Labour has announced an updated set of fiscal forecasts for its own election spending promises which show the party sticking to its self-imposed Budget Responsibility Rules that will keep government spending below 30% of GDP and the government's net debt falling to 20% of GDP just a few years after National.
The party on Tuesday also brought forward its promise for three years' free tertiary education to 2018. The staggered plan will allow for one year of free tertiary education for those who start studying in 2018, two-years' free for those starting in 2021 and three-years' free for students from 2024. The announcement brings the timeline foward by one year.
Labour also announced it would also boost student allowance payments by $50 a week from the start of 2018. “Right now a typical student receives an allowance of around $170, but many tell me that’s not enough to even cover their rent," leader Jacinda Ardern said.
“We can afford to do this because we have rejected National’s tax cuts. Now is not the time for tax cuts that would give $400 million to the top 10 per cent of income earners," finance spokesman Grant Robertson said.
“Labour’s spending commitments have all been fully costed and can be delivered in line with our Budget Responsibility Rules," he said. “These rules include running sustainable surpluses, reducing net core crown debt to 20 per cent of GDP within five years of taking office, and prioritising long term investments, such as re-starting contributions to the Super Fund."
The fiscals leave $7.5 billion of unallocated operating spending - effectively the "buffer" pot that could be used for further Labour and/or coalition partner policies if Labour sticks to its entire policy platform. This is down from about $10 billion in Labour's initial fiscal forecasts, as the party has now announced extra policies including the tertiary education plan.
The tertiary plan - earmarked under 'reforms to tertiary education' in the document - is forecast to cost about $350 million in 2017/18, rising to $743 million in 2021/22. The additional student allowance spending is expected to cost $275 million a year.
Due to variations in Treasury's Prefu forecasts from the May Budget, Labour has updated its expected Crown spending and debt tracks. They show slightly higher core Crown expenses as a proportion of GDP over the next two years - 29% as opposed to an average of 28.7% of GDP based on the Budget track - still remaining under Labour's 30% ceiling. The following three years come in a bit below initial picks. Even that leaves open the prospect of extra coalition partner spending.
Labour stuck to its promise to return government debt to GDP to 20% by the end of the 2021/22 year down from a forecast 23% of GDP at the end of 2017/18.
Read Grant Robertson's release on the fiscals below:
Labour’s Fiscal Plan, updated following last week’s pre-election opening of the Government’s books, shows Labour will deliver a significant investment in core public services while responsibly managing the country’s finances, says Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson.
“Labour will invest in better education, affordable housing, greater access to health services and lifting children out of poverty, and we’ll do so without increasing income tax.
“The updated Fiscal Plan today confirms our priorities, and our commitment to a credible and responsible management of the public finances.
“Now that we’ve seen the Government’s books we’ve refined our plan to deliver a better deal for New Zealanders.
“The plan sees Labour investing an additional $8 billion into health, $6 billion into education and $5 billion into families over the forecast period.
“Labour’s Tertiary Education policy announced today, including delivering the first year of three years free post-secondary education in 2018 and boosting student allowances by $50 per week, is an example of Labour’s commitment to a progressive and inclusive future.
“We can afford to do this because we have rejected National’s tax cuts. Now is not the time for tax cuts that would give $400 million to the top 10 per cent of income earners.
“Labour’s spending commitments have all been fully costed and can be delivered in line with our Budget Responsibility Rules.
“These rules include running sustainable surpluses, reducing net core crown debt to 20 per cent of GDP within five years of taking office, and prioritising long term investments, such as re-starting contributions to the Super Fund.
“As with Labour’s original Fiscal Plan released in July, this plan has been analysed and vetted by independent economic agency, BERL.
“Voters have a clear choice this election between a tired National Party, bereft of ideas and running out of steam, or an energised Labour Party ready to deliver a better and fairer New Zealand,” says Grant Robertson.
Jacinda Ardern's three-years' free tertiary education policy announcement is below:
Labour will increase the amount students can get in student allowances and living cost loans by $50 a week, while accelerating our plan to make three years of post-secondary education free, says Leader of the Opposition Jacinda Ardern.
“Labour’s plan will mean more young people can go on to study after school and gain qualifications with less debt.
