We have released the first update of our Election 2020 policy comparison pages.
Frustratingly, this election is more about personality and star-power than ever before, and will be fought as a Presidential personality-based contest between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition. Discussion of policies and alternatives will be very much in the background.
But all political parties release policy positions, and our comparison pages are designed to make it easy to compare positions across parties.
And intelligent voters will want to know the policy positions of the issues that concern them before they vote.
So far, the Greens and ACT have released the most comprehensive policy statements. Some policy positions are also starting to flow from National. (NZ First's policies are the same they have been for a decade or longer.) The Labour Party is the slowest to release their 2020 policy set. We will update these comparison pages as each policy is available on the Party's website.
Please note that we do not include policy in our comparison pages unless there is a direct link to a Party's website policy page. Spokesperson's press releases don't qualify. Nor do coalition Government policies.
We welcome feedback on what we have posted as comparisons.
We only use the words the Party uses for policy in our short summaries. Our challenge is to select the handful of items that represent the nub of their policy platform on any one issue. Each selection is linked to the original document so you can have easy access to their full position. We are not claiming that our summaries are their full position.
This is a work in progress, and will be updated as new information comes to hand - and links and other resources are identified.
We only cover the parties that are currently in Parliament. That is tough on some good challenger parties like TOP. Links to their policies are from the footer logos. (We need an unbiased rule because we don't want to impose a judgement on which minor parties to cover. To cover every one is just not practical.)
The best place to start is this index page. Our menus also link to this page.
Party philosphies are another useful place to start.
We also have a comparison page for the Party Lists, here.
This is the sixth consecutive General Election we have provided this comparison service. It has zero commercial basis. If you appreciate the service, please consider supporting us via Press Patron. (If you are already a supporter, we thank you.)
This service is not optimisted for mobile users. Our apologies, but funding doesn't allow that.
71 Comments
I wonder which party is going to be fully focused on keeping the current pandemic out and under control? Since that is going to have the more long term effect on our economies.
Certainly won't be National, they can't wait to fling our boarders open and welcome in the virus along with new hordes of immigrants and sell NZ off to foreign dictatorships as quickly as possible. In the name of competitive enterprise and a reward to line their own pockets.
What exactly is the problem with immigrants? They bring diversity, a much needed work ethic and offshore funds.. As for selling NZ off to foreign dictatorships, where do you get that from?? Remember it wasn't that long ago Helen Clark advised NZ needed to get to a minimum of 5mln to be a viable functioning economy. At the time we were at about 3.5mln so immigration was the only way to get there.
While approving of immigration I don't like your arguments in defense of it. Diversity is a vague concept - I doubt you want immigrants who are mentally ill, those who approve of female circumcision, homophobes, etc - if you mean a capacity to solve problems in original ways then does it need immigration or some modification to our educational system? With the majority of recent immigrants working in low paid jobs where do their diverse mental skills get used?
So you approve of immigration but you doubt their diversity contribution. Under what grounds do you approve of them then. Would you only allow immigration from select countries? US - white supremacy, UK/GDR/France - nationalism? I'm picking you'd rule out SEA countries and probably some Middle Eastern countries too.
I am from the UK - I don't think more immigrants from the UK add diversity defining it as most academics do. There are many middle eastern countries providing NZ with excellent new citizens but it is usually because they have rejected theocracy and subserviance for women. That is why they appreciate NZ. Diversity of appearance and cooking style by all means but there are some core values in every culture.
No developed country has the capacity to take everyone who would like come from undeveloped countries so there has to be some mechanism for selection. If it was my decision I would give priority to Pacific Islanders - we have many ties to those countries. At least NZ as a proudly Pacific nation makes it unique and different from other countries. Note that nothing can stop a Kiwi falling in love so we will always get immigrants by marriage - that will give you people from everywhere - about 10,000 relationship permanent visas issued every year.
