The Green Party wants to convert the Kinleith Mill pulp and paper processor into a cross-laminated timber plant, as part of a wider industrial strategy aimed at creating jobs in underserved communities.
Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick announced the policy in Tokoroa on Thursday morning, taking aim at New Zealand First leader Winston Peters for failing to rescue jobs at Kinleith.
She said the Deputy Prime Minister had insisted on being the only politician with a speaking slot at a public meeting last December to discuss the proposed closure.
Peters said he would speak to the company’s Japan-based owners and advocate on the workers behalf, according to a local news report. He also suggested the Government may intervene in energy markets to prevent “out of control” prices.
Swarbrick said he had failed to deliver on that promise for Tokoroa, leaving the community to the “corporate whim” of Kinleith’s shareholders.
“That night he gave you some really strong words. And then, nothing happened. The closure was confirmed. So it’s pretty obvious why you might think politicians are useless,” Swarbrick said in her speech.
She wants the Government to take an active role creating jobs and industries in regions where private businesses lack the profit motive or capital to do so themselves.
“Towns like Tokoroa have been left to ride the stormy economic waves while the Government that should be steering the ship has let go of the wheel. Short-term private profit—not you, not us—has been allowed to choose which sectors thrive, and which should be left to die”.
This type of talk has traditionally been the domain of NZ First. However, its ability to pump money into regional development has been crimped by its free market coalition partners.
Labour gave the party a $3 billion Provincial Growth Fund in its 2017 coalition agreement, but National called this a “slush fund” and only gave NZ First a $1.2 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund in its 2023 coalition negotiations, with tighter investment controls.
The Green Party may now see NZ First as vulnerable in regional towns which often vote for left-leaning parties, even if the wider electorates surrounding them back National.
Swarbrick unveiled an updated Green Jobs and Green Industrial Strategy policy, promising to be the party that invested in regional towns even when there weren’t profits to be made.
Under a Green government, Kinleith Mill could be converted into a cross-laminated timber plant which would supply Kainga Ora with construction materials to build state houses.
Cross-laminated timber are wooden panels made by gluing layers of sawn timber together at right angles to make them more structurally rigid. It is popular in Europe due to its sustainability, but is often more expensive than other materials.
The plant could also use excess timber to create wood pallets and biofuels to replace the coal which is still burned in many manufacturing processes around the country.
Swarbrick said the whole central North Island could become a hub for sustainable wood products with the recently-closed processing plants in Ohakune, Karioi and Tangiwai all being repurposed with government backing.
This type of work would be led by new or repurposed entities, the Future Workforce Agency–Mahi Anamata and a 1980s-style Ministry of Green Works.
These two would coordinate to develop public infrastructure projects and the workforce to build them, as well as transition plans for workers in fossil fuel industries. For example, it could help workers in Taranaki shift from oil extraction to offshore wind projects.
The Green Party would also bring back the Jobs for Nature programme which provided conservation jobs in areas with high unemployment. This policy was particularly popular in some Māori communities, which can have strong cultural ties to remote areas with limited job opportunities.
These policies aim to build 35,000 new public homes over five years and create up to 40,000 jobs. They were estimated by the party to cost roughly $8 billion over four years, presumably funded through taxes in wealthier urban communities.
84 Comments
Big thinkers this Green Party.
Sounds like a good idea, however a town was built around a large employer which is closing up shop? This has happened time and time again throughout the world, for example steel production in the UK. Towns may survive on entrepreneurialism of the population wished to band together and build itself back up, but otherwise history tells us people move to more favourable locations withy more plentiful jobs out of necessity.
Interesting numbers. That's $50k per job per year. Could be wrong but I have in mind that whenever such proposals are put forward the cost per job is usually much higher.
Would certainly seem ideal to regain control over some primary production and manufacturing. And more new warm houses and get rid of the hundred year old and 80s built mould factories would be great. Fill them full of wool insulation be even better.
