Here are the key things you need to know before you leave work today (or if you already work from home, before you shutdown your laptop).
MORTGAGE/LOAN RATE CHANGES
ASB followed ANZ with some matching rate cuts for 6 and 12 month fixed home loans. 4 years too. More here. The Bank of China trimmed rates as well, one to a market-leading level. And the Co-operative Bank also took -10 bps from its 1 year fixed rate.
TERM DEPOSIT/SAVINGS RATE CHANGES
ASB made matching -10 bps rate cuts to its 6 and 9 month TD rates.
UNEXPECTED HIGHER PRICES
At the latest dairy auction, prices rose in a shift that wasn't signaled by the derivatives markets. Whole milk powder rose +2.4%, Skim Milk Powder rose +0.4%, Cheddar soared +8.0%. Chinese buyers didn’t show up for this event but Middle Eastern buyers did. And the Europeans are picking up more Skim Milk Powder.
GAS SHORTAGE WARNING
The Government has been told the supply of natural gas is getting worse.
ELECTRICITY PRICE SIGNAL
A confluence of short-term reasons caused an unusual spike in wholesale electricity prices this morning at dawn. Prices nationwide jumped to 20 times their usual levels. But by 10:30am, things had reverted to the usual recent levels.
SURVEY RESULTS
During March we asked readers to complete our 2024 car insurance survey. 562 readers completed it and it reflects a broad distribution match with provinces and car ownership. Thank you. We analysed the results in April, and have now started releasing some of the results. The first report sets the scene of who responded, and overall levels of satisfaction by policyholders. More insights will follow.
MONETARY POLICY LOOSENING SOME WAY OFF YET
The OCR has now been at 5.50% for one full year, and counting. But a realignment is public policy is underway (new Government) at the same time the RBNZ is pressing to get inflation back under control. Our review suggests that things will stay tough for all of 2024, but then improve back to something that looks like 'normal' when that is achieved and monetary policy is loosened again.
UPPING THE AI ANTE
In some startling improvements, Apple has launched the new M4 chip product range today that touts the speed and capacity to deliver amazing AI benefits at desktop and iPad levels. And their new iPad will incorporate the M4 chip. Working with AI, it will be amazing what it can deliver.
"MORE LUNCHES, LOWER COST"
The Government is revising the school lunch program for students who can't/don't come to school properly fed. They claim it will cover more students and cost less, but there will be no actual changes (other than more pupils involved) for primary schools. Its opponents are focusing on the "costs less" aspects, claiming nutrition levels standards will be lower. But those actual menu decisions will be made at the school level, responding to local needs.
INNOVATION NEEDED
After two questionable successive censuses and a failed skipped one in between, Stats NZ is now seems resolved to change its approach. Administrative data - already collected by government agencies - is 'the future for census', they say. Traditional census collection models with a large-scale field workforce 'are becoming unsustainable'. Specifically they seem unable to cover minority populations to the level needed.
LOCAL BOY MAKES GOOD
In case you missed this late entry in yesterday's review, here it is again: We should also note that Wayve, a start-up British AI company specialising in self-driving technology, has just won a US$1 bln early stage investment from Japan's Softbank. This is after others like Elon Musk have seeded US$200 mln or so. Why is this noted here? Well it was started by a Christchurch Kiwi out of the University of Canterbury, then to Cambridge, England. Alex Kendall is co-founder and CEO, now in the big-time.
NEW INDUSTRIAL POLICY
Australia is pushing ahead with its new industrial policy, a big-ticket initiative. Now they have confirmed this will involve tax breaks for investors to support the "Future Made in Australia" program. New Zealand might struggle to stay up with the scale of the official Aussie largesse.
SWAP RATES STABLE
Wholesale swap rates are likely to be little-changed at the short end but lower at the long end. Our chart below will record the final positions. The 90 day bank bill rate is unchanged at 5.63%, a level it has hovered around for more than 70 days. The Australian 10 year bond yield is down -11 bps from yesterday following the RBA guidance, now at 4.32%. The China 10 year bond rate is down -8 bps at 2.23%, a massive drop for them and a new all-time record low. The NZ Government 10 year bond rate is down another -8 bps to 4.70% and the earlier RBNZ fix was at 4.67% and down -5 bps from yesterday. The UST 10yr yield is down -2 bps from yesterday's close at 4.47%. Their 2yr is now at 4.84%, so the curve is deeper at -37 bps inverted.