What is your opinion of roughly reciprocal immigration?
well here's the deal Lapun, I am the product of two immigrants.. one from Denmark, one from Samoa and I was born in NZ. I find it interesting how your tune has changed to a more moderate level. Whilst NZ remains a somewhat more economically developed country than those of our Pacific neighbours, there will always be migration here from them. The migration flow will always be skewed to NZ. This was the case in the 70's when NZ needed the labour and it's still the case today. As for people fleeing oppression/war/environmental deprivation, if they come through the accepted channels and are vetted accordingly they are more than welcome. IMHO
Refugees are quite separate from other immigrants. We are doing refugees a favour (being good Samaritans) but all other immigrants should benefit NZ.
I believe Samoa was an NZ protectorate (colony) so NZ must have historic responsibilities to Samoa and that means easy access to living and working in NZ - similar to Australians. However NZ has so many Samoans you cannot say immigration of more significantly increases diversity and culture. NZ should only take Danes or POMs if they benefit NZ or are roughly reciprocal to Kiwis living in Europe. By benefit I mean economically not the undoubted differences of Danish culture and diversity.
All along I've said I'm in favour of sensible rational immigration. It is your argument that cultural diversity is good for NZ and foreign money is good for NZ that bothers me; the first indicates lack of confidence in NZ values and the second seems like selling the family silver.
Why the aggro Hook?
NZ has in place a scheme with Samoa to accept 1000 inbound migrants per year, every year, from Samoa. That arrangement appears as though it is being abused and exploited. Perhaps you can explain
population statistics
http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/pa…
-----------------------------------------------------
Population of Samoa 2001 = 175,500
Population of Samoa 2006 = 181,100
Population of Samoa 2010 = 186,200
Population of Samoa 2016 = 195,100
Population of Samoa 2017 = 196,440
NZL Samoan population 2001 = 115,000
NZL Samoan Population 2006 = 131,100
NZL Samoan Population 2013 = 144,100
NZL Samoan Population 2018 = 182,700
AKL Samoan Population 2001 = 76,000
AKL Samoan Population 2006 = 88,000
AKL Samoan Population 2013 = 96,000
AKL Samoan Population 2018 =
------------------------------------------------------
AUS Samoan Population 2006 39,900
AUS Samoan Population 2011 55,800
AUS Samoan Population 2016 75,700
The same goes for work ethic - my 22 year old son was describing his friend who 'didn't respond to school and since leaving has never had a job' - are we solving a serious problem by just bringing in the work ethic of desperate people from countries with no welfare systems?
Why do we need offshore funds? NZ has ample funds but they are tied up in property and that is also where most of those foreign funds brought by immigrants end up too.
You are so wrong on so many levels it's quite concerning. Immigrants do bring a level of diversity, of thought, lifestyle and culture. Many NZ employees need to change their attitude from "what do I get" to "what can I do". The foreign funds you speak of, even if the majority went to housing (which isn't proven) still goes to a NZrs bank account to be reinvested as the seller sees fit. Many migrants start businesses and contribute to employment. As for your son's friend, that's hardly an issue restricted to migrants. You really do need to get over your stereotypical classification of migrants as all coming from disadvantaged countries which is far from the actual case.
I haven't asked him but I was assuming the healthy young man on benefits was a 100% born and bred Kiwi. Replacing him in the work force with an immigrant is a sticking plaster solution - we need to find out how to handle children who do not respond to school and give them a future.
The foreign funds, if they are invested in productive NZ export businesses (which isn't proven) would not be needed if the vast majority of NZ investment wasn't in over-priced houses.
Many migrants are successful; I am a migrant and I brought money to NZ and it has tripled in the 18 years I've lived here. I bought two houses for my large family. How did that help poor Kiwis?
Check what you mean by 'disadvantaged' - many of those countries are catching up with NZ - Taiwan, Korea, Singapore have done well.