The Green Party wants to convert the Kinleith Mill pulp and paper processor into a cross-laminated timber plant.
edit
The Green Party wants the Govt to fund the conversion of the Kinleith Mill pulp and paper processor into a cross-laminated timber plant.
I guess GummiIt is funding a ski field, so why not?
"...so why not?"
IPOGovernment funding and support for Ruapehu ski fields
• 2018 – $10m towards financing the Sky Waka (pre-insolvency)
• 2020 – $5m for operating expenses (pre-insolvency)
• November 2022 – $2m loan to support RAL (in insolvency)
• December 2022 – $6m loan to support RAL (in insolvency)
• June 2023 – $5m loan to support RAL (in insolvency)
• October 2023 – $7m loan to support RAL (in insolvency)
• March 2024 – $7m loan to support RAL (in insolvency)
• March 2024 – $3.05m Tūroa purchase support
• December 2024 – $5m Whakapapa purchase support (committed)
https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/12/11/cabinet-approves-5m-loan-to-support-whakapapa-buyer/
Yes I was being facetious :).
Do they really think the people of Tokoroa might ever vote for them, Not a dogs show.
And are loans actually going to be repaid?
I have a bridge for sale that you might be interested in...
"...strong cultural ties to remote areas with limited job opportunities"
"...presumably funded through taxes in wealthier urban communities."
= heads in sand & expecting the less than half of households remaining net income taxpayers (who've moved where the jobs are) to fun their entitled dependency intransigence.
They're halfway on the right track.
And given that they are limited to talking as if this economic paradigm will continue - thanks to dogged MSM avoidance of the fact that it can't - this is about as good a suggestion as anyone has made for a long time.
And the idea probably traverses the Limits to Growth bottleneck, relatively intact.
But when we're down to real-time solar acreage for energy capture, their idea of wood pellets (pallets are something else, Dan) and biofuels needs careful scrutiny. Pellets are too energy-intensive to make; slash needs to be transported...
They're halfway on the right track
Come on Power. You're far better than that. Sure the Greens may have some useful inputs on the correct use of pronouns and how to ride an electric bike responsibly, but they have zero capability and experience with industry like manufacturing and construction.
On that note, I locked horns with Nandor many years ago on a discussion about solar and the positive progress Sharp Corporation was making at the time (Sharp ended up failing quite badly with photovoltaic). His only response was that companies like Sharp couldn't be part of a solution because they are 'Babylon'. While I get was he trying to express, I found it very naive and didn't bother taking the exchange further. Yes Japan has corporatism but it's far more based on desired outcomes beyond profit and shafting of society than in the West.
I understand they're not going to do the actual themselves.
So why the denigration?
Yes, we will be triaging existing stuff - including existing plant - to address our future needs. Logic tells us it cannot be any other way. So, this is on the right track.
Don't get hung up on painting colours or personalities to walls.
:)
As I said Power, because there's a plant and its related to forestry does not really mean anything. All that exists is a shell. 'Existing plants' is also meaningless if it has no use case in their plans, as is likely.
As for character assassination, no insults to Nandor, but people like himself do have limitations, as I described. Whether it's the Greens or the wingnuts doesn't matter.
All that exists is a shell
Any idea what a new shell and supporting services costs?
Probably not.
Not to say this is a viable idea, but the cost to produce anything like this new, is now bananas.
Any idea what a new shell and supporting services costs?
P, producing paper and timber are entirely different processes.
Wasn't answering the question.
There's a value in facilities close to the raw material source. The processing machinery in it also costs money, but it's a lot more trying to do it from an empty piece of dirt.
I don't have intimate details of the site itself, but the idea at least has some merit. Just saying that as someone involved in the creation and repurposing of industrial manufacturing facilities.
But feel free to try and tell me water isn't wet.
Quite right - anything that has re-purposing in mind has to have merit - at least to the stage of a business case.