EQUITIES MIXED
The NZX50 and the ASX200 are heading for a day where their indexes change very little. Tokyo has opened down -1.1% however. Hong Kong has opened up +0.4%. Shanghai is down -0.3% at its open. Singapore is down -0.7% at its open. Wall Street closed its Tuesday session up a minor +0.1% on the S&P500.
OIL LOWER
The oil price is -US$1 lower today from this time yesterday, at just over US$77.50/bbl in the US, while now just over US$82.50/bbl for the international Brent price.
GOLD SOFTISH
In early Asian trade, gold is down -US$14 from this time yesterday, now just on US$2307/oz.
NZD HOLDS
The Kiwi dollar has slipped -20 bps from this time yesterday to 59.9 USc. Against the Aussie we are nearly +½c firmer at 91.1 AUc. Against the euro we are little-changed at 55.7 euro cents. This all means the TWI-5 is still about 69.3, and little-changed.
BITCOIN STABLE
The bitcoin price has slipped to US$62,689 and -1.6% lower than this time yesterday. Volatility of the past 24 hours has been modest at +/- 1.8%.
This soil moisture chart is animated here.
Keep abreast of upcoming events by following our Economic Calendar here ».
132 Comments
Everyone should watch this. It is an 18 minute TED talk about the issues in the US and it summarises the NZ position as well. It is the only time I have heard someone bring self-harm and economic struggles together.
If I ever made a video about the state on NZ this would be it. Im not targeting Labour or National as it’s not about the parties, it’s about the issues and the systematic problems that need overcoming.
Calling out Superannuation (Social Security) for being a benefit that is simply a blunt wealth transfer earns him extra points.
I'm a fan of Prof G. His take on socio-econ issues is bang on IMO. He understands that the education industry is little more than a huge rort and destructive for our futures.
How is educating people destructive for our future, are you Pol Pot?
Watch the clip. He is referring to the endowment funds that are just tax free hedge funds. That’s probably the only issue he raises that we don’t have in NZ (yet).
Malcolm Gladwell is hot on the rich US Colleges endowment funds too. It's a taxpayer rort and obscene mis-distribution of educational resources. He did a series on it for Revisionist History (excellent podcast by the way).
That may or may not be the case, but that is a very specific issue with one part of the US education model rather than education in general which can only be a good thing (well mostly, not the easy degrees obvs)
It's fairly hard to argue against education being inherently good, but the movement towards mass tertiary education hasn't yielded a relative increase in incomes or industrial/economic advancement. For the most part, it's just been an expensive and time consuming method for middle class kids to wind up doing roughly the same commercial functions their previously uneducated parents and grandparents performed - while draining the workforce of manual skills.
I disagree, the market will clear. People aren't idiots, studying fine arts while racking up a $75k debt when you could earn 3x learning a trade is not unknown.
I disagree the market will clear, we have an ingrown culture against manual labour and a school system that promotes and gears students up for tertiary education.
Saddling kids with student debt while pushing universities to enrol ever more and run as a business has been a bit of a rort. Then after that we fleece them via housing too.
The people who did art history at my old uni are doing fine. They came from loaded families and the degree was just a rite of passage before their parents found them a job in the firm or a mates firm.
Yep. For the most part, Universities arent much of a tool for class elevation.
Prof G's writing on the issues with education are quite prolific. One thing that stands out to me is his discussions of technology as an enabler for high-quality education at affordable prices. The rise of MOOCs is a good example of that. This is good for students in both developed and developing countries. The University of Auckland doesn't even have online resources for study using R programming - arguably the greatest tool that the University can put on its brag sheet. Yet universities like MIT do.
Snippet from Prof G:
So generally speaking, the cost of housing and education have exploded. And the average inflation-adjusted income of young people has gone down. Our grandparents on an inflation-adjusted basis made more money than our parents, and the parents have made more than younger people.
There’s been an uptick among Gen Z because the employment market is strong. And because of a lot of factors, including everything from less immigration to a labor shortage, they’ve seen their wages rise. But on the whole, as you go down in age, you’re seeing a fairly significant, consistent trend around the essentials usually attributed to wealth creation or progress and housing. Specifically, the price of housing and the cost of education have skyrocketed, while on an inflation-adjusted basis, their purchasing power has declined.
When the education part is subsumed by the monetary part.