You're talking in circles pal. First you insinuate that your sons friend was an immigrant.. now you say he was born here. You say you bought two houses - who'd you buy them off? It was you who started the conversation about "disadvantaged countries" not me, with your comment about non existent welfare systems. By bringing in your large family are you not promulgating the stereotype of immigrants that you were railing against?
NZ has had 70 years of high legal immigration - initially mainly POMs and then from everywhere. If it was such a good idea economically then why has NZ moved from close to the top wealthiest nation to roughly 40th? Surely we are doing something wrong.
Find the immigrants that run the big Californian businesses (Microsoft, IBM, Google) and persuade them to become NZ citizens and to live here but those are not the immigrants I meet day to day. Admitedly the best programmer / IT professional I've met in NZ was a Kerela Indian catholic but most immigrants I meet are doing low paid jobs. I'm strongly in favour of high paid immigrants and strongly against the low paid ones. Is that clear enough?
The thing is we are an agricultural based economy and while the population was small and had a strong buyer of our produce ie UK of course our wealth was great, since then things have changed. Now we are players in the international market, nothing is guaranteed. We are doing nothing wrong.
I asked my courier company manager friend why his drivers were all from the subcontinent. He said because Kiwis won't work for that little. The company is a public company, which pays good divvies every year.
Don't forget, we have had immigration for the last thousand or so years. From the Pacific Islands only, for the first 700 or 800 years, then from others, as they heard of us. For 2 reasons. because they heard it is nice here. Because they heard it is an easy gateway to Australia, where the big money is.
The lower down that NZ is on that fake wealth ladder, the better I like it. Check out those allegedly above us, and see if they are better places to live. NZ didn't get any less wealthier, the fake people changed their criteria and their fake figures to suit them.
The issue is with immigration and the amount of it that is optimal. Talking about immigrants themselves tends to trigger emotive reactions. The problem with immigration, especially with the way it has been managed in NZ for the last 2 decades is that it is has not improved our productivity (GDP per capita) and we have more pressure on all our infrastructure. It adds to congestion, housing shortages and much else. This is because it has been volume driven and reactive to lobbying from groups whose industries require cheap labour, like horticulture and mass tourism. We need a national conversation about an optimal population strategy and immigration is a big part of that. Given the parlous state of most of the world and the population of those countries the pressure on small safe havens like NZ will never abate. We will not catch up with the infrastructure shortfall and all younger migrants eventually become retirees and beneficiaries themselves. It seems like a short term fix which degrades our quality of life for what seems like benefit for a few. I cannot remember any real national conversation about this in the last 2 decades, perhaps longer.
Agreed ando, unfortunately going by some of the xenophobic comments I've seen on this site over the last 3-4 weeks, I doubt a truly mature and dispassionate conversation is possible, NZ could tighten up on it's skill shortage register and it has closed the "extended family " loophole but other than that I'm not really sure what the answer is. To be honest I'm not even sure what the question is.
Thanks Andro you express my own opinion very well. It is troubling that a simple comment trying to tie down the actual benefits of diversity becomes in some minds of some a xenophobic remark. Especially hard when my family is visibly multi-ethnic. Immigration is a bit of a hobbyhorse for me but I know what triggered it - Prof Christina Stringer's 2016 report on widespread worker exploitation; that along with various entanglements with INZ's anti-empathy bureaucracy. Earlier today checking Interest's comparison of political party's policies I discovered Labour, National and NZF have not published any - so I expect your real national conversation will be waiting more than 2 decades.
@cj....... so you want another 3 years ofthe utter chaos we have had the terrible misfortune to endure ?
National are our only salvation now
Utter chaos? Lay off the turps. They've been pretty ho-hum and ineffectual much like the previous lot really, but apart from a couple of events outside the govts control there hasn't been chaos.
So national are our only salvation now? Ihave voted national my whole life. Now I think its time to try something different. We are in a new era, why go back to the same old hogwash. What would it hurt to try a new approach. Labour Green so what, maybe that is what we need right now and if that is no good, hey we live in a democracy, vote them out next time. There must be a way in to the future that maybe none of us can see, but going back will never get us forward.