I did a quick analysis of the PGF fund projects approved by Shane Jones in the first NZF round of regional subsidies/initiatives - and it was a very 'sick' (lacking) story where manufacturing initiatives were concerned;
https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/105909/katharine-moody-zui-communiti…
Items 2 and 3.
The government has a competitive advantage, because they have the ability to legislate demand. A private investor in manufacturing capital often has to find/generate a market.
One big challenge is that for a concern to be a goer, it needs a good degree of entrepreneurship and innovation driving it, which is at odds with the governments approach of decision making via committee consensus.
I guess that's where SOEs come into it.
You are so right. Which is why I've always felt government subsidized R&D is always a better 'buy' for the taxpayer than many of the infrastructure projects, such as those subsidized via the PGF (Mark I). No idea what Shane is spending our money on this time around.
Yeah, it's just a case of picking winners. Which is hard to do, 8-9 out of 10 new business ventures fail in the wild. Some will be due to lack of capital, but some are just bad ideas, or badly implemented (or both).
From my perspective, we should:
- have a nationwide design comp for 6-10 different house designs, that are a combination of attractive design with a kiwi flavour, good thermal properties, ability to absorb seismic movement, cheap, easy and fast construction
- have the materials sourced and manufactured domestically from renewables
- have design pre approval, so no need to lodge it individually each time one needs building, saving time and fees
And make 10s or hundreds of thousands of these homes. Should be able to half the current minimum cost to build a basic home.
Indeed, but you have a wee problem to solve with the landowners - covenants.
I loathe them, and I'm an urban planner. Anytime I suggested they needed to be regulated out of subdivision approvals, that 'idea' fell on deaf ears.
If we can declare a pandemic an emergency serious enough to turn the country upside down, surely we can make housing an emergency that means existing vested interests can shove it.
thats way to smart logical intelligent efficient and idea to ever happen -- imagine if all those needless consent processes were cut out - council delays would end - endless RFI requests for information already provided to restart response clocks would end, house build prices would drop, RE fees would be less -- hell houses might even become affordable -- never happen!
Callaghan Innovation's brief was the development and commercialisation of R&D, and from experience dealing with them, they seemed to be more focussed on their personal "R" projects than the commercialisation "D".
While that might be the way internal incentives got set up, it might also explain why they got dis-established.
So: while fundamental research is likely the domain of government, the development in to usable items is not a government strength. What might be better is to foster the revolving door to industry, which is very poorly done here.
Business ventures could be helped through tax breaks where tax is structured to allow them to be tax free until established and paying staff well. Somewhat over simplified. Government subsidies should not be to outcome. Other support might be possible to give the best chance of ideas getting off the ground.
Chloe should be cheered for starting to think like she should have been for years, but she also needs to figure out what it will take in detail. It's no small task. The reality is that people need work and career options.
In industrial circumstances, repurposing for such a major change of operations in such a large scale enterprise is very likely to involve a near re-build of everything from below-ground services to the envelope of the building to accommodate the new processes - let alone an equipment refit. I'd love to know where they got their numbers from.
How come I can’t buy paper bags, paper rubbish bags, paper non synthetic grease proof paper wrap etc any more?
Kinleith is fitted out for paper production and Oji is shifting to pulp production and moving to a paper import model for its packaging operations. The main Japanese companies processing timber for building materials are the forestry companies like Sumitomo, which has been going gangbusters in the US through its housing subsidiary. Other Japanese companies in this space include Sojitz and Itochu--major corporations.
So what Chloe and her mates need to understand is that they're likely starting from scratch in terms of processing. None of those Japanese companies are likely to invest in Aotearoa for building materials. So while her idea sounds constructive and a drumming circle and hits from the bong might spark a bit of creative thought, but strategy into action is what it's all about. I would be very surprised if this could be govt led. Like throwing money into a gasoline-soaked pit and lighting a match.
throwing money into a gasoline-soaked pit and lighting a match
Based on the last Govt, which she was a part of, that sounds about right. A few billion here or there....oh whoops, 100B plus and nothing really to show for it.