I've been a fan of this bloke after seeing him on Real Time on Bill Maher over the past few years. Breaks it down concisely, and he's quite humorous making his point. Watch some of his interviews regarding the dangers and negatives regarding social media. Illuminating regarding the statistics of self harm and suicide amongst young people in the US. A strong correlation between the availability of iPhones in the late naughties, I don't remember the exact year 2009?!
What a great video, should be compulsory viewing.
dp
Maccy B on the implosion of the Aussie job market. Can't help myself but cut and paste their rawness.
Here you go, Albo. You wanted it, you got it, SEEK drops a neutron bomb on the labour market.
Armies of cheap foreign labour everywhere to force down wage growth
Albonoics will have you scrubbing toilets for 50 cent per day in a few more years.
Let’s start with the fools at the ABS, AFR and the RBA.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2024/05/australias-jobs-market-implode…
ASBs 9 month figure for 5k TD still shows 6.1%, when ASB website shows it is 6%.
the school lunch program for students who can't/don't come to school properly fed.
Isn't it the parent's responsibility to feed their kids properly?
And put a roof over their heads .. so lets stop the emergency hotel funding today - on the streets you hungry little children!
Well played......
What is "well played" ITG ?
Don't you think it's the parent's responsibility to feed their children?
Don't you think children deserve a roof over their heads?
So for the many children who have bad parents , it’s ‘tough luck’ for them according to your world view?
Where did I say or even just suggest that HM ?
You clearly implied that. You said it’s the parents’ responsibility, implying that there shouldn’t be free school lunches.
It then logically follows that you must think it’s ‘too bad’ if the children don’t eat lunch.
Can you see the issue here?
You are right that responsible parents should feed their children. But there are, unfortunately, many irresponsible parents. Should children suffer through no fault of their own, and not get the nutrition they need to be healthy and learn at school more effectively? You know, to give them an outside chance of breaking out of the dysfunctional family cycle?
A free lunch doesn't do that.
But it does provide nutrition they're not getting.
You don’t think better nutrition has any impact on educational outcomes and therefore some sort of increased chance to make a meaningful life for themselves ? Really?
If you said it doesn’t guarantee it I would agree. In fact it doesn’t get close to guaranteeing it. But it’s a positive step in increasing the chances.
No?
I think the sorts of imprinting on a kid by parents who don't have their shit together enough to adequately feed them will be impenetrable to the benefits of a free lunch.
Any success story is via a child/adolescent realising their home life and upbringing is an example of what not to do, and pretty rare.
Well the evidence suggests you're wrong but you keep going with your reckons and hot takes. It is not coincidence that most of the highest performing educational systems provide some form of free lunch or breakfast.
People eat lunch and being fed is better for brain function, sure.
Please provide me some evidence that free lunches for kids from bad/poor family backgrounds results in demonstrated improved life or educational outcomes for them. Because our continual slide in educational performance suggests otherwise, and our schools that don't do free lunches generally have better education results than those that do.
It would seem your assertion is actually close to 100% hot take coincidence.
So just let them starve then? I can't believe this is even a topic for discussion, what is so bad about providing kids a feed at school? Surely there are bigger issues to worry about
So you admit that I didn't say "it's tough luck for kids with bad parents". I didn't even say, as you claim above, "You said it’s the parents’ responsibility". what I said exactly is I asked: "Isn't it the parent's responsibility to feed their kids properly?" in order to start a debate, where I was hoping we could offer educated views and ideally some solutions.
Unfortunately, Baywach, ITG and mfd, chose immature, personal attacks about their assumptions, rather than a proper discussion about the crucial topic in the article.
Ok.
so your position is clear - it’s the parents’ responsibility to feed their children properly. I agree.
what’s not clear are the next questions and answers.
So then we move to the next step - many parents, sadly, don’t do that.
so, then what?
my answer is we need school lunches to address that. And education and outreach. But they have their limitations.
So it’s over to you now Yvil. What’s your next step? How will parents become responsible? What if they don’t? Do you agree with school lunches? Should children bare the brunt of their parents’ irresponsibility?
School lunches address the problem about as well as slipping a junkie 20 bucks to get by for another 12hrs and assuming that's their path to recovery.
The more effective ways to solve this problem are severe, and political suicide.
Or they require a dismantling of the state to resolve social issues and instead put the onus on the community.
You know those ‘solutions’ are completely unrealistic.