I’m over National, mainly because I don’t see them providing an effective enough counter balance to the tax and spend Left. I don’t agree with all of ACT’s policies but they are closest to how I live my life and I’m willing to give them a go. Based on polling, only 2 or 3 percent of the people I meet in the street would agree. I suspect a lot more would if we let Cindy go full comrade in this election. Let’s bring it on and see what this lot can do.
Yeah I agree EE, let Labour/Greens show what unfettered socialism will provide for NZ. Might focus people on reality come the '23 election. Just have to ride out the next 3 years and practice some damage mitigation
My main issue with Labour is Andrew Little's so called "hate speech" Act he wants in. The UK is the model he likes and there's some bonkers stuff going on there with their law. Once bureaucrats get to say what hate speech is, it's game over for the non-woke. If I didn't know he was waiting for the NZ First albatross to disappear to pass it, I wouldn't mind if Labour got re-elected, but the chilling effect on free speech such a law would have would make the Stefan Molyneux/Laura Southern/ Brash cancelling of the last 3 years look like small beer.
Over half NZ's welfare budget is a universal basic income handed out to older folk regardless of need, a generation to whom wealth has been redistributed through central government and bank policy - including subsidies to rental yields. ACT and National unfortunately to not offer any suggestion nor policy of reducing this "unfettered socialism". While encouraging nominally but not usually in practice libertarians to vote against horrid communism, they unfortunately don't by and large offer much of anything different.
ACT a little bit better than National, but still not really touching redistribution and subsidies to asset holders, nor the universal welfare benefits handed out to wealthy folk solely because of age.
People pretend not to be just as socialist as others, but they don't generally seem to model it.
This election will be Labour led government only thing to watch out is, will it be Winston Peter or without WP.
If NZF gets in then NZ gets the Govt it deserves. Gotta love MMP.
God help us . Another 3 years of utter chaos , delusional policies, and total failure on every measure from these fools .
Now more than ever we need a strong National administration
Whilst I agree with you regarding L/Gs efforts the unfortunate truth is they WILL be returned. As for National being strong.. I believe that's gonna take a few more years in Opposition to focus their minds and sharpen their wits. Hopefully Collins lasts through to the next election
Sipping my coffee after a great walk on the waterfront...I know who I'm voting for.
I dream of an Eastern Bays lockdown. Residents only.
Many do, I bet.
You're sounding a wee bit hysterical boatman. No facts in these statements.
Read through the Greens Policy lists and only thing I can say is there are a massive amount of expensive govt funded ideas. Even their ridiculous wealth tax idea would only be a drop in the bucket compared to what they'll need. Wonder where the money's coming from?
The wealth tax is in itself preposterous sure enough. But even more menacing are the necessary mechanisms to administer it. The government would need to compile, maintain and audit, keep a dossier in other words on the financial position of each and every private citizen for a start. How any political party could propose introducing such sinister measures is beyond belief. Some strident supporters on this site claim this would be justified because this information is already being siphoned out by internet scammers, scavengers, pirates et al. Wonderful then, a proposition that our government should run with thieves. That is subversive and a doctrine not welcome in NZ past, present and future.
I recall the department already exists...called IRD I think?
Don’t think up until now IRD has required to know annually, the value of an individuals home, all their bank account balances, the value of scrip and other equities held, value of motor vehicles, boat and artwork and family heirlooms and all other real estate owned. Nor have they required a return each year of these with explanation of where and how said assets and their value might have altered.