Based on the last Govt, which she was a part of, that sounds about right. A few billion here or there....oh whoops, 100B plus and nothing really to show for it.
The cycle bridge feasibility costs were mind-blowing approx $36 million. Much of the public sector seems to me like a social welfare program for the middle class who have a university education.
Study cost $51M, at least they didn't proceed to spend the estimated $785M (actual ???+++×××)
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/126575243/51m-spent-on-axed-a…
Other people's money...
Other people's money?
You sure it is theirs?
Really theirs?
I worked on the Cycle bridge concept 30 years ago. Not much was changed from the original concepts. Millions wasted since then.
The problem with cycleways - indeed the whole Green New Deal approach - is that it is attempting to prolong modernity, cars on roads and all.
Actually, modernity is doomed. Which says that bikes will be the last vehicles to use roads. Which won't be being maintained. Which won't matter, because when the last bike-tube perishes...
So few folk understand the morph we're headed for, or how soon.
Problem with cycle bridge was NZTA hated the idea. So they made damn sure the costing was exorbitant. And when the powers that be hinted that were still interested they doubled it. Still interested? Damnit, double it again.
It was just never going to happen.
For this to be of any benefit, they also need to address the demand side; encourage the use of cross laminated timber products in construction in NZ. KO housing is a start, but also the private sector. At the moment, it's a bit of an orphan product.
The way we can greatly improve housing affordability here is via unified design at scale, with easier compliance regs etc.
I used self-built laminated I-beams in our 1987 house rebuild.
And I use plywood for many things. This ain't a new concept.
It's not new by any stretch of the imagination.
But for it to fly financially, it needs to be commercially ubiquitous.
Plywood is now very problematic due to fire rating requirements, particularly in higher occupancy buildings (this is one of my core business functions). Take the cost of the ply, and times is by about 5.
Half my house is lined in it though.
It’s got a fancy new name though.
There's a lot of government spending going on there, public funded jobs to produce laminate to publicly funded jobs to build public funded housing for publicly funded welfare. Hopefully the shrinking workforce that's not publicly funded can earn enough to fund it!
Some interesting ideas, but essentially the creation of a government run industrial concern.
That hasn't worked out so well for us in the past, but it might be doable. Remember the huge overstaffing and inefficiency of government enterprises like the old Railways Workshops, NZ P&T, and the Ministry of Works?
In practical terms -
About the only similarity between paper production and CLT production is that they both use timber as feedstock, so the production refit would need to be entire.
It has to be cost competitive (otherwise, what's the point) so the plant would need to be capable of high volumes to benefit from economies of scale and quality of product. Cost effectiveness and consistent quality also requires high levels of automation, which means the expected number of jobs might not show up. A single line only plant producing house panels is here - there is a definite shortage of people in the video and this is a relatively modest setup.
Cost competitive volumes would far exceed the power of the tiny local market to absorb product, so excess would have to be exported - so it has to be cost competitive to do that.
The alternative is to produce smaller volumes at higher prices and protect the local product via import restrictions, which turns the whole business in to an expensive jobs creation exercise - and I'm having flashbacks to the days of Robert Muldoon. Not something I thought I'd say about Green policy, but there you are.
Oh: and where does the skilled build workforce come from? And how about changing the building regulations to make new (for here) products easier to use, and pare away the prescriptive and proscriptive planning rules that makes inventive design solutions so hard?
That is the dilemma - western production/manufacturing can NEVER be cost-competitive with slave or near-slave labour coupled with lax regulation.
The joke is - and it's on the US for believing Trump - that when you pay the same wages as you need to buy stuff, you can't sell enough. It needs the slave-labour differential.
So what are we prepared to 'pay', remembering the silly comments about supermarket duopolies/lack of competition (when food is orders of magnitude too cheap now, vis-a-vis sustainable agriculture. Which is inevitable...
