend to reduce rents (Supply Demand equilibrium point lowered).
However I said rents are "primarily determined by the tenants ability to pay," because in the real world where ~75% of rentals are provided by private landlords no one is going to increase supply to the point where its uneconomic.
"It is not a truism that will hold water for much longer" why because? what will change?
"ideally also acknowledging the limited supply" I did & explained why it's unlikely to change
I'm missing your point ? unless it's to simply debate unsupported alternatives for the sake of specious argument.
look up:
- NPS-UD
- MDRS
- Compare Auckland's Unitary plan before 2016 to the 2016 one
- Do likewise with other Councils that have embraced higher densities
- Look at PC78 (Plan Change 78) - Auckland Council that's winding its way through the democratic process
Do you still think supply is "unlikely to change"? If so, please explain the flatline in Akl's house prices between 2016 and covid madness.
If you still think supply is "unlikely to change" - after doing the above - you'll need to come up with a theory for Auckland's flatline.
I'd love to hear it. Maybe mine is wrong. I doubt it tho. I've back checked it against similar re-zonings for higher density in other places.
"Its been well established that rent levels are primarily determined by the tenants ability to pay, not the price of housing, interest rates or landlords costs." - this applies to a market where demand is greater than supply. If we had "too many" rental properties, rents would decrease.
MDRS will become voluntary under the new government and many councils will opt out.
Regardless, you can zone all you like for higher density but that means jack when the cost of construction and finance is like it is these days.
Sure, finance might come down a bit in the next 1-2 years.
The worst part is that National/Act are increasing the trust tax rate to 39% to pay for these property tax perks. This will in effect make the de-facto company tax rate of most SME's 39% an increase of 6%. Pretty ridiculous really that a National/Act government that prides it self on being "pro business" is increasing the tax rate productive businesses pay to support the property speculator graft.
Expect NZ to pivot back to the left in 2026 with this sort of carry on.
Was there large scale rioting in the streets in the 60's and 70's when the top tax bracket was 66%? No, many many people flocked to universities to be come doctors, engineers, surgeons, and other specialists in their field. They did so not just for the money but for the public good in building a better society int the post-WWII era and they were still able to provide better for their families. Today however those becoming doctors etc simply look at the dollar figure and flock to wherever pays most, more for themselves and less for NZ society. Society is simply more selfish and after extracting the most of everything from each other to try and be better than one another. What we need is collective thought, community mentalities and giving nback to society instead of thinking only about "what is best for me".
Something I find curious is the large number of mainland Chinese people I meet who are staunch supporters of the CCP and Xi yet also staunch National party supporters.
Intuitively it seems an odd mix (communism + centre-right) until you think about the social conservatism of both which I think appeals to many Chinese.
I guess too for some the Nats’ pro-business orientation appeals.
They are basically pro business, which National is seen to be. They are also kind of instructed by the Chinese Business Councils etc to vote National. Yes, I also find it very weird also though and ask Chinese friends about it all the time. Labour has a socialist slant but encourages capitalism. National has a "weak government" stance and thinks everything can be fixed by the private sector. The CCP is socialist, big government but pro Capitalism on a leash. Their values match far more with the Labour party than National. Plus it was the Labour party that engineered the China FTA back in 2008.
I have actually come to believe that having National in power is better for China, rather than it being better for NZ, hence the instructions from above for local Chinese.
I don't find it surprising.
Chinese in NZ are worried about crime, and the Chinese attitude is that more policing and harsher punishments is the logical solution. So there's a tick for National. They are also likely to be invested in property, so that's another tick for National. Chinese in this country tend to be economically successful people who made their way without a welfare state, so they're disdainful of those who depend on the government.
The CCP is no longer communist, except in the sense of having an overwhelmingly powerful bureaucracy. Economically the joint is hyper-capitalist; it's just that the state doesn't have any legal restraints, so they sometimes step in with brute-force interventions that would be unthinkable here if they fear the political side-effects of something happening in the economy. It's not 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' anymore, it's 'Capitalism with Stalinist characteristics'. (Some) Chinese admire the CCP because they delivered decades of increasing prosperity, and it's easy to argue that was only possible because they have strong (undemocratic) central planning. They may or may not be right about that, but it's a widely-held opinion.
Labour forgot about the Asians when they implemented their racist policies excluding people from the health and education systems based on their race. Labour's pro-Maori stance is not just anti-white its also anti-Asian. And that Asian population is growing fast. They might be the only thing standing in the way of the radical Left ever getting back into power. Here's hoping.
In addition, the majority of the Asian population are recent immigrants. It may be a stereotype, but anyway, Asian people come here to make a better life for themselves. They work extremely hard, they send their kids to school, they don't expect handouts and welfare, and they expect the next generation to be even more successful than themselves. This is the very anti-thesis of the Left's "equality of outcomes regardless of individual effort". They are just as resentful of the results of their success being taken away from them in order to pay for an increasing number of ethnic welfare dependents who simply can't be bothered working.
Specific example: The former Auckland DHB (and others) instructed staff to prioritise Maori candidates in the queue for a service. Thus other races went backwards on the waitlist. And in some cases excluded.
If Simon Bridges, David Seymour and Winston Peters had presented, they would have gone forward on the wait list. My mate who supported the maori priority thing thought that was ridiculous saying " but those guys are well off, they have good access anyway". (code for they are not 'real Maori anyway)
I responded "that's exactly why categorising by race alone is wrong.". He shut up then.
I do think we need to treat each person differently. But raw race groups are not useful - indeed stupid decision making. We should address it as five million groups of one.
What, were you asleep the last 3 years? How about the policy where both urgent and elective surgery is now prioritised based on your race. The one where Pharmac funds drugs only for Maori (like the GLP1 drug and Covid antivirals). Like the new cervical cancer screening test that only Maori can get. Or the free minor medical treatments at a chemists that was only for Maori.
Exclusion from medical school as 40% of places are given to Maori based on race not grades (Maori only need a B- to get entry, whites/asians need an A+ and still most cant get in).
Liquidation sales popping up https://www.harcourtshamilton.co.nz/property/RU9356/191A-Cambridge-Road
The price of gold will start today just on US$2040/oz and up +US$30/oz from this time yesterday.
Wondering what's going on. It feels like psyops. It feels like the likes of JPM and Jamie Dimon have gold and silver prices on a string. The charts are suggesting that something has broken. Even a potential short squeeze on silver (which would be glorious).
Probably nothing.
Granny and Ryman CEO admit to their audience that the retirement industry is tied to to the property ponzi.
As if it were a revelation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/ryman-healthcare-cites-challenging-…
RIP
Charlie Munger, investing genius and Warren Buffett’s right-hand man, dies at age 99
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/28/charlie-munger-investing-sage-and-warre…
Can someone tell Winston that the election is over and he can stop going on about conspiracy theories now? He is in control of the government now, so if there is any 'shady deals' currently going on with the media, it is him who is in control of them.
I worry that he is no longer mentally fit for office. Is there a minimum age to be in parliament? There should probably be a maximum. He used to run rings around interviewers 20-30 years ago, now he is just makes everyone in the room cringe.
What theory ?
"The truly troublesome conditions to be found in the fund guidelines concern how news media are instructed to deal with the Treaty of Waitangi. And they do, in fact, strongly encourage recipients of money from NZ On Air, which administers the fund, to avoid criticising government policy in that highly disputed area.
One of the fund’s stated goals is [to compulsorily] –
…actively promoting the principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Māori as a Te Tiriti partner.
And the first of the general eligibility criteria requires all applicants to show a:
commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to Māori as a Te Tiriti partner.
The contentious idea of “partnership” is, of course, the issue at the heart of the debate raging about co-governance.
This has been most obvious recently with regard to Three Waters but in fact co-governance (aka partnership) is being inserted into a broad range of legislation and policy, from the RMA and health to education and scientific research.
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2022/05/graham-adams-brand-destruction-hits.html
The media received taxpayer money in return for a hyper-radical politicql view of “te tiriti” and NZ:. See: https://d3r9t6niqlb7tz.cloudfront.net/media/documents/2022_03_Irirangi_te_Motu_NZ_on_Air_Te_Tiriti_Framework_and_evidence_for_News_M_EPcNdaD.pdf
The theory that the government payed 55 million dollars (pocket change in terms of overall government media spending) so that no news articles would come out criticizing the government, and they would be mean to Winston in interviews.
The media grant finished a year ago, so why would you make Luxon look bad by rudely banging on about it in a media event trying to show the new government getting down to work?
I get you don't like the idea of co-governence. I am not particularly a proponent for it either, but Winston is acting like this was the crime of the century. When really he is just attacking the media because he doesn't like them when they show how foolish he is.
Remember, we are talking about the politician who threatened Jack Tame in an interview that Jack would lose their job when Winston gets in power! This is the guy complaining about alleged past corruption of the media by the government! Are you all watching the same events as me?
"The theory that the government payed 55 million dollars (pocket change in terms of overall government media spending) so that no news articles would come out criticizing the government, and they would be mean to Winston in interviews."
That's not what has been said at all. a condition of that funding wasn’t just a general commitment to the Treaty but:
“…..Actively promote the principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Māori as a Te Tiriti partner……”
I repeat the link I posted above for details: https://d3r9t6niqlb7tz.cloudfront.net/media/documents/2022_03_Irirangi_te_Motu_NZ_on_Air_Te_Tiriti_Framework_and_evidence_for_News_M_EPcNdaD.pdf
The $50 million media payment for Covid was additional to the $53 million PIJF. So $103 million direct to media plus several hundred million indirectly via Labour Govt messaging advertising over the last 3 years (including Covid) without which the MSM won't exist..
PIJF isn’t gone, "some of those roles and projects are funded to run until January 2026, so we will continue to see the legacy of the fund" January 2026
Cambridge dictionary:
bribery: an attempt to make someone do something for you by giving the person money, presents, or something else that they want
I also recall Willie Jackson on TV threatening the whole country.
Edit: Sean Plunket, "Bribery"
While I didn't vote for him, he is being blunt and real about some of the underhanded goings-on under the previous majority Labour government. If you label anyone who says anything you don't like as mentally unfit, or dismiss even the possibility of considering theirs, and others views, then in fact this is a display of the closed-minded fear mentality bred from COVID lockdowns and the social unravelling we saw from vaccine mandates where many were judged and excluded form a large part of society based on personal health choices. 0 emotion here, just reciting recent history. Open your mind and have a look into things before shouting them down as incapacitated, you may well be surprised at what you find.
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.