How is not providing a free school lunch not addressing a basic human physiological need? Granted, it’s not addressing the core basis for the problem - the cause of the disease. But it is addressing the symptom.
Well said HM, we are now converging in our thoughts. Note how, in my very first comment, I mentioned the parent's responsibility (I did not mention the kids). This is because I would like to explore a solution for the "cause of the disease" as you put it, rather than addressing the symptoms. But then, the immature commenters concluded that I was a horrible, children hating monster...
They're super realistic, they're just not very palatable.
What's unrealistic, are narratives that some form of state welfare that tick off bare minimum human requirements are shifting needles or making real change.
But yes I would agree nutrition is a basic human need. But then again I don't think actual starvation has been that widespread a problem in NZ for quite some time.
And because they are not at all palatable they aren’t ‘super realistic’.
That's not the same thing.
We take what's palatable, but they're more often super unrealistic in actually resolving a problem.
It's why many of my views are unpopular, and deemed as contrarian. I've thought and observed about much of this for quite a while, and discarded the easy, simplistic and reactionary options.
Personally, I think that school lunches are the best way to help unfortunate kids, and I'm all in favour of them, mostly because the irresponsible parents cannot use the government's help, like money, to spend on other things. I think it's terrible and inexcusable of parents, not to feed their children properly and that the children are just helpless victims. I would like to see some form of accountability taken by the parents who don't feed their children enough, Sadly my cynical side thinks that parents could prioritise spending their money on food for their children first, before spending it on other items.
I also think that basic budgeting and parenting 101 should be taught at school, because currently, if children's parents have poor money management, they have no way to learn to be better with money, and they are most likely to perpetuate the mismanagement cycle.
Fair enough. And apologies for misinterpreting you.
Thank you :-)
I am no saint but generally I know when I have been wrong and unfair. And am prepared to admit it and apologise. Unlike some who comment here.
Probably better and cheaper to invest taxpayer money in trying to help innocent kids get out of the poverty cycle than to spend our taxpayer money on preserving property wealth, too. Yet we've shovelled billions the way of the second, not even expecting personal responsibility, and seen folk very willing to justify it.
Crazy world we live in, with some crazy values.
Or bailing out investors in south Canterbury finance. Whatever happened to risk/reward and taking responsibility there?
"But we're good people...how would that be fair?!?"
HouseMouse: I would expect the state to help a child that has been beaten or neglected by their parents, but I’d also expect the parents to be warned / punished / jailed / etc. I don’t see this as much different, except in this case the parents completely get away with it and are financially encouraged to neglect their child.
Lol
So you want the children to sleep on the streets Baywatch ?
I'd rather be homeless and well fed than starving in a motel.
Strange comment. If your parents look after you, you can be well fed at home. Also, why would you be "starving in a motel" ?
Your position seems to be the government shouldn't ensure children are well fed, but should ensure they are housed - I'm not sure that matches my own hierarchy of needs.
How the heck do you come to this conclusion from me asking: "Isn't it the parent's responsibility to feed their kids properly ?"
Also I never mentioned anything about motel or housing, the topic is school lunches.
Following the conversation chain:
"And put a roof over their heads .. so lets stop the emergency hotel funding today - on the streets you hungry little children!"
"So you want the children to sleep on the streets Baywatch ?"
Add some fairly simple inferences. Your original comment appears to be of the view that government shouldn't be responsible for providing food, the follow up seems to be that government should be responsible for providing a roof. You could argue that position, but I'm not sure it's logical.
Did I misread the situation? You could very easily argue that government shouldn't provide for either, or should provide for both, but that doesn't seem to be your position.
Why do you imply that it's the children's fault, if they're hungry and that they should not get school lunches and go hungry mfd ? I think that's a disgusting attitude you display towards innocent, helpless children.
I think you're doing some pretty heavy duty inferring to reach that conclusion, but feel free to spell out the logic.
Well, it's pretty clear I don't think that, I was just playing your own game in the hope that you would understand your own wild assumptions.
Not quite - they look like reasonable assumptions to me based on your earlier posts, although elsewhere in the thread you clearly have a different opinion. Perhaps your original post could have been phrased differently to actually reflect your views, if you don't want to be misunderstood.
Please note that, in my original post, I mentioned the parents, not the kids. This is because I believe that the parent's should face some acountability for not feeding their kids enough. I believe that feeding your own kid is priority number one, before spending money on other items. IMO, the parents are the cause of this terrible situation, and the children are innocent victims. Baywatch, ITM and you then tried to portray me as a heartless children hating monster and added homelessness to the discussion, not me.