So the Greens - as do society, as do the media - need to address the big picture.
There's a lot of uninformed assumptions & assertions made about countries comparative / competitive advantage.
I spent my working lifetime in manufacturing including around 2 decades in a role requiring participation in factory improvement programmes across the world, with particular focus on Asia (from Turkey to Japan).
In factories I visited in eg. Thailand, Vietnam, China the safety, working conditions & quality stds were the same or better than I've seen in ANZ. Many factories were highly unionised. And the factory workers earned enough to buy their own homes.
Local pay cannot be compared with Western rates, the cost of living is likewise different.
In factories I visited in eg. Thailand, Vietnam, China the safety, working conditions & quality stds were the same or better than I've seen in ANZ. Many factories were highly unionised. And the factory workers earned enough to buy their own homes.
I have a colleague who heads up contract manufacturing for Nike (now finished) and Adidas in Vietnam. This kind of work is entry-level employment for rank and file. During Covid, they had to send the workers home as there was no work. They were given 6 months pay and a tacit understanding they would return. When they were asked to return, 40% didn't. They had found other opportunities.
A Dutch colleague runs a metal engineering firm in Vietnam. They export all over the world and have contracts with US farm equipment companies. He has one woman who has been with them for 9 years. No strong formal education but a quick learner and now handles procurement and takes home a salary of USD2,000 per month - good by Vietnamese standards and with an interesting work life. Their facilities are top notch and it's impressive to see what they have achieved.
Their facilities are top notch and it's impressive to see what they have achieved.
There's an inherent advantage of undertaking your industrialization almost concurrently in the latter end of the 20th century, incorporating the knowledge gained elsewhere over 150 years or so.
So our East Asian economic miracles have a huge competitive advantage in contemporary manufacturing. Newer infrastructure and gear, and much lower wages is something an older economy, with a collage of varying plant and infrastructure, with much higher wages, employment and environment rules, etc, is going to struggle to get anywhere close to - or be able to attract new investment funds.
Being a few generations closer to famine or conflict will also make you hungrier.
Local pay cannot be compared with Western rates, the cost of living is likewise different.
When you look around these countries on a wider arc (i.e. outside of the sorts of factories that can hire Western consultants), you can see why. There is still a large amount of people getting paid a pittance, which keeps many costs across the board very low, so even your higher skill workers are much cheaper. The factories themselves (although not the plant, especially if imported), are cheaper to build, cheaper to maintain and service, the transport is cheaper, etc etc.
Anything we produce outside of our natural competitive advantages has to compete with this low cost labour in a global market - I can hire 10-15 Thai or Vietnamese workers for the same cost as 1 Kiwi.
Really interesting observations/experience on modern manufacturing in Asia. When I think of these issues/discussions about wage differentials, I often recall Henry Ford's comment that he had to pay his workers a salary that would be enough for them to buy the companies products. Of course he was also (I think) the 'inventor' of mass production via assembly lines in a factory setting.
My how the world has changed. And to think, he only died in 1947.
I often recall Henry Ford's comment that he had to pay his workers a salary that would be enough for them to buy the companies products
This is a key difference in these newer mercantilist economies. Much of the manufacturing is made for export to wealthier nations, so the average local isn't necessarily the customer for what's being made (that's not to say locals don't by these goods made for export, just that much of the society can't afford them).
In Henry Ford's time, they held to develop a consumer/middle class, as most of the rest of the world was pretty poor, so who are you going to sell to? This hasn't happened to the same extent in the newer industrialized economies, and without developing out domestic consumption they hit a wall as to how far they can grow.
Yes, and we're seeing that playing out in China at the moment. Xi's a clever guy though, and I suspect they (the CCP) will push through that barrier somehow.
Its hard to say where they'll take it. In the West things have been bouyed by advancements in social security/safety nets. In countries like China and Japan, if you get sick or injured, or lose your job etc, you're effectively on your own, so there's a greater incentive to save rather than spend.