Key words there FG.."up until now" A lot of that info could be readily gathered via third parties - LG, brokers, banks, MV rego, etc. The artwork,heirlooms and boats they'd probably ignore. It would be a big data exercise but not unachievable. Given the fiscal hole NZ's in I think Govt might deem the effort worthwhile.. time will tell I suppose
National have no chance of regaining power without a viable coalition partner. No great fan of NZF but at least in a continuation of the present government set up they would block any version of an inequitable and bigoted tax such as The Greens propose. Party voted NZF last time on similar reasoning and consider that proven to be justified. New National candidate here will get that vote. Can’t do much more than that. If we get a Labour/Greens only government then can only say, God Defend New Zealand!
No, but the communists are coming to get you.
Take your word for it but at least they won’t be under your beds. Why? No room, that’s where everyone will have to stash their cash.
@hook voting for Labour/greens is like a Turkey voting for Christmas
Boohaha.. gobble gobble. Nice one Boatman
We have now had 3 years of utter chaos under this coalition of losers. Now more than ever we need 9 good years of a strong Government with cohesive growth policies that are grounded in reality, that get our economy going on all cylinders. Only National can do this
Reality check. If John Key at his popular peak couldn’t get National over the line on their own, how on earth can you expect National, in it’s now sorry and degraded state to do so in a matter of weeks. National has no viable coalition party. What should be worrying you more is the very real prospect of a Labour/Greens only government. If the last three years have in fact been a chaotic shambles, ask yourself, what it might have been then if NZF had not been in government and then think about the next three years accordingly.
Unfortunate but very true FG. It may be the price NZ must pay to see off NZF for good. Alas I don't think it's willing to pay
National are spent. Us in heading into our 30's and 40's will never forget their growth at all cost policies.
Focus on growth is necessary if you don't want to drive young NZ talent offshore as has happened in previous generations. Government largess buying votes leads you to the misery of Greece, Venezuela, Argentina et al. If you are so young as to have no memory of the late C20th high unemployment and dire economic outlook that NZ's 'big government' vote-buying era created then you are not equiped to judge the danger Greebour present. Particularly given how bereft of Minsterial competence they are.
We actually need real conservatism from National, not what they've delivered. Burkean conservatism that considers what is handed to next generations. That is their present lack.
The problem with "growth" is that it was dependent on unsustainable immigration and debt volumes to pump things up, not on the productivity on which John Key ran. Just not real and useful policy.
When National again brings useful policy, they'll be themselves more useful. At present, they're an actively worse option for young Kiwis.
National are corrupt to the core. If that is what you support, please go ahead.
It seems the majors are keeping things pretty close to their chests. Perhaps there will be no policy? Just personality politics? The Jacinda V Judith election. The one thing I do know is that Judith will give as good as she gets. The Women's War. It's got the potential to be front page globally. Or infamous.
True LJM, it'll make for interesting and entertaining politics. The only truly depressing thing about it all is it affects everyone's lives.. now and into the future, perhaps for decades. NZ should have stuck with FPP.. much simpler.
Yes the Muldoon years were so much fun?
I had a scan through - general pattern at this stage is that Greens policies, and often ACT's are there, but not the others. So we will have to wait until the rest get filled in to compare. Interest.CO.NZ did this exercise 3 years ago, which was great, so I'm glad they are doing it again.
But I don't think we will see much in costings, so its all about selling benefits in a vacuum.
Haha Rob, you missed a very important rider.. It's about selling the PROMISE of benefits, nothing more. Right about now I'm starting to see why Guy Fawkes got so p*ssed off
yeah, sigh. Blowing up bubbles is even worse than what Guy Fawkes had in mind.
I have a dream.. National and Labour form a Grand Coalition (thereby representing 70 - 80% of voters) and they govern together. Wouldn't get much done but what is achieved would be probably higher quality. They're both squabbling over the middle ground anyway so there must be some commonality there.