Can you point out the bits I said that portrayed you as a heartless child hating monster? I don't remember doing that.
by mfdHide All | 8th May 24, 5:40pm
Your position seems to be the government shouldn't ensure children are well fed
But I agree that Agnostiums accusations below are far worse.
by agnostiumHide All | 8th May 24, 4:48pm
According to Yvil the kids should just go hungry, then do badly at school because you can't learn when you're starving to death, then do badly in life.
You're imbuing my comments with emotion that isn't there - like I said in that same post, I think you can reasonably argue the government shouldn't subsidise food or housing for families. Just like someone arguing against free University education doesn't 'hate students' - we can have different opinions on where government responsibility ends without someone being a monster.
And if the parents are irresponsible shits?
According to Yvil the kids should just go hungry, then do badly at school because you can't learn when you're starving to death, then do badly in life. Great way the break the cycle.
You have a special knack for suggesting completely ineffective solutions underpinned by a complete lack of empathy and awareness of the less fortunate's struggles with a dash of sociopathic anti-society false tropes.
Yet happy to contribute to ‘solutions’ on housing for the less fortunate where it benefits him financially.
#hypocrisy
"According to Yvil the kids should just go hungry, then do badly at school"
What's wrong with you Agnostium? Why do you make up rubbish like this ? Where did I say that kids should go hungry ? or do badly at school ?
You're making up some terrible, false statements, I asked if it isn't the parents role to feed their kids.
You are very easy to wind up Yvil....
When it's about the welfare of children, yes. Also when others totally misrepresent what I said about children.
Agnostium, you say about me: you have a special knack for suggesting completely ineffective solutions.
Where did I suggest any solution? You're completely making things up, and assuming things. I simply asked: "Isn't it the parent's responsibility to feed their children?
So, if you want to have a genuine debate, without inventing stuff, I ask you, what do you think, is it the parent's responsibility to fede their children ? Yes or No in your opinion ,and why or why not.
Now that would be a constructive conversation.
The short answer is children should be raised by nurturing parents.
The long answer is we have a system of social welfare where the state wants to step in and address any shortcomings. Which can never come close to good parenting or more immediate community welfare, whilst also not having any meaningful mechanism to regulate or police bad parenting.
Adoption is hard and complex, and the state doesn't want the optics of removing kids from families.
Thank you Pa1nter for discussing the topic, and not making up some crazy stuff about what you assume I'm thinking.
You're also a lot closer to getting who I am, as I have adopted a child to give her a better life, and you're correct, the process wasn't easy!
That's how it rolls around here. Rather than having serious confronting discussions about hard and complex subjects, far easier to create a baddie and stand on a soap box.
It's how we as a society will ultimately force change via populist candidates who will greatly accelerate our decline rather than elevate us.
What country do you think has got this right? Is your argument the complete dismantling of social services and instead relying on local communities to look after themselves?
What country do you think has got this right?
None that are overly developed. The ideal way to raise a healthy, well rounded human is to have them grow up in a close knit community, sharing values and resources. Even the Nords, who we've held up as the gold standard of social democracy, have started gravitating away from the social welfare state.
By the time you grow a society to the point where you identify a need to have a centralized body perform this (which it never can), you have already lost.
I'm not really saying there's an answer we can institute at a state level. Maybe abandon the concept of cities and move towards decentralized settlements?
We have an odd situation too with our welfare here in that we give far more to oldies and to preserving property wealth in recent years than to helping impoverished children. Not sure whatever happened to the "own two feet" and "responsibility" values we advocate for often...
I tend to agree with Yvil here. Unless the parents can prove they can’t afford a sandwich, they should be providing food. And if they don’t, they should have their benefits reduced or tax increased to pay for school provided lunches.
If they genuinely can’t afford a $1.20 loaf of bread the state should provide more support. I doubt that actually applies to many.
Currently where my grandchildren go to school they all get lunch - even though ours take their own and like at least 75% of the kids dont actually need to be fed by the state
apparently the kids that need feeding might feel bad if they stand out as needy
and like all state interventions this one will be difficult to dial back and probably impossible to remove - you can guarantee it will be a political bribe again in the future
It’s the safety net that’s getting everyone tangled up. Personally I consider it child abuse to not feed kids, unless you really can’t afford bread.