“Students have told us that the priority needs to be living costs. Just getting by week-to-week has become a significant barrier to many people continuing to study.
“Right now a typical student receives an allowance of around $170, but many tell me that’s not enough to even cover their rent.
“Labour will therefore boost living cost assistance for students by $50 a week from the start of 2018.
“I’m keen to remove tertiary fees as quickly as possible, so I have brought forward by one year our three years’ free policy. From the beginning of 2018, everyone starting tertiary education for the first time will get one year full-time study fees free. That will be extended to two years free in 2021 and three years free in 2024. If conditions allow, we will accelerate this policy further.
“At the same time, we will restore the ability of people studying on long courses, like medicine, to get student allowances and loans. These high-level qualifications are in growing demand; it makes no sense to deny support to people studying towards them.
“This policy is funded out of the $6b that Labour has allocated to education in our Fiscal Plan, which has been independently assessed by BERL.
“Post-secondary school qualifications are becoming a necessity. If New Zealand is to be a wealthy, successful country in the 21st Century we need more of our young people going on to universities, polytechnics, other tertiary providers, or industry training such as apprenticeships.
“Yet, the proportion of young people in post-secondary school education and training is falling. We can’t continue going backwards on education if we want to go forwards as a country.
“Our commitment to life-long learning underlines the clear choice voters face this election – Labour believes in free education for everyone, and that’s what we’re working towards,” says Jacinda Ardern.
* This article earlier headlined '3-months free' instead of '3-years free' tertiary education. It is 3 years.
93 Comments
The free education story is just an attempt to get youngsters like my sons who are not interested in politics and dont vote, to actually bother to vote .
There are 2 reasons it may not work for Labour, firstly, I dont think we can afford to simply write off such a huge amount of money, and secondly will this motivate youngsters to vote for Labour ?
Boatman there are lots of reasons why so many people are happy to vote for Labour and that includes younger and middle ages who have witnessed that their parents had access to free education and affordable housing. All of which has been gradually closed off to them by nine years of National which is geared to the wealthy top 1%.
National is a one trick pony; trying to convince the other 99% that they could one day afford to be a in the 1%. Looks like those other 99% are finally waking up.
It's time to vote for some really values rather than just selling off NZ to make a quick buck.
@CJ099 , now you are talking BOLLOCKS .
Tertiary education was never free under Helen Clark's Labour Government , so it was not National that "closed off" anything that you suggest .
And I can recall how expensive houses were in 2004 to 2007 , it was beyond ridiculous , so dont suggest that Labour gave us affordable housing , its simply not true .
True, each successive government seems to have increased the costs since Muldoon and Lange/Douglas first started chopping things up:
http://salient.org.nz/2009/04/a-short-history-of-tertiary-education-fun…
What a load of twaddle. I'm a baby boomer. I didn't receive a free education or affordable housing. And we're supposed to believe that ~ 44% of the population vote to make the 1% better off with the dream of becoming one of them?
My wife works in a challenging decile 2 school and sees the amount of support the children, school and parents receive. It's incredible. No child goes hungry and they're receiving a great education. This proletariat rhetoric went out with the dinosaur and to me just shows how rooted in the past the left are. I expect some here read grapes of wrath to their children each night. I know Tom Joad posts here from the grave.
Bill English muzzled the police over the Barclay Affair
It now appears Bill English does not have clean hands WRT the Barclay affair. His office meddled in the sanitisation of information released by the police. His office muzzled the police
See article in todays NZherald
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11913303
Mine?
2003 - $525,000, $60,000 income and rates somewhere around 10%, I think. BTW 50% deposit which I had saved over 10 years. No smashed avocado for a decade ;)
2009 - $900,000, 165,000, 6.5%
2017 - mortgage free home worth about $2,200,000, having successfully paid off approximately $650,000 of mortgage from salary. Another $250,000 came from capital gains on the first home. I continue to pour money into savings, not property to keep me in my old age.
My house is actually a home, a family shelter and lastly a store of (accidental) wealth that I hope to pass on to my children. Given I own one house and saved for years to pay off the mortgage you might have an insight as to why I don't subscribe to the politics of envy and the desire by many to effectively take my assets off me.
I have never taken a $ of welfare, had an inheritance or otherwise been helped. As a household we pay close to $100,000 in tax per annum. No deductions. Yes, we are fortunate that health, education etc have been on our side, but we recognise that many are not so lucky so we don't moan about our effective tax rate that supports so many others.
I should add that my siblings had equal opportunities and the outcomes were not the same, in some cases because they had different objectives and in others where they chose a different discipline in life decisions. None have had health or other adversity. At least two of them will rely on super for their old age..
Thanks, mate. You've clearly worked hard and it's absolutely respectable. Even that first equation wasn't a massively affordable one, yeah - similar to what many are facing as young-un's today to get into a base level house.
I have never taken a $ of welfare, had an inheritance or otherwise been helped.
Me neither - unless you count the Family Benefit my parents received when I was a kid, the free schooling I received, the subsidised university I received, and the other benefits of growing up in NZ society. I don't reckon we should discount these (and I assume you wouldn't).
I do think we need to tackle housing affordability for younger Kiwis too, though. Perhaps resurrect some of NZ's earlier policies that fostered the supply of affordable housing to get the equations back to where they used to be. Get the country a bit further back along that arc of affordability and home ownership decline that began when we stopped putting any effort into it, around the 80s/90s.
My parents capitalised their family benefit for a house deposit, apparently. I saw that house a few years back. It was a tiny brick place in a very average area. Despite years of house price appreciation on successive homes they live modestly on their super and what ever inheritance they received. It's not a life of luxury on less than $30,000 per annum pre tax, and I presume that they would be in a very difficult position without a mortgage free home. I went to a State school, had subsidised but not free University. I happily pay my current taxes as it contributes to society. It doesn't mean my wallet is open to even more tax burden.
Cool, cheers - yeah, that difficult position without a mortgage free home is what drives me to push for affordable housing in NZ. Our pension is predicated on that, as is much else in our society. Even some of the ambulances we are parking at the bottom of the cliff come back to that - e.g. healthcare costs related to sub-standard housing, accommodation supplement, working for families. I don't see the economic sense in us funding ambulances instead of housing affordability (e.g. leveraging public-private partnerships as in the past, or some of the other measures that were used). Otherwise, we'll likely face a massive welfare burden in the future from the effects of the housing crisis.
Some of my siblings could still afford a mortgagee free home prior to retirement, but chose not to relocate to areas where that is possible. I hope that they have the discipline to save for that possibility. Any political signal that it's not required would be counterproductive. There is a lot more to NZ than Auckland, but despite the unaffordability many seem unwilling to move to other areas, unless retiring.
I would suggest there are some pretty high numbers of people moving out of Auckland - e.g. Tauranga and Hamilton have had massive growth. I'd advocate investigating options to encourage that further too - e.g. tax breaks for companies based on how many positions they relocate out of Auckland to certain regions. I say investigate, because I haven't thought through the potential distortions it may create.
I don't think NZ's history suggests a focus on affordability has stopped people saving. E.g. statements post WW2 were more along the lines of "a man who's working hard on a normal wage should have the opportunity to buy a house", and the policy efforts followed along these lines.
I emphatically do not advocate giving houses to people, but I certainly reckon it's worth our while looking at fostering affordability, especially when we factor in the downstream costs of unaffordable housing. It's going to cost NZ one way or another.
Assuming you had the whole $60,000 income in the preceding 10 years (however it is likely that your salary was lower in some of those years, assuming that your salary improved over that period),
and you paid on average say, a flat 20% income tax over each of those 10 years,
and you saved a 50% deposit - or $262,500 - you did that on a take home pay of $480,000 over that 10 year period. So you saved more than 50% of your total income? Were you living with Mom and Dad throughout that period?
I spent some of that time overseas (hence ex expat) and had a double income. When we arrived back in NZ, childcare was so expensive we decided to live on one income. Despite the large deposit we couldn't get a loan based on Bank criteria unless we rented the house out i.e. $60,000 pre tax income was insufficient. A year or so later, my salary increased to a level where the Bank accepted we could be owner occupiers. At the time, owner occupiers received a lower interest rate so it was worth doing it by the Book.