Ok OK.. I did say it was a dream
This article, copied from the Takanini Times, gives another slant on how the minor parties might contest the upcoming election:
( 7 minutes to read )
New Political Parties Jockey for the Inside Running
Despite the road ahead to the election seeming clear, there is still a flurry of activity as minor parties sift through various permutations to better position themselves. There have been the inevitable ‘leaks’ that have allowed us to put together an account of what the political landscape might look like come election time:
There has been some disagreement around the naming of a new party formed by a coalition between a resurrected TOP party and the ACT party: Gareth Morgan, back as the top-dog of Top, would prefer TOPCAT, meaning to top (i.e. kill) the cat. However, David Seymour of ACT would prefer the name TOPACT as spotlighting his party’s extraordinary performance.
Nevertheless, Seymour thinks voters will look beyond the naming issue and see the common ground between the two parties, in particular how he could offer his human-euthanasia law experience to assist Morgan in getting a ‘compulsory cat-cleansing bill’ (CCCB) through parliament. (Earlier today, Seymour said he would now accede to Morgan’s TOPCAT name if it meant keeping the coalition together.)
Winston Peters has persuaded NZF founder, Bob Jones, to come out of political retirement to rejuvenate the party and to also bring Colin Craig’s Conservative Party into the fold. You might well ask what they have in common but the answer is staring one in the face……they are all of them smarting at the lack of success that their recent civil court cases against relatively unimportant persons have brought them. It has been a sorry sight to see them one by one leave the courtroom with their tails between their legs, after thinking their presumed public profiles would have assured them a smooth run to courtroom victory. Well, they’ve picked themselves up and have decided to run together as THE IMPORTANT PERSONAGES PARTY, TIPP for short, with their main objective being that far more evidential weight should be given by the judiciary to the likes of themselves on account of their being important personages, while less evidential weight should be given to the persons they sue on account of their being unimportant personages. It is believed that they’ll have the support of all attention-seeking politicians, business people and celebrities who are forever looking for new platforms on which to raise their public profiles; these supporters will see that under TIPP’s judicial reforms, they will be able to sue unimportant personages with the certainty that their suits will succeed and thereby attract both sizeable sums in damages and a wealth of publicity.
Jamie-Lee Ross is starting a new party called STABLE to counter any mistaken impression among the electorate that he is unstable. He also hopes that the very name STABLE will appeal to those disaffected horse-racing industry participants who are livid at the measly 72 million-dollar Covid grant that Winston Peters secured for them when they were expecting a multi-billion-dollar bail-out.
The Fortune 500 members have decided to form a party to promote their each receiving a share of the Government Covid handouts amounting to 80% of their wealth which, they estimate, will be needed to bring them into line with that percentage of the former wages granted to the newly unemployed. They claim that they are the ‘forgotten sector’. They are to call themselves the TRUST US MILLIONAIRES PARTY, or TRUMP for short. We have heard that some members of the Fortune 500 were afraid that the public might confuse the word ‘trust’ in their title with that convenient mechanism whereby they reduce their annual incomes for tax purposes, namely, the family trust. But the majority have voted for the name to stand, being smugly delighted with the frisson of satisfaction that the very name Trump confers and trusting that they will be supported by those many voters who harbour the hope that they too will one day be counted a member of the TRUMP.
Finally, there’s the AAFHBBPP, the AGGRIEVED ASPIRING FIRST HOME BUYERS BLOGGERS PROTEST PARTY, which has been formed to pressure the government to reduce the price of houses. This party apparently has no leaders at all and we spent some time searching for a spokesperson, finally locating one who would only speak to us anonymously; we had to go to his home, a dilapidated rental property, where we found him furiously tapping away on his lap-top. He apologised for not being able to afford us much time but said he was doing important party work and had fallen behind in his daily quota of complaints that he had to post on various blogs on behalf of first home buyers. We asked him how their party would contest the election without any leaders; he replied that actual participation in the political process was too daunting a prospect for aggrieved first home buyers but they did have faith in their current approach of protesting on blogs.
We later interviewed Distinguished Professor Peter Knowal from the University of Auckland’s Political Science Department and asked him whether a party with no leaders could successfully contest an election.