Probably a better social investment than handouts for the wealthy old or for preserving property wealth, though, in fairness, and if we're not requiring personal responsibility from those groups it's a bit off to require a much higher standard from impoverished kids.
Irrespective of you agreeing with me, thank you for discussing the topic JJ. And yes, I think there should be some kind of acountabilty for parents who do not provide enough food for their kids. Their first priority, IMO, should be be to spend whatever money they have, on food for the kids, before spending it on other items.
You are seriously clueless about the types of parents we're talking about. They are shits, feeding their kids properly is not in their top 5 priorities. It's sad but it's a reality. Saying they should makes no difference to whether they will.
Am I clueless? I bet I provide more accommodation for these people than you do!
But yep, we certainly agree that the parents are shit, hence my original question: "isn't it the parents responsibility to feed their children" which you made out to be "me wanting children hungry and on the streets". A low blow, frankly.
People, don't you understand
The child needs a helping hand
Or he'll grow to be an angry young man some day
Take a look at you and me
Are we too blind to see?
Do we simply turn our heads
And look the other way
Well, the world turns
And a hungry little boy with a runny nose
Plays in the street as the cold wind blows
In the ghetto
(In the ghetto)
And his hunger burns
So he starts to roam the streets at night
And he learns how to steal
And he learns how to fight
In the ghetto
(In the ghetto)
Then one night in desperation
The young man breaks away
He buys a gun, steals a car
Tries to run, but he don't get far
And his mama cries
As a crowd gathers 'round an angry young man
Face down on the street with a gun in his hand
In the ghetto
(In the ghetto)
And as her young man dies
(In the ghetto)
- Elvis (rip)
Mac Davis.
Elvis couldn’t come up with anything like that.
In the 80s over late dinner Monty Python “The Meaning of Life” came up and we discussed not so much the movie but the question posed by its title. Sad to say from my perspective it wasn’t until much later when I experienced my grandchildren with my children that I was mature and wise enough to understand that the answer is - your children.
Good lyrics Frank, and very sad. I don't know what the solution is.
Everyone's squabbling over $230m in "free school lunches" yet we pay $1b per year in Super to those still in work and earning over $100k p.a. and not a peep?
Maybe those still earning $100k p.a. should live within their means and not rely on handouts from the taxpayer, so that kids who have little choice in their upbringing don't have the one small, but basic, luxury provided at school heavily scrutinized by rando's on interest.co.
Nail on the head. Nz super the biggest Single line item in the govt books and bigger than all other benefits. Would feel it safe to assume a Venn diagram would show significant overlap with recipients of the landlord benefit (aka accomodation supplement).
Over the ditch a 30 year progressive approach to privately funded super has generated a fund management behometh, proving funds for investment, infrastructure and allowing the govt to means test super and save itself a considerable fortune.
”yeah nah mate won’t work here eh”
A country with back to back trade surpluses somehow still manages to see the benefit/need in means testing their Government super.
Also, that single line item for us is about $20b. Total annual tax receipts approx. $100b. Daren't we talk about it though, because it's not welfare but a loyalty scheme.
Agreed.
it annoys me that boomers with a well paid managerial job they refuse to give up to allow new management with better ideas to progress say “Im entitled” and “Ive paid into super all my life” without understanding that super is funded by current tax receipts. The former comment speaks as to their state of mind.
i usually respond to such people with questions about why they consider it ok to remove from their children and grandchildren the same benefits the state provided that got them to where they are now. Most are suitably chastened after that.
I’ve long advocated for income testing NZS. I am not a fan of means testing NZS as it otherwise means the 80 year old widow in their $1m Auckland house with no mortgage and no other income is told “sell your house, downsize and live off the proceeds” which I think is disgusting as an 80 year old is generally set in their ways, and has their community and daily routine in their neighbourhood sorted. So not a fan of means testing, but 100% behind income testing.
and then NZ needs to be a first mover in adopting a progressive revenue tax for multinational corporations to avoid their tax minimisation when they send 80% of their revenue earnings offshore to a parent company based in a low tax jurisdiction as a “loan payment” to minimise their tax in NZ a’la Google.
a progressive revenue tax for MNCs starting at 10% for the first $5m and rising to 40% for revenue over $1bn seems about right.
better than the piddly $4m tax that Google paid on revenues of $1bn in NZ in 2022…
It amazes me that we can’t get these to be general discussion topics in NZ.
If MSM was for the people then it’s topics like these that would be on at 6pm.
Hard out.
the whole schtick that “Muldoon promised NZS would be universal” is such a tired old trope.
the government constantly changes benefits and entitlements to things like education - and Holyoake promised University Education would be free for those who got to University - and yet NZS remains utterly sacrosanct. All that politicians seem to offer is “raise the age” instead of focusing on entitlement.
Its unlikely to happen under this Government given its led by a vacuous visionless vacuum of space who can’t do more than utter campaign slogans and confirm he’s “entitled” whilst Winston and Seymour run amuck and all three of them destroy NZs economy and credit ratings.
if anything, I’d be surprised if the way this govt is going, the only thing it achieves is driving NZs house prices downward to a level approximating 3x the annual income. The upcoming reserve bank DTI changes are going to have massive impacts on the ability of people to buy a house, and that’s barely even being mentioned anywhere.
I don’t see why asset rich boomers get off? For every lonely 80 year old you’d have others with multiple properties claiming a low income and the benefit, instead of selling down their property portfolio.
Similarly the old lady in your example could easy take out a reverse equity mortgage, or downsize and stay local and allow another family to move in.
This would also lead to lower housing prices which is a great thing for NZ inc
Finally something to congratulate the coalition for and some decisions which are properly aligned with a central/right National Party.
Good work Minister Bishop.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/08-05-2024/the-war-for-wellington-min…
Not good enough: he should also have wiped the bs heritage rorts on the crap buildings
Hopefully the planned "policy change" will deal to them eventually.
I agree that should also be gone and I think he wanted to remove it but due to a technicality I believe he couldn't go against the IHP in this case. The owners wanted them removed, I can't see that he would have willingly kept them for shits and giggles.
This was Bishop's first test to prove he is committed to improving affordability and he passed.
Aligning his decisions with the Wellington City Council also shows cross-party consensus is not completely dead in the water. More of this please, very decision like thus takes us one step away from the UK/US style partisan politics nightmare.
He deserves a cigar..and some some more MP perks (including a free lunch)
Hahahaha, I assume he has a lifetime supply for services rendered but let's not Stefanovic this achievement.
It's a solid decision and deserves to be applauded.
Agree...there will be some angry Nimbys in Welly tonight..careful going home you young ones.
So it's now open season for development in Wellington, this is a major change isn't it? Six stories pretty much anywhere in Central Wellington would make it the most progressive city by far in NZ. If done well it could easily be the most culturally vibrant destination in NZ (not that that's a high bar).
Sadly I cannot see that, more likely it continues it’s status as the Detroit of NZ full of large empty condemned buildings stuck in some kafkaesque cycle of bureaucracy and dispute - Reading Cinema, Amora hotel, the library, town hall etc
There's no bureaucracy holding them back...just owners land banking with no regulations to make them demolish upgrade? Use it or lose it I say..
Raise LVT on unimproved value of land while liberalising the zoning and that'll sort the issue.
Some way back Collins as opposition leader was alongside the government evidencing bi-partisan willingness to address housing affordability by removing many restrictions. It was though, a one size fits all concept which created both confusion and resistance. It needed to be better planned, presented and offer more flexibility. Maybe here, there is a rekindling of the prospect in better form and if so well and good.
All good. Yet Wellington won’t really need it. A place going backwards. As a Wellingtonian that saddens me a bit
It was a typically glorious day in Wellington today, millpond harbour & gentle zephyrs wafting as I did my usual walk around the Seatoun bays near home.
I find little reason to leave the Eastern suburbs nowadays to venture into the obnoxious CBD which a couple of decades ago was always packed with vibrant & friendly people, great dining, entertainment etc
When I visit my dad at his retirement village in Petone I tend to avoid the CBD. It’s like it never left the 1990s. Lots of reasons for that. One of the key ones is protection of earthquake- prone heritage buildings.
Good job on increasing density, but as a relative outsider some of the 'heritage' buildings in Wellington are absolutely insane. "An increasingly rare representative example of bulk storage tanks erected nationally in the 1920s"? We're going to step on eggshells to protect that?
Remember Brownlee & the old dungers. Then there was the old T & G building corner Manchester & Hereford that after the first 2010 was a death trap, but those who know best rallied and protested and it couldn’t be demolished. Very fortunate no one lost their life in the subsequent shakes.Wonder how those protestors would have atoned themselves over that. In any case there were many more remarkable buildings than that one about which there was no fuss at all.
Sorry agnostium, I don't share you praise.
Bishop is only doing what must be done. And what the previous government did.
And what the majority of Wellingtonians wanted.
He could have said no and gone with the IHP.
It would have been a bold move but this coalition has done a lot of stuff so far that very few people wanted.
Important news for Wednesday.. This one passed in without any bid.
https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/dame-trelise-cooper-still-looking-for-a-…
Even if she were prepared to take a massive haircut, I doubt that will be easy to sell. A 1%er gaff so target buyers are few and far between. Might be a good idea to look for offshore buyers looking for a money laundering parking space.
Working with AI, it will be amazing what it can deliver.
NEW - BlackRock CEO: "The social problems that one will have in substituting humans for machines is going to be far easier in those countries that have declining populations." Link
Government considers removing election day voter Enrolment.
I can't see any real benefit to this and could see it just disenfranchising people.
Agree, I'm happy for taxes to pay for a couple of hundred people once every 3 years to make sure everyone has the best possible opportunity to partake in free elections.
If you wish to partake in the election, be responsible and organise yourself to register before the day.
Why do we have to pander to those who are unorganized.
At the same time why make things harder than they need to be? There are plenty of valid reasons people might enroll on the day.
I genuinely think that New Zealand has one of the best electoral systems in the world, the public has a lot of trust and faith in the system which is probably something a lot of us probably take for granted. Bringing in stuff like the above and making democracy harder to participate in as well as making people feel like they don't have a voice in our political system is a good way to make our government less representative, more disconnected from voters and more like broken dysfunctional systems that we see overseas.
It's not anonymous so it's not a democracy.
"why do we have to pander to those who are unorganised"
Because the democratic principles are one person one vote not one organised person one vote. I'm being only slightly facetious.
Why would you not want a disorganised person to vote? Generally speaking people who benefit from making it easy to vote are people who are low income and struggling to make ends meet. They have other priorities on their mind like working and sorting childcare/leave to be able to vote.
It's why the Republicans and Tories try their hardest to put up barriers to voting. They don't want poor people voting because generally speaking poor people don't vote for people who represent the interests of the rich.
I think the problem was that it was a couple of hundred thousand not just a couple of hundred
To me, that makes more of an argument to continue a service that is used by so many.
Le Quesne said it was "a matter for Parliament to consider and decide" whether same-day enrolments should be canned, but it would make the Electoral Commission's job easier without having to hire "a few hundred more people".
Smells like legal gerrymandering
$6.629 bn has been withdrawn from the banking system Monday and Tuesday and presumably credited to the Crown Settlement Account, while bank settlement accounts have been debited a corresponding amount since Friday.
Typical at start of May isn't it? Presume it's a taxation receipt month + ministry returning underspends before their year end?
But those actual menu decisions will be made at the school level, responding to local needs.
Each school will get a per head budget that will only be enough to buy mass-produced food of dubious nutritional content. Schools will however be able to choose which combo of this stuff they buy. Over time the budget they get will drop in real terms, quality will drop further, more kids will bring their own food instead, and only the poor kids will be left eating their sweaty prepacked ham sandwich accompanied by seasonal fruit rescued from the juicer, and a packet of cardboard chips.
At this stage, the scheme will be pulled because it's 'proven unpopular' and 'the scale doesn't work'.
Everyone's a loser? No, the scheme will have run long enough for some people to have made a healthy profit out of serving kids cardboard for lunch.
Perhaps they've got everyone's best interest at heart after all; sell the kids ciggies to suppress their appetites, give them cheap food to help the suppliers' profit margins, and ultimately the reduced life-expectancy will save the health service money. Hard not to be cynical with these rich self-interested puppets in power - they always know what's good for the(ir sponsors') future don't they?
My wife worked for the brilliant Garden to Table scheme for several years, teaching kids how to grow and cook their own vegetables, highlight of the week for many of them and often the best and most nutritious meal they had all week - many (sad) heartwarming little moments about kids' first taste of fresh vegetables etc. She then took over the pie-and-coke tuck shop and changed the menu to healthy lunches only. Made very little money in two years but teachers all noticed the difference in the children's behaviour and attention spans once they had decent food.
But, hey, let's not spend on someone else's kids when we need to give tax relief to our friends.
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.