sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

English defends campaign ads, looks to seniors & families; Ardern defends tax U-turn; Greens want landlords registered & maintenance bonds; Seymour touts positive poll; TOP says 5% in reach, gets qualified Eaqub support

English defends campaign ads, looks to seniors & families; Ardern defends tax U-turn; Greens want landlords registered & maintenance bonds; Seymour touts positive poll; TOP says 5% in reach, gets qualified Eaqub support

By Alex Tarrant

Bill English has been forced to defend National’s campaign tactics while Jacinda Ardern was in the hot seat over Labour’s tax U-turn, her Super stance and on free-trade during the leaders’ final weekend TV interviews before Saturday’s general election.

Meanwhile, the Green Party released a policy to reform rental laws, which includes requiring all landlords to be registered and a requirement for them to set aside "maintenance bonds" for “reasonable maintenance” on their properties in case it’s required. The party is set to release its fully costed manifesto on Monday evening.

Winston Peters late on Friday released a policy to “clean up corporate New Zealand.” He also issued a press release denouncing “malicious rumours” about the state of his health and issued a video attacking land sales to foreigners. Pike River re-entry was also in his sights.

David Seymour drew attention to the latest Horizon poll showing ACT on 1.4% - more than double most other polls. That would return ACT with two MPs, given Seymour wins the Epsom electorate. He noted that with 2%, a third MP would be brought in as well (it’s about 2.1% that’s needed).

Staying with the polls, Gareth Morgan’s The Opportunities Party (TOP) issued a press release rallying against the reporting of the mainstream polls which only show TOP around 1.5%. Research done for them suggests a further 3% are “most likely” to vote TOP, while a further 11% of people were “considering” it, Morgan claimed, saying this meant it was likely the party would hit 5%.

TOP then sent out PR highlighting a tweet from 'Generation Rent' economist Shamubeel Eaqub that he'd like Gareth Morgan's lot to get over 5% (although not an endorsement, Eaqub says). Eaqub on Sunday morning wrote a Sunday Star Times article titled 'Why are you so afraid of tax', in which he bemoaned the fact that there was "little on tax policy in the upcoming election", and pointed out that New Zealand is not a heavily taxed country.

The Maori Party released its “plan for Auckland” on Saturday, which included an obligation for government and the Auckland Council to eliminate homelessness in the city by 2020, building extra state houses for people on low incomes, including 500 in South Auckland, and reinstating a Minister for Auckland Issues.

The biggest local story from the weekend which had a political link was Auckland Airport running low on plane fuel, after the (only) pipe servicing it – from Marsden Point – was severed by a digger on private land on Thursday. While English and Energy & Resources Minister Judith Collins were fronting the response, it emerged that the government had been warned something like this could happen back in 2012 – see Hamish Rutherford’s piece here.

National campaigns for seniors, families, gets asked about scaremongering

National issued press releases aimed at pensioners and families over the weekend, each drawing together previous announcements into policy packages. You can view them through the links above. But Bill English wasn’t given much of a chance to discuss them on TVNZ’s Q&A, with host Corin Dann focussing on National’s campaign tactics. Here’s a taster:

CORIN It is just part of a concerted scare campaign, isn’t it? You haven’t been able to run on your record. You have run on a negative campaign. Add this to the $11.7 billion hole, which does not exist, and you’re just out there to scare voters. Are you not proud of your record?

BILL I absolutely disagree. We are very proud of our record. We are running on our record. But more importantly, we are running on a plan for the next three years, the next five years to take advantage of the strength of the New Zealand economy. The Labour Party and the other parties have the obligation to answer the questions that New Zealanders are asking.

CORIN Correct me if I’m wrong, but the TV ads that you guys have been putting out over the last few days and changing have been, what, running on your record? It doesn’t look like it to me. It is negative tax ads.

BILL Well, and that’s because that’s what’s in the public’s mind. The public want to know the answers to those questions about how many taxes and when. Labour keep changing their mind. It’s absolutely legitimate. I mean, this is real. This is about cash in people’s pockets, investment decisions, the decisions to employ another person, what people can take home at the end of the week. These are real things. It’s not just some hypothetical argument.

CORIN Well, like a $11.7 billion hole? That’s not hypothetical?

BILL Well, that’s the best estimate.

CORIN Just a second here. I’ll move on after this. But are you comfortable personally as a leader of integrity to be running lines like $11.7 billion holes, which no economist in this country will back? I have asked your office to tell me a name. They haven’t come back to me on that one. Do you feel personally comfortable with that sort of attack politics?

BILL Yes, I do, because that’s the estimate of this weird budget that Labour have put up. I mean, we have got surpluses, and they’re saying they want to run up more debt and raise more tax. When you look at the spending, they are trying to tell us – and I’ll repeat it again, and everyone agrees this is the case – they’re trying to tell us there is big chunks of government over which there’ll be no new policy for the next three years. No one believes that.