BTW: I don't profess to any super ability in my situation. I simply reacted to the situations I faced. Can't afford to live in 1980s Auckland - move out. Can't save enough to buy a house on a NZ salary - move overseas. Want a higher salary - re-educate and take on jobs others don't want? I am blessed with good health and marketable skills. The rest is about applying it. Would I do things differently? Absolutely, I would have bought a house in the 1980s and sat on it. It's hard work depriving yourself to pay more for a house when the incumbent did nothing more than live in it. I understand where those without a house are coming from, but I just had to accept it was the way it was.
As a former CFO of a large tertiary institution, I have a prediction, in several parts:
- Credentialism will receive a massive boost, because, after all, the Credential to be gained is effectively Free to the student, so there's an inbuilt incentive to generate More Credentials, which need More Edumication, which enlarges tertiary staffs....and, after all, isn't Education a Good Thing regardless, so we always need More of it?
- The Supply of courses will expand tremendously, to meet the increased Demand that Free Tertiary Education can be expected to generate on its own, plus the Credentials Expected expansion (see above)
- The average Quality of any given Credential will be diluted and I would not be surprised to see the re-emergence of Twilight Surfing, Air Guitar, and other fluff Credentials
- The Tertiary Unions will receive a great boost in membership, because it will take a lotta Lecturers, Admin Staff, Child Minders, and Counselors to supply the - er - Supply side
- There will be more Remedial Education, as tertiary struggles to assimilate the hapless products of the primary and secondary schemozzles - more low-level teachers and hand-holders required to get the intakes up to adequate literacy and numeracy levels
- There will be more Labour Voters generated, as folks elect not to Bite the Hand Wot Feeds 'Em - this will apply to both the Teaching and the Taught populations, and is clearly a prime motivator of this entire policy: generate dependency, and dare the recipients to Vote Against it...
- There will be More Industrial Inspectorates, as the increase in Credentials implies that occupations that need 'em will have to be Inspected for Compliance. More brown cardies bearing clip-boards and check-lists...and more compliance costs for employers. Heck, they can afford 'em -
they're the 1% after all.....
The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions......and lubricated with plenty of OPM.....yours, dear readers.
To my mind, the best overall education policy goes hands down to Tracey Martin and NZ First;
http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/education
Proposals for every sector covered in detail - including the inclusive education (i.e., learning disabilities) sector. She would make a great Minister of Education.
Free education................ my backside !
Nothing is " FREE " , somewhere, somehow, someone has to pay for something that is supposedly free.
And lets be realistic , if tertiary education is going to be provided without charge to the student, then it will certainly have to be means tested because we cannot afford it universally
My feeling (admittedly without any scientific justification to support it) is that this may be a direction we should go. I do think university is an investment for a country as it is for students, however that doesn't mean that everyone should be given free university study. Perhaps we should be looking at the German model, for example, where people are provided with different options depending on their achievement at school. Though it does also then mandate that you should have very, very high equality of opportunity in your schooling, and I would hate for us to end up simply creating more multi-generational haves and have-nots, this time in education.
US universities have a system of entrance testing (two tests);
http://www.act.org/content/act/en/products-and-services/the-act.html
https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sat
Normally combined with a grade point average from secondary school as part of their entrance requirements/considerations.
The state sponsored universities (as opposed to the private universities) tended (when I was a student there) to have generally higher entrance requirements and lower fees (because their fees were subsidised by the state).
The other big difference was that lots of scholarships were available - meaning many students had additional funding of the already subsidised fees at the state institutions - making university education almost 'free' (aside from living expenses).
It does always seem to be different when it comes to the pension. It's no longer some nefarious using of hardworking taxpayers as an ATM for "benefits", and it's no longer about standing on one's own two feet. Suddenly, it's an entitlement.
I mean, I'm not against a universal pension. Rather, I'm for philosophical consistency from those who are more than happy to plunge their snouts into the trough as soon as it's their turn, but resent others being helped in other ways.
@macawlsey No , not an entitlement , I have been paying towards the NZ Super , just like you have,
Unlike our Aussie counterparts , we are not given the breaks to build our own Super .
I have paid my taxes , and the NZ Super is universal , so its not an entitlement , its just getting back some of the taxes I have paid over the years
Just FYI, the pension is mostly not funded by the taxes you pay over your lifetime, i.e. mostly NOT pre-funded. The taxes you pay are funding other people's pension. The understanding - a social contract, if you will - is that this will continue and someone will pay for your pension when it's your turn.
It works well when balanced...i.e. when you're young, you receive other societal benefits such as free schooling, (formerly) affordable housing fostered by governments' policies, healthcare etc. and you work and pay taxes to contribute to these and the older folks' pensions. It evens out because you receive benefits from society, you contribute as you work, and you'll receive benefits when you no longer work.
As the first couple of pages of this brief describe, the Cullen Fund was set up because relying solely on this non-pre-funded model doesn't work as well when you have an aging population, so actually introducing an element of pre-funding was going to be needed. The last time someone tried to pre-fund the pension, Muldoon unfortunately scuppered the plans...this time around National stopped it again, and while it was understandable given the desire to fund Christchurch and stimulus through the GFC, we ultimately missed out on some huge growth that would have been received from it while money was cheap to borrow.
So yeah, it's a benefit paid for by the workers at any given time, not historically pre-funded (though it may be partly in the future by the Cullen Fund). So it really needs some give and take...hence it's important we balance how the young are helped and how the old are helped at any given time in society, lest we engender intergenerational warfare.
If this takes off, we will see a number of kids coming back from Australia for tertiary education. Currently a bill is tabled in Federal Parliament to charge kiwi kids living there in full fee in Australia universities. My son will be one of those looking at his study in NZ if it's the case.
Don't know that this will actually make the difference - in other words, I'd assume most NZ students will come back even if fees for NZ students remain as they already are here. The difference between a full fee and a subsidised one for NZ residents and citizens is (roughly):
$700-800 for a 15 credit paper if a NZer
$3,000-4,000 for the same paper if an international student.
Point is, if the AUS law starts treating NZers as international students, I'd say most young NZ students in Aus will head over here regardless.
Strange.. we seem to have a shortage of builders, plumbers, electricians, roofers, scaffolders etc. We have a growing population in need of better infrastructure. yet Labour wants to make getting an art history degree the more attractive option? What is with this party.. Every time they announce a sensible policy, they counter it with an absurd one.
They possibly assume that this is a double vote winner for the floating voter i.e. the student and the parents that would have to assist the student otherwise. The tradies might already be labour voters in the working ages and non voters in the student ages.
BTW: Aren't they also looking at polytech courses? If so, those might cover the trades in some form.
Yes, polytech provided NCEA trade courses are tertiary education and they too fall under the Labour proposal.
Moreover, if the young person you as an employer are taking on as an apprentice (who will now get zero fees at the polytech required courses) is coming off the dole - you (as the tradie taking them on) will have part of their pay reimbursed via this policy;
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nzlabour/pages/4422/attachments/o…
Hmmm,
Sort of.
My understanding is the dreaded ITO,s that have the flash cars, contract training to providers, possibly polytechnics.
An ITO is a Industry Training Organisation, ie the plumbers, who are influenced by the trade employers.
The goverment has funded most of these costs for a long time.
Again, what you need first is a job.
Yes there are transition courses as well, again various providers.
As many graduates of the secondary system can neither spell nor count they also include some remedial training.
More or less...
Funny thing but I find the less educated someone is often they have little appreciation for the breadth of education possibilities and outcomes that make our country what it is. Of course its a Q of balance ie a few % fine arts is OK, 60% is not. PS 3 years tertiary doesnt say you cant use that to become a builder or a plumber.
The only jobs that education creates are academics and academic administrators.
The people who create jobs, in my experience, often have minimal education or dont depend on it.
However the Researchers have to be recognised, they innovate products, like A2 milk and instant Mozarella for example.
I'm not sure why people think that zero tertiary fess will make further education more attractive for all young people leaving secondary school. That is completely not the case.
Secondary school itself if free, yet there are plenty of young people who don't enjoy it; would not attend were it not required by law; and can't wait to get to school leaving age so that they can leave and enter the workforce.
What we are lacking are a wealth of employment opportunities for 17 year old school leavers. 70% of all entry level (i.e., unskilled and inexperienced) jobs advertised require a drivers licence as a condition of employment. Labour's School Leavers Toolkit;
http://www.labour.org.nz/schoolleaverstoolkit
Funds the lessons as well as the testing for both learners and restricted licences and is to my mind one of the most important policies of this election towards resolving skills shortages in the trades/industries you mention. On top of that there is this policy;
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nzlabour/pages/4422/attachments/o…
Which gives the employers/tradespeople an incentive to train these young school leavers.
Point is, you can't look at tertiary education in a vacuum - and it most certainly is not a preferred option for the majority of school leavers. The problem is, that many that would like a trade find it very difficult to secure a paid apprenticeship. That's really the issue in terms of our lack of builders, plumbers and electricians - as mostly sole traders, there is no incentive given to them to train the next generation.
"We have a growing population in need of better infrastructure.."
And these magical resources come from where exactly?? people are completely delusional. While NZer's shake their head at Trump pulling out of the Paris climate accord they then cheer for more roads and infrastructure... Population ponzi nomics is nothing but absurd policy.
I agree. I was almost a certainty to vote for Labour but this is quite a disappointing policy. Also on a side note I found out the other night people with PR can vote in NZ? All these foreigners can come to NZ grab PR in couple of years and start voting exactly like me. Unbelievable.
Labour really haven't got a clue it keeps spitting out these so-called policies without much thought!
They will bring it in next year for anyone starting out but it will only be for the first year and then by the looks of it year 2 and 3 etc. the student will pay.
The new voters should be able to see thru this if they are reasonably intelligent.
Tell me where are all the car parks for all the new students going to come from and all he additional tutors?
The students that aren't paid loans off now will tell the IRD to take a hike won't try.
Taxpayers to pay for students who shouldn't be at uni!!!!
Just another blatantly unthought out policy from Labour like their unexplained Capital Gains policy.
Don't get sucked in by a party that is out of their league.
Can anyone tell me high of the Labour Party hierarchy have been financially successful in life?
"Nymad always positive about Chch but currently on the Gold Coast with 2 of my Uni kids who I am currently paying the fees for."
So it's sour grapes, then?
I thought more highly of you, TM2.
Original comment...
"They will bring it in next year for anyone starting out but it will only be for the first year and then by the looks of it year 2 and 3 etc. the student will pay."
I wholeheartedly agree that we shouldn't subsidise tertiary education, at all.
It's incredibly unfair on those who have paid for their education. What's more it represents a huge burden on people who never directly benefit from it.
The problem with our education system is that schools (years 1 to 13) prepare young adults to neither work or study further. If Labour or any other party wanted to improve education in this country it would be to reform schools. Labour won't as it is run by the PPTA and National won't as they don't do anything these days.
Where do you get this idea that the primary and secondary education system fails to properly educate our youth? For the vast majority of students, the education system is exemplary - overall higher than the OECD average;
The data shows that New Zealand children rank seventh among OECD countries, with comparable data in terms of the average score across the three scales, behind Finland, Korea, Japan, Canada, the Netherlands and Australia. New Zealand rates above the OECD average on each of the scales – fifth in reading, ninth in mathematics and seventh in science.
http://stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/government_finance/central_govern…
That data is from 2002 (measuring pre- NCEA achievement). It has declined every year since then. In 2011 our 9 & 15 year olds tied for bottom equal in science and numeracy (in the OECD).
https://nzinitiative.org.nz/insights/opinion/a-viable-maths-solution-wi…
Yes, falls between 2009 - 2012, but that lifted again in 2016;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11761505
Mainly because some focus went on trying to close the gap on education inequality;
The improvement in the correlation between socio-economic status and results showed "we're getting traction" in tackling New Zealand's historically high education inequity, Parata said.
All I can say is that Labour are just offering more and more and more and more to buy votes , and they know they cant deliver on their promises .
Quite apart from the costs , which they have yet to explain , they are also promising :-
Free tertiary education
New high speed trains to underpopulated places
100,000 additional new houses when we dont have enough builders to build right now .
Doctors appointments for the cost of a 2 stage bus fare
Do me a favour... pull the other one , it goes bang when you do
Gordon, not sure what you on about.
2 of our kids are in between semesters and so they can not be away from Chch for a long period of time which you would need if you were going to go far from NZ, and they are also needing to work on UNI assignments as well while they are away.
Not worth travelling to those countries for only a couple of weeks!
Besides, have had a few overseas trips this year already so Oz is nice this time of year as well.
Hope that satisfies your sarcasm Gordon!
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.