“I can recall all of the parties contesting every election in every democratic country as far back as the French Revolution and I am confident there has never been a leaderless party among them,” said Knowal.
He then added that while the Covid crisis had probably created the conditions that would lead to a sizable downward spiral in house prices, it would not make the AAFHBBPP disappear because their habit of protesting on blogs had become so addictive that the members would continue their obsessive protest-blogging throughout the drop in prices until the next upward surge in prices had long been underway.
Then he recommended that we speak to his colleague, Professor Jeremy Reid-Head, of the University’s Psychology Department, to gain a deeper insight into this surprising behaviour.
So, at this point, it’s shaping up that, at the very least, TIPP, TOPCAT, TRUMP, and STABLE, will be on the starting line come September to give Labour and National a run for their money.
Haha nice find. Some levity is sometimes missing here
Well, I'm offended. I'm not sure by what, but with all those words there must be something in there that would offend me.
Give it a read, it's definitely a bit of satire.. quite good
OK OK. Lemme see...scan, scan, quite funny, yes OK did make me smirk... oh "AAFHBBPP, the AGGRIEVED ASPIRING FIRST HOME BUYERS BLOGGERS PROTEST PARTY". Alright, now I'm offended.
I knew it would tick the box somewhere... LOL
There is humour all through this comments section. Most of it unintentional, which is usually the best humour. Laughing at people instead of with them still counts.
The Hook persona here demonstrates a common - and fatal - flaw; that of linear thinking.
The comment that ' I am the product of immigrants (subliminal assumption, all immigrants are the same, regardless of date)' is a classic. The first bacteria can double their numbers in the petrie-dish, the last ones can't. Same with finite acreages, containing finite resources. Every single one of them becomes 'full', and at accelerating rates. Thus comparisons with prior intakes are invalid. End story.
Trump has indicated that the US is 'full'. Actually, without resource draw-down, it was full about 1870; a long time before the Titanic sailed, even perhaps before Hook was born. We are in a period of consequences now, and the only question in town is which Party is best addressing them?
Why don’t you hoist a banner on the steps of parliament reading 80% of the population must be eliminated for sustainability, then suggest to Davidson she choose which of her six children have to go? That should disseminate your message far wider than rabitting on here with every thread.
I really don't understand your reasoning/assumptions about immigration PDK, but I think you'd be much happier when humanity crawls back into the cave and goes back to wearing animal skins and a subsistence way of existence with it's high mortality rate. I'd wager you're gleefully watching the ever increasing death/infection rate worldwide believing that a great reset/rebalance (long overdue by your measures} is occuring.
Usual shyte from a predictable source. You Gerry Brownlee? You seem to have been here for about as long as the election campaign.....
Shooting the messenger it is. Spin 101 it comes from. Boring it is, too. We have a higher bar here.
Our species became cognisant enough, particularly over the last 10,000 years, to lower its mortality rate and lengthen its life expectancy. What it didn't become cognisant enough (and you demonstrate this beautifully) was to correspondingly curtail reproduction. We are now entering a period of consequences. I'm assuming you're a one-hit wonder representing National; how about you convey back the message that to remain relevant from here on, any Party wishing to remain relevant ........... has to remain relevant.
Put the rottweiler away Hook
TOP has friends at this website, but it absolutely is not a “good challenger” party. Little more so than the New Zealand Outdoors Party. I commend interest.co.nz for only covering parties in parliament to avoid biased selection of minor parties, which TOP would benefit from.
Really. Tax reform that would benefit the majority, incentivise less debt, and promote being employed is a terrible policy (sarc). An immigration policy that allows immigration if they bring valued skills, cooks, bottle washers, forced prostitution....not so much.
Of course the "let's borrow to the moon on land speculation" party members will shudder at such policy. It attacks the foundations of asset ponzi by shifting the tax burden onto immigration and cheap finance fueled asset wealth, and away from productive labour. Oh the horror.....
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.