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
~ Henry Ford
That is the dilemma - western production/manufacturing can NEVER be cost-competitive with slave or near-slave labour coupled with lax regulation.
Not even if we import migrant labor and stack em' high in dormitories and make out like bandits on the rental?
Not even close. We can't even get close to how they do it in parts of Europe.
And I saw a documentary some years ago, about a Chinese manufacturer that set up to emulate/produce the same productivity output in the US to that of his Chinese factories. He found American workers just could not do it. They didn't have the coordination, or the stamina - and, their fingers were too fat.
And that all made sense to me. Physicality/physical differences do matter, I think. I'm useless at origami for a reason :-).
Was it the glass manufacturing company?
There's definitely some vocations suited to specific body types which can be more common in some ethnicities.
Dare I say it though, some of the Western body types are self inflicted! Most jobs are more productive if you're fit, lean and thin.
Yes, glass for automobile parts (windshields), I think. It was a fascinating documentary.
From decades in tech manufacturing, and a lot of collaboration with overseas firms; rather than low wages, the good firms with long term prospects scaled, trained and automated in ways we can't or won't here.
The result was reduced costs and improved quality, while the workforces did better for themselves.
Job guarantees are an economic stabilisation policy, far superior to the ridiculous wiggling around of interest rates. For example:
- Uses a bufferstock of people on living wage doing useful things rather than a bufferstock of people on the dole feeling crap about life
- Keeps people employment ready
- Maintains aggregate demand in the areas that suffer jobs shocks
- Automatic stabiliser - countercyclical govt investment flows where it is needed, govt spending reduces in good times as people move from job guarantee to better paid private sector work
- Avoids the booms and busts driven by interest rate hikes and falls
- Works quickly vs long and variable lags associated with monetary policy
- Taxes are a much faster and fairer way to reduce demand if that is genuinely needed
- What kind of society leaves 5% of its labour force on the sidelines when there is loads of useful stuff that needs doing?
Do we have any real world examples
Possibly Bidens U.S....though not a complete or announced policy. Or NZ for a period prior to the 80s reforms.
The Jobs for Nature program here in NZ.
https://www.jobsfornature.govt.nz/
A COVID recovery program. One of our sons working in EM supervised a number of workers under it. Very positive benefits for the environment (a whole lot more work done with the extra staff); participants very enthusiastic and keen to learn; socialization experience of working in teams (and with the GP environmental care groups); following H&S protocols; etc. all very positive learning/work experience for the participants.
Rural India, parts of Argentina, Austria. There are reams of papers and quite a few books written on job guarantees. They have never been used at scale as a majority replacement for medieval monetary policy though. But, then inflation targeting was new once.
Hmmm. So an area that's still running a decent amount of informal economy, a country that's impoverished itself partially through engaging this sort of policy, and Austria. I'm not sure what that averages out to.
It is a policy that would require a considerable period to bed in though as it would require significant and widespread change (not least of culture) to implement....not something that is likely to be possible in one Parliamentary term so would always be at risk of abandonment before the benefits were realised. It is an all our nothing policy IMO....half arsed measures will not provide the benefits which makes it unlikely to be adopted.
I'd argue with the upcoming generations attention spans given the impact of social media and ubiquitous technology, many long term visions will fall short due to lack of ability to see that far into the future, or condensed, the ability to see the value in delayed gratification vs impulsive short term gains.
"What kind of society leaves 5% of its labour force on the sidelines when there is loads of useful stuff that needs doing?"
One that has abrogated individual & political responsibility.
- Uses a bufferstock of people on living wage doing useful things rather than a bufferstock of people on the dole feeling crap about life
- What kind of society leaves 5% of its labour force on the sidelines when there is loads of useful stuff that needs doing?
While not discounting your suggestions, perhaps it is overlooked in that there are plenty of jobs, but there are many that nobody wants to do by means of low pay, tedious work or work outside one's physical capabilities, or through the sheer choice given there are means of deriving income from the government without having to work. It;s admirable to want 100% participation in work for the working age population, but foolish to assume that 100% of those capable of working actually want to, or are willing to do so in something they are not engaged in if they can derive income for nothing elsewhere.
Probably a better initial approach would be marrying our workforce training with our skills shortages, and bonded, free education for this.
...like we used to do for teachers, nurses, doctors...
Really? There 30 times more people unemployed in Northland than there are jobs advertised, and most of the vacancies require specific skills, or flexible working, etc.
I also didn't say 100% working was the aim - the proposal is to make sure anyone who wants to work can work.
So in theory could I quit my work, and get paid $50k a year to pick rubbish or forestry slash up off beaches?
You get my vote.
Yes, you would get a basic wage for doing useful stuff - licensed community projects. If you got bored or wanted to be able to afford to go out for meals, go on holiday, etc, you would go and get a better job. Thank you for your vote.
You can see the problem there though, right? People moving from jobs with a current measurable productive output, with a whole bunch of accompanying rules and measures defining the productivity, to busy work that currently has no productive value?
How much more will traditional jobs pay than these jobs created to stop people being idle?
How much does it cost to oversee the work? With all the health and safety, management and measuring? You generally need a manager for every 6-8 workers.
What do you do with people that just don't turn up? Or turn up and just sit around?
The glorious free market would set wage differentials - as it does now with minimum wage as the floor.
The productivity of someone on the dole is zero. The productivity of someone earning $25 per hour for a nonprofit is $25 per hour. If the nonprofit became a profitmaking company, the productivity of the worker would be $25 + one hours share of the profit. Which productivity is best?
Back in the day, 1980, there was a government programme which wasnt too far removed from this called YPTP (young persons training programme)...anyone unemployed (not sure if there was an age limit) was offered employment through various government/council organisations...hospitals etc.
My first full time job was as a hospital aide (general nursing/orderly duties) along with around 30 or so others....am unsure when it ended, possibly when Labour won in 1984
"... the proposal is to make sure anyone who wants to work can work"
Around 450000 migrants entered NZ in the last 3 years. Presumably most are working.
That would be an arrival number though....there were significant numbers (of migrants) also departing...what would be the net figure?
Looks like about 200,000.
So about 30% more than our unemployment count.
Or Hamilton
Yes, and I am sure that, if you lost your job, and there was nothing suitable for you locally, you would move to a city, share a bedroom in a small house, and work 4 nights / 4 days on rotation in the local care home and take home a few dollars more than dole (the dole that means you live in poverty).
and yet so many places cant fill vacancies -- farmers hospitality and retail for starters - and even when they get people they only turn up 2 or 3 times a week -- and no hospitality and retail are not looking for anything other than turning up every day they will teach you the rest !
Lol, there are about 10 retail assistant jobs in Wellington available today on Seek / Trademe. One is unpaid, another is split shifts, one is casual hours... but you could strike gold and get the job on offer at new world on willis street (they will have 100s of applications). There are 5,000 people on jobseekers work ready in Wellington City, 20,000 in the wider Wellington Region. It is a ridiculous waste - and the longer people are out of work the harder it is for them to find work. The more their mental health suffers. The more stress kids are exposed to etc etc.
Yes, unemployment is a ridiculous waste. I recall when working in government there was a change of government and Jim Anderton became the new Minister of Economic Development. The Ministry of Commerce was re-named Economic Development - and there was an all-staff invite to his opening address his public servants. The main point he made was that his goal as Minister was for full employment. He went on about how he knew the orthodox theory saw a certain level of unemployment as good - he suggested he didn't agree - and wanted everyone of us to be conscious of and promote employment creating initiatives. I put in a request for new Vote funding to start up an apprenticeship programme for my Vote area - but it got shot down by the then CE who suggested if I wanted it, I should find the funding within my existing baseline. Which was "code for" NO - that's not our responsibility.
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.