He was also asked about National’s plans for cleaner waterways, given the attacks on Labour’s water royalty policy. A comment about slaughtering the dairy herd and depopulating cities received some attention from the commentariat on Sunday:

CORIN Are you seriously going to suggest that the water quality in Canterbury is somehow OK? Are you going to tell me that Lake Elsmere is good? That it hasn’t got seriously degraded over the last 10 years?

BILL No. Lake El—Well, it’s degraded over the last 30 years. What I can tell you is the serious effort gone in in the Selwyn River catchment and Lake Elsmere catchment over really complex, challenging issues. I mean, there is one answer – slaughter the dairy herd. I suppose that would help. Then next thing they’ll be talking about how to depopulate cities because they cause pollution. Well, that doesn’t make sense. New Zealand can be a high-value—

CORIN But there’s another way of putting that. It’s called diversifying your economy – moving into things that perhaps don’t have that pollution cost.

BILL And isn’t it interesting? Our exports are diversifying more quickly and more broadly than they have for a long time -- a burgeoning IT industry. In fact, you’re going to see a burgeoning agri-tech industry, because a lot of these solutions around the nitrate emissions and climate change – methane emissions -- are technology solutions which we’re investing internationally with research to carry out.

Labour questioned over tax flip-flop

Jacinda Ardern spent Sunday afternoon at a campaign rally in Hamilton. The Waikato has been a focus for Labour of late, and for her opponents – the farmers’ rally is to be held there this week. Ardern last week raised the case of her grandfather being asked to leave Waikato Hospital at 11:30pm when he lived an hour away – highlighting the hospital’s own PR that it was full.

Earlier that morning, TVNZ’s Dann questioned the Labour leader over her “captain’s call” to rule out any Tax Working Group proposals coming into force during a first term of government.

CORIN What happened to that passion this week, to back down and flip-flop?

JACINDA I still absolutely maintain those two points that we do have to address the housing crisis, particularly after nine years of drift. And we do have to look at the fairness of our tax system.

CORIN But you’re not willing to put your neck on the line, and it looks like, you know, you want to get elected, so you rolled over.

JACINDA No. I am still doing the work. I’m still utterly committed to doing the work. And in fact if you look at the timeline we’ve set out, I will, in office, do that work.

CORIN You panicked. You panicked in the face of polling.

JACINDA I will produce some outcomes from that. And I will, if suggested by that working group, legislate. The one thing I have heard, though - and I’ve had to listen, Corin, on the campaign trail – I put out my case, and the public put theirs, and the case they put back to me was okay, we understand you feel that sense of urgency; we do too, but we want certainty. And I knew I could find that balance between the two by moving by a matter of months the time that that legislation would come into force into the next tax year in 2021.

CORIN But you made it a leadership issue. You made it a captain’s call.


CORIN You put it out there and said, ‘I’m going to make this my call. I’m strong enough to go to the electorate and say I’ll do this if I need to.’ And you’ve rolled back on that.

JACINDA And I will still be going to the electorate and saying, ‘This is the thing that I’ve made the decision on. This is the thing we will legislate on.’ But I also have to show leadership in listening to what people tell me. And the message came back loud and clear – we get your passion around this. We understand it, but we want to know. I have found a balance.

CORIN They do need passion now. Cos now those who might have been hoping that you would be the politician that might finally deal with New Zealand’s issues with capital and taxing capital and fairness, and you’re not.

JACINDA But I am still doing the work, Corin. And I will in government still make that decision, and if required legislate on that decision. The thing I’ve pushed out is the time it takes effect. Because that then means I can balance both the urgency I feel with the feedback that the public strongly gave me. And I had to listen to that, you know? And so in my mind, if it took just a matter of a few months to find that balance between the two, then that was the right thing to do.

CORIN What else will you flip-flop on?

Ardern’s move to rule out increasing the Super age was also put to her, as was Labour’s stance on free trade. Remember, Ardern in the Newshub debate said she’d retire before raising the age, which English attacked as a cop-out for her generation. Labour also wants to renegotiate a number of trade deals to allow for a clause banning foreign, non-resident property buyers from New Zealand’s residential market.

CORIN You’ve had a chance to leave open an option, whereas John Key did it for a reason of trust, because he was worried people didn’t trust him. You didn’t have that same problem. And it seems extraordinary to completely rule that out.

JACINDA The problem we’ve had is this issue has bounced back and forth between both political parties. People needed certainty. I wanted to give that to them. I also want to demonstrate that we can plan for the next generation’s future. They are the ones who’ve been sold down the river by not enough planning. I don’t think it’s fair that they be lumbered with the cost of not planning for retirement, not planning for environmental degradation, not planning for healthcare and education. It’s time we actually said, ‘You deserve what the rest have had.’

CORIN All right. Free trade – what happens if South Korea says to you, ‘No, we’re not going to renegotiate that free-trade deal?’

JACINDA Well, of course, if you ask me to give away my negotiating position right now, it’s going to make it harder for me when I go into those talks.

CORIN No, here’s the thing.

JACINDA If it looks like I don’t care enough.

CORIN We are a country that needs to know whether you would be prepared to walk away from a hard-fought free-trade deal over your policy, which is to ban foreigners buying houses in New Zealand.

JACINDA And you’re asking me to give away the terms of my negotiation. But, look, what I absolutely believe is that our friends and allies, given Korea negotiated that position for themselves in that agreement, will look kindly to us seeking the same position.

CORIN But nobody in the trade world accepts that they’re not going to want something in return.

Greens target landlords

Green Party leader James Shaw has landlords in his sights. He announced the party’s rental overhaul policy at a craft-beer bar in central Wellington. Interestingly, Shaw spoke about how the Greens had successfully worked with both Labour and National on the issue in the past.

The Green Party today announced a progressive plan to protect the rights of people who rent and ensure that every house in New Zealand is warm, dry and healthy.

The Green Party will:

· Ensure every house is warm, dry, and healthy with a mandatory rental warrant of fitness and by restoring Warm Up NZ insulation subsidies.

· Professionalise renting by requiring landlord registration and reciprocal maintenance bonds from landlords.

· Promote stable, secure tenancies through three year standard tenancies, rights of renewal and end no-cause evictions.

· Ensure fairer rents by ending letting fees and limiting rent increases to once a year based on a mutually agreed formula.

· Reform the Tenancy Tribunal from an adversarial to a solutions focussed model.

· Help landlords and tenants with free assistance, information, and advice through FlatMates – a national coordination office for tenancy issues.

“Home insulation is a classic Green win-win-win: good for people, good for the environment, and good for the economy,” said Green Party leader James Shaw.

“Cold, damp houses in New Zealand contribute to more deaths every year than the road toll.

“The Green Party has a proven record working with Labour and National to get homes insulated, and in government we will finish the job we started.

“The revamped Warm Up NZ scheme will make up to $2,500 available per house to pay for better insulation, clean heating devices and other measures that will support a healthier home such as draught stops and better curtains.

“A Warrant of Fitness for rental homes and a requirement on landlords to set aside money for reasonable maintenance will put an end to cold, damp, mouldy rentals.

“Over half of the population is now renting and they deserve the same standards as people who own a home.

“People who rent should have security so they can put down roots and benefit from being able to participate in their community.

“Bringing in three year standard tenancies, guaranteeing rights of renewal, and ending no-cause evictions will make tenants feel more at ease where they are.

“Bringing balance to the rental market will help both landlords and tenants.

“The evidence from overseas is that landlord licensing has helped create better rental markets, led to a reduction of anti-social behaviour, and improved rental standards.

“FlatMates – a new tenancy coordination office will provide advice, assistance and information to both landlords and tenants so that everyone knows their rights and responsibilities.

“The Green Party is committed to reforming renting so that every house is a home,” said Mr Shaw.

It’s OK. Peters still has his health

Winston Peters on Sunday kept with one of the key issues he’s been driving over the past few years – Pike River re-entry. This comes after Ardern had a well-publicised trip to the West Coast last week. Peters also believes Pike River is a weak-spot for the National Party.

NZ First can reveal that in late January, the Prime Minister received a proposal from Victoria University to re-enter Pike River mine using its robotic HADES underground mine disaster scout.

“Unmanned entry could easily have taken place by now, except this government does not want the public to learn the truth about what’s in there,” says New Zealand First Leader and Northland Member of Parliament for Northland Rt Hon Winston Peters.

“On 26 January, the Dean of Engineering at Victoria University, Professor Dale Carnegie, actually wrote to the Prime Minister offering its HADES explosion resistant mine disaster scout. A robot specifically developed for Pike River but all he got back was silence.

“Also, in one of those ironies you occasionally get in politics, money from fraud-hit Fuji Xerox helped to develop the HADES robot.

“What we now know is that the Prime Minister and Minister Nick Smith not only knew of this robot’s existence in January, but Ministers Gerry Brownlee, Michael Woodhouse and Paul Goldsmith too.

“This puts the cover-up at the highest level of this government. It also means Mr English knew about HADES existence weeks before he met with Pike River families.

Peters also issued a policy to “clean up corporate New Zealand.”

New Zealand First: Reforms for Workers and Businesses

  • Lift the minimum wage to $20 an hour over three years.
  • Set Minimum Redundancy provisions based on twice the normal contractual notice period up to a maximum of 13 weeks.
  • Amend the Companies Act so that wages and salary, including holiday pay, have equal priority with Secured Creditors.
  • Enable businesses to pay decent wages, by lowering company tax to 25% over three years and taxing export generated income at 20%.

New Zealand First: Large Company Corporate Reform

  • Amend the Companies Act to give shareholders, including cooperatives, a ‘Say on Pay’ for directors and CEO’s.
  • Require mandatory remuneration reports and reporting of pay equity.
  • Ban ‘golden hellos’ (executive recruitment bonuses) and limit ‘golden parachutes’ (executive redundancy) to the same provisions as for workers.
  • Introduce regulations around ‘share schemes’ to require a 36-month minimum holding period after they cease employment in order to prevent short-term nest feathering.
  • Amend legislation, such as the Prudential Supervision Act 2010, to stop boards using loose and unreviewable “fit and proper person” tests to shut down potential candidates.
  • Introduce serious penalties for corporate fraud and tax evasion.

While also letting us know that he’s still healthy enough to handle at least another term:

“I was approached by a senior journalist this afternoon, whose opening question was: How is your health?

“I made it very clear to him that if he, or any other party, thinks that spreading malicious rumours will not be met with the full force of the law available to me then he, and they, would be very mistaken.

“For the record, this has been a long campaign in which we have worked seven days a week and I am looking forward to enjoying political life after the election.

“PS: I was warned some time ago that this would be the next line of vicious attack.”

South Auckland focus for Maori Party

The Maori Party also had a housing focus over the weekend, contained in its Auckland policy manifesto. This was released by Shane Taurima, who at number four on the list would need to win the Tamaki Makaurau seat or see his party poll above 2.9%.

Some features of the plan include:

  • Obliging Government and Auckland Council to set a target to eliminate homelessness by 2020.
  • Building houses that whānau on low incomes can afford to rent in areas of Auckland where there is severe housing deprivation – 500 of which will be in South Auckland.
  • Investing an additional $5 million into Whānau Ora in Auckland so we can support 5000 whānau facing challenging issues across housing, unemployment and family violence.
  • Providing free doctors’ visits and prescriptions for under 18 year olds.
  • Creating 1,000 apprenticeships for rangatahi living in Auckland.
  • Introducing earn as they learn programmes for youth in Auckland
  • Providing free public transport for students and over 60 year olds.
  • Making Auckland a bilingual city.
  • Introducing a Iiving wage as well as an Auckland wage.
  • Setting up a $5 million fund for new start up Auckland-based small to medium size businesses with a focus on Māori and Pacific families.
  • Investing an additional $5 million into Marae Ora to restore Auckland marae and make them eco and digital friendly.
  • Reinstating the position of Minister for Auckland Issues.

TOP of the pops

Meanwhile, Gareth Morgan issued the following press release on Sunday about opinion polls. He said research done for TOP indicated it was good to hit 5% at least. TOP also touted a tweet from Shamubeel Eaqub that he wanted to see Morgan's party get over 5% (although not an endorsement, apparently).

How Published Polls Corrupt the Democratic Process

At TOP we commissioned a market research company to investigate voters attitudes towards our party.

Their polling indicates that 1.5% of New Zealanders are committed TOP voters, no matter what. This aligns well with the landline poll results.

It indicates a further 3% are “most likely” to vote TOP. This takes us to 4.5%. This result aligns well with our internal internet-based polling.

Finally, the market research indicates another 11% are “considering” voting TOP.

That isn’t bad for a new party; an independent, market research-based finding that a possible maximum of 15.5% could vote for TOP. To make the 5% threshold we only need to convert 1 in 20 of those that are considering voting for us.

So – what is the biggest barrier to converting enough of this last 11% into a result at the ballot box? The wide promotion of published polls during the election campaign.

One of the key concerns of the uncommitted 14% of voters that are possible for TOP, is their fear of a wasted vote. It’s here where the published polls become a self-fulfilling prophecy. A poll simply reflects a point in time who people would vote for, and so for TOP, those polls pick up the committed 1.5% vote. But – and this is where the widespread misinterpretation of poll numbers actually influences the election outcome – the public interpret that as how many votes TOP will get on the day. Which of course is wrong – it’s how many are committed if the election were held today.

By being interpreted as how many votes TOP will get on election day, this number discourages those that believe TOP won’t make 5%. Of course we have no idea how many of the uncommitted this is, but it is absolutely a negative influence.

Widely published and promoted polls rapidly become a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are particularly damaging to parties trying to break in, that have to overcome the 5% barrier in order to begin their build.

Furthermore, the polls are also being misused by Media companies to pre-judge the election outcome. TVNZ’s ridiculous rules are applied to cut TOP out of minor leader’s debates, youth debates and even playing mini golf with Tim Wilson on Seven Sharp.

ACT leader David Seymour was also following the polls:

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.



Believe it is has only just dawned on National how much the electorate has turned against them, personally & politically. Up until Jacinda Ardern arrived National were quite content with themselves, comfortable, complacent, snug & secure in an ivory tower of their own construction. Some of them still are it seems, given Dr Coleman's recent brush off of Rachel Smalley & ill advised utterances from Ms Bennett. If National had been a good government for the people, it would have taken more than a mere slip of a lass to up end them.Don't think any of the hasty & on the hoof promises is going to do it. National simply stopped listening to and thinking about the little people too long ago. Perhaps they never did. With the tax bogeyman now put to bed, Labour is back on course to succeed one would imagine.

"National simply stopped listening to and thinking about the little people too long ago." Yes....So did Labour. "Sucess" isn't about getting Labour back in. It's about Labour having the courage of its newly found convictions; convictions that is showed us all last week that will bend in the wind...just as they always have...just as National always have. Change, is nowhere to be seen ......but when it is, it will come with a social and/or economic disaster, and that...may not be too far off.

You don't get change by not winning the election.

Change, is nowhere to be seen ......but when it is, it will come with a social and/or economic disaster, and that...may not be too far off.

I think I agree with you bw. There is very little indication that there is change in the air and the understanding of the general public and leadership is cloaked in ignorance, particularly about what is happening in the wider context of the global economy and the dysfunctional manner of how we're still grappling with the events of 9-10 years ago. I suspect that the status quo will reign until some kind of upheaval occurs (similar to the GFC, nobody will see it coming and only a few will not be surprised).

There is fundamentally little difference between National and Labours policies , except that with Labour its going to cost you more .

Well that will depend on your circumstances and the degree to which you fit the profile of the representative NZ household. The problem is that it's unclear how to hedge your bets against the negative consequences of "muddling along." Under a Labour govt, it might cost you marginally more on your tax household bills, but you also need to weigh that up against the potential costs that you cannot quantify under the existing regime.

So to sum up, Central banker overconfidence is to the fore, corporate and household debt is at an all-time high, any sense of real valuation has disappeared, élites and their media cronies are in chronic denial, geopolitics have never looked more accident-prone, ideological extremism is in the ascendancy, robotised techno-mathematical market trading has created a haven for false flags, there is a near total lack of fit between commerce on the ground and the scoreboards on the bourse, wealth disparities are greater than they were in France before the 1789 Revolution, and the legislators are making policy on the basis of rear view mirrors, adjusted for focus, on decades-old socio-economic precepts.

(John Ward)

Yep, higher income tax, fuel tax, water tax, tourist tax, and now with Greens bottom line Capital Gains Tax and ETS to really nail the rural sector. But it still won't be enough to cover all their spending promises, given their farcical fiscal plan that makes no allowance for increasing costs, and the delusional growth assumption (4%) that it has. They are going to be borrowing like crazy and leaving heavy bills for our children to pay off.

Not quite true Boardman, the difference between National & Labour is... Green

Indeed ...


Problems that are not addressed will cost you either way, Boatman. There is no avoiding that.

For example, continuing to enable National to mismanage the healthcare sector will ultimately cost you as you age. See here, "Soaring health insurance costs hurting the elderly".

When you vote for a party who is creating outcomes we're seeing now, you will inevitably end up bearing the cost of these failures in the future, just as others are bearing them now.

It'll be a bit difficult to cry out "I've paid my taxes, I deserve better!" if you've spent most of your life railing against taxes as theft.

Taxes are the devil! But I want my super, healthcare and new tunnels!


Yeah...and this selfishness is going to incubate intergenerational warfare more than anything else.

This characteristic of growing up benefiting from the services paid for by the preceding generations (affordable housing, free education etc.), defunding these services for the generations who followed so they could enjoy low taxes, then expecting all the full quality of services back again once they're old...

It's crazy selfishness. Why should young Kiwis accept such attitudes from their elders?

I don't but as a result I've been regularly told I have 'attitude' issues because I don't by into the self interested rubbish...

Exactly what I was saying the other day.

The same ones who are crying out for some nominal $20 per week tax cut are the same ones who will not rationally invest those savings in private alternatives to the public services they are foregoing.

For instance, how many are going to allocate that to improved private healthcare?
How many are going to allocate it to improved private schooling/tuition for their children?
How many are going to factor the increase in private transportation costs?
How many are going to think of it as an increase in future public debt liability, and the associated increased borrowing costs.

The only reason we should be giving tax cuts is if there is some sort of increased welfare from doing so. So what National should be saying is "We will provide tax cuts, but you have to use that money to rationally decide whether to invest in private alternatives or allocate it elsewhere."

When its $20 no, accept quite a few ppl already have private healthcare and their answer seems to be I pay $200 a month for private care why do I need to pay anything for public?

Simplistic and ignorant but that is how it seems a % are thinking.

Fair enough.
But the argument is still the same for them. Their premiums will be increasing by a relative amount.

But it's more the people who National are arguing need the tax cuts - "Hard working barbers and middle income families". They are already so dependent on the public services, so they are the ones getting disproportionately shafted.

Also, private premiums will likely increase more if we underfund public health more (because private insurance will need to be used for more care). And because private premiums are paid by a smaller pool than that which funds public healthcare, it'll likely end up costing individuals more to keep their care than it would have when spread across the entire population in the form of tax.

A case of people voting for something that appears to benefit them immediately but will likely ultimately make them worse off.

Maybe you should shill for both of them then.


I am sick to death of National and their stinking tactics. Thing is, we have so many services that are run down, we have to address the housing crisis, we need to seriously do something about the growing divide in this country, we must sort out our environment, all of these will cost. I guess it is a drag race between self interest and those who see we are actually all in this together.
Vote for a change. I will be doing that via the Green Party, whose core values are still mine.

We both asked our kids who we should vote for, bought them along to the early vote to show them the importance of voting. Irrespective of who you vote for, exercising your democratic right is essential.

churchill - "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"

“I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against the uncivilized tribes… it would spread a lively terror.” Winston Churchill

Gotta love quotes taken completely out of context. His statement, when read in full, supported the use of non-lethal tear gas (lachrymatory gas) in preference to bombing and/or shelling the opposition. That is, his position was to use non-lethal means in preference to lethal means when in a war.

Have a look at:

For reference, the memo quoted in full is below. Note that Solidnames strongly edited quote provides an entirely different out of context meaning. (unnecessary comment removed by author)

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

I take umbrage at your accusation of illiteracy, but if that's your go-to, fair enough.

My Churchill point is that for every quip he has, and he was a great orator, many of his statements were genuinely fantastic and witty, there are equally as many that show him to be a bit of an arsehole really. If you've studied your British history, you'll note that for all of his brilliance in galvanizing the nation during the second world war, he was a pretty poor peacetime Prime Minister. Anyway we digress, and bearing in mind I'm illiterate, words are hard for me.

Does not alter the sentiment one little bit, why would he even be considering gassing "uncivilised" tribes in the first place, other than to impose his will on them afterwards. All you did there was dig a deeper hole for him

If you read Churchill's statement carefully he is not ruling out deadly gas. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses, no, use the entire range as appropriate.

Agree the context can change the meaning. Misquoting or selective sound bite usage is one of the reasons main stream media is so distrusted these days. This is why Key started posting the full speechs online prior to his first win, and Trump now has Trump TV , though it was likened to North Korean Tv with a much prettier face on it.

Could context could be a called spin or in extreme cases...propoganda?

Well done. A great way to lead and manipulate them. We played a similar game with an Uber driver on Friday night. He was an immigrant from India and said he hadn't been following the election but wanted to vote. He asked for our advice. We asked him what his major concern was and he said safety as he and his friends were scared of violent thugs trying to steal their takings and beat them up. We told him we vote National and thugs are likely to vote something else because National puts them in prison. Job done.

We asked what's important to them - they said the environment, homelessness, inequality - health wasn't a biggie as they're indestructible as kids. Naturally those concerns are important to my wife and me as well, and will have influenced their ideals already.

But hey you've got an Uber driver to vote National, good for you, they're using their democratic right.

You've gotta admit, Nats and young Nats have an amazing way of convincing those who would otherwise be clueless to voting, to voting cluelessly.

For whatever reason when I see them in operation and the brain washing that's going on - it makes me think of a movement in a certain European country in the 1930's...

Sounds like a great example of why only citizens should be allowed to vote, like in almost every other country.

Expat - so you want to put a lot of people in jail, taking them from the workforce, limiting GDP growth (and tax the government can collect to pay for services), while at the same time costing other tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars to house them in prisons? Yup, sounds like a smart plan to me....Expat for PM!

It's probably cheaper to give them benefits than to put them in jail if your worried about Labours tax plans - but instead you want to put them in jail meaning that its going to cost the tax payer more?

Oh dear, your views are so limited mate ... in the hype of your enthusiasm you forget crime, rape, drugs, and sexual assaults wrecking people's lives because of such namby pamby soft attitude forget the RIGHT of the victims to live in peace.... Obviously , until it happens to you or your family - then things will change when you feel the bitterness and the pain yourself !!

No one is jailed for doing Nothing, actually our legal system is so lenient on crime that makes us the laughing stock of others !!

Why not Let the whole bunch out, encourage petty crimes and fraud .... after all it is cheaper than housing them in the 1st class accommodation ...

So you don't want to pay taxes but you want to throw as many people as possible in prison?

lol, I am not sure if you make any sort of sense now .... this kind of rhetoric only used to come from communist propaganda machines in the former Soviet Union ...mixing issues and personalising assumptions to confuse the discussion, very primitive !! case closed.

In Australia at the moment. A scary walk back to the hotel as drunk and drugged people spilled over the footpaths. With milk at $1 a litre you wonder why they don't drink that instead. Back in the safety of the hotel I watched a story on aged care. They highlighted the fact that aged care homes don't ask about potential residents criminal backgrounds. It makes me wonder how many thieves, rapists etc are living next to our elderly in the most vulnerable period of their lives?

glad i have already voted so i dont have to listen to the politicians (liars) this week.
my only question is where are we headed as a country when a single digger driver can bring one of our major export earners to a stand still with no real back up plan

So you voted believing Labour were going to bring in their tax changes this term?


Jonathan Coleman made my decision for me, when he stood there and said our Hospitals are not full and people are not getting turned away, when I have personal experience of the exact opposite. and I am talking about being sent home after major surgery with three pumps on a family member because of no beds.
if you are involved or using hospitals at the moment and can see and hear what is going on to call the demand FLU is just a lie, its too many people for the infrastructure and money not being spent to grow our hospitals along side the population

What would you have done if you did not have that personal experience?


..I have family working in a number of hospitals and they are at their wits end....basically exhausted. Everyday the red light is flashing on the pc when they get to work, permanently operating at over capacity, patient overload and staff shortages.

Staff sick leave blowing out due to being unable to face another day of chaos. Crisis levels on occasion can be dealt with....but not day in day out as is now the norm

The health system is in chaos....expect strikes after the election as no -one is looking out for our health professionals. Another National lie.

I think if Labour come into government they are going to need to immediately increase funding to the sector by way of legislation passed under urgency.

Many of those in the DHB sector at the moment do not speak out for fear of retribution. Hence, all of the need will come to the surface and quickly, I bet.

I think that will avert strikes because Labour will respond - as opposed to delay and deny.

Rastus you are right on the money here. Performance targets, and chronic under funding based on pop growth. But everyone from overseas is 100% healthy and same with their old folks when they bring in, yeah right

National womens has less beds than the old building built in the late 40s, madam happy to give birth in the corridor, and to the midwives, lets sue you for any issue arrising....ok, but hurry and keep on target. No wonder they are resigning and going elsewhere or changing jobs.


I'm glad I've voted as well - the vitriol that is being spewed forth is get the point of being nauseating. Most of the vitriol seems to be based on the perceived threats to perceived entitlements, unfortunately they are all just perceived.


Yes, I find it fascinating how much falsehood is being resorted to as the means of attacking Labour rather than arguing actual policies and facts. E.g. the $11 billion hole, Labour increasing income taxes (straight out lie), inheritance taxes etc.

It suggests a weakness and absence of actual arguments to be applied, this resort to dishonest propaganda.

Fascinating? It's embarrassing - counter-productive - not the type I want to share my bed with

It has the look and feel of a centralised paid-for boiler-room dishing out crap


I have never been so against any party as I am now against National and reading the inane crap that these property vultures keep spewing in this forum has been an enormous driver.

Agreed. Their greed is blindness.

the April 2018 income tax drop has been passed and is the current law. Labour repealing it is a substantial Increase in income tax over the currently legislated tax rates that will cost average worker ~$1000/year. That is, sadly, the truth.
Labour failed to account for operating expense increases - a huge many billions at least hole in their budget, and have assumed absurd annual GDP growth of 4.9%, 4.7%, 4.1% (GDP 282,626 296,548 310,543 323,240) over their term. An average 3-year rate of 4.5% that has only been achieved once in last 40 years, and higher than even a fiscally responsible govt could hope to achieve in these times, but to hope for that while instituting bad-old-days industrial relations law changes and massive new taxes? Pure delusion.

They also forecast literally incredible revenue growth of 5.5%, 5%, 4.2% (108,326 114,263 119,987 124,982) over their term - when any 1st year economist student knows that higher taxes kill growth. How anyone can defend this fantasy is beyond me and paints an incredibly poor picture of the media and their tame economist commentators in failing to call them to task for this fairytale. They are promoting the hiring of a jihadist to fly the plane that is NZ's economy.

Labour has also been rather economical in their language in stating "no new taxes" and later qualifying that statement with excepting what they had already announced. So four new taxes is the actual truth (including increased income tax). And now we also have greens stating that their bottom line policies include the massive new tax grabs of CGT and ETS that will devastate the rural sector - giving Labour all the wiggle room they need to impose them as part of a coalition agreement. #Letstaxthis

Very well put Foyle .... Politics is a dirty business, get grubbier in Election times...#Letstaxthis

Labour is not increasing income taxes from their current levels people are paying right now, which is the lie being peddled across social media. If Labour gets in, people will not face an increase of their income tax from what they are currently paying.

It's absolutely fair to say if National get in people will pay less income tax by in some cases $20 a week. If Labour gets in, people won't have their income tax increased from what they're currently paying.

What you say is true, however it is also true to say that Labour will be changing the law to make people pay more income tax in 2018 in amongst all the other new taxes they are instituting (and possible additional CGT and ETS hammer blows from Greens).

This statement assumes zero inflation. Why the tax brackets are not automatically adjusted every year for inflation, I dunno.

The tax "cut" is meant to be an adjustment of the tax brackets to account for the last half dozen years or so of inflation. Removing this inflation adjustment results in a tax increase in factual terms due to wage inflation with fixed tax brackets. This is not advanced maths...

I read your post carefully and the human (and grammar) input seems a bit light. Foyle you are a Nat-bot but a verbose one.

I would ask that of the party that privatized (that means, sold off) that essential asset. Hint, it wasn't National...

Hang on...don't you guys normally argue that privatisation is good?

Sounds like the government was warned about a break's impact back in 2012 and the back-up plan was for motorists to drive less...

Are you arguing privatisation is good when National does it but bad when Labour does it? Or National is incapable of managing accountability and services from a private supplier, including management of risks and a back-up plan?

In that case, why would National risk privatising prisons too?

Yes, it is the same party that now realises that moves like that were not so great after all. We tried neo-liberalism, it didn't work, Labour is trying to step back from that Kool Aid, the Nats are not.

This is a link to a US body language expert analyzing a speech by Winston Peters on immigration/sale of NZ property. I found this very interesting.

The only way the National scumbags are getting back in is with Winston supporting them.

Since he won't commit to not supporting National, I can't give my vote to him, although I entirely agree with his sentiments on foreign buyers.

Register landlords ? How about registering tenants and their previous history ?? 3 year rental term very few rentees want that long from my experience bring it on as long as the contact works both ways if a tenant wants to move early pay up the difference, disappointed the greens are displaying such a socialist view.

I am disappointed they are not going further, but I guess one step at a time. If we are going to accept that in future renting will be the norm rather than home ownership, then our rental laws will have to change to reflect that. At the moment they still reflect how things were when people rented in their youth then got married and moved into home ownership, often in their early to mid twenties. You cannot have it both ways.

Kinda suprised there is not a private one operating. End of the day why do you thing Govt has offered tax subsudy to reduce reliance on being a landlord, HNZ certianly has a database.

The Greens have become an opportunistic party - failing to gather enough support on the environmental, Global Warming, and ETS hoaks they turned out to emotional blackmail praying on and exploiting the poor and poverty despite their moral bankruptcy ... Just Disgusting !!

Interesting comment in regards to bringing up the pipeline leak. Labour absolved the government of responsibility in regards to the pipeline when they privatized the pipeline. That is, Labour sold off the company that owns the pipeline. And now it is the current governments fault that there has been a break in the pipeline?

Sadly, more bias in "news" articles.

Hang on...don't you guys normally argue that privatisation is good?

Sounds like the government was warned about a break's impact back in 2012 and the back-up plan was for motorists to drive less...

Are you saying a government cannot actually ask any requirements or backup plans from a private supplier? In that case, why risk privatising prisons?

So, I'm *National*??? That is rather amusing. Another conflation...

When something becomes privatized, it is then the purview and responsibility of the entity that owns the item to define backup plans. To think otherwise invites the privatization of profits and socialization of losses.

The backup plans should have been strongly pursued by the entities most at risk, such as Auckland Airport, and the airlines that it services. When something becomes privatized, there should be appropriate regulations and requirements imposed *at the time of privatization*. It is quite obvious to the end user that there was a single point failure mode. I'd be rather confident that Auckland airport knows the source of their fuel. I'd be asking them as to what their backup plans are for this occurrence.

I'll add that placing the failure of a previous government that has long since been out of power onto the current government is another symptom of illogic. It seems that some people look for a rationale, any rationale, to dismiss a group that they hold in disfavor. This is called justification. This should be considered as being rational discourse.

You'll struggle to find a line where I identified you as National rather than referencing your track record of supporting them. Feel free to quote, but it looks like you've misread.

So we need more regulation, not less? Great. And regulations cannot change over time as risks are identified? This is...what... a made up rule? So National were powerless to take action in 2012 when the risk was highlighted?

It's a bit ambitious to try to cast everything back to a single party based on one's preference for their opposition when both parties have been involved, and it's absolutely an option for National to take action via means such as regulation.

Free pass for one, trying to blame the other for everything. Seems like a basic case of preference-driven standards, in the end.

In the end, I guess both the airport and the pipeline are private enterprises and as such it's ultimately up to them to manage what service they provide and to whom and when. The market will sort it out, of course ;-)

by RickStrauss | Mon, 18/09/2017 - 10:52

"Hang on...don't you guys normally argue that privatisation is good?"

by RickStrauss | Mon, 18/09/2017 - 11:15

"You'll struggle to find a line where I identified you as National rather than referencing your track record of supporting them. Feel free to quote, but it looks like you've misread."

The first quote links me rather strongly to National. I'm rather confident that the large majority of readers here would understand that National has privatized some public assets recently, and that other parties were not fully in agreement with that choice.

The single point failure risk of the pipeline was NOT first identified in 2012. To think this is to be wildly ignorant. The private entity Auckland Airport knows full well where their fuel supply comes from and that it is a single point of failure. This was certainly known when the pipe from Marsden Point was first laid down by a government enterprise. Any rational person would expect that this knowledge wasn't lost with time.

As to my political preferences, I've let it be known several times that I am in favor of a CGT, and also to have this CGT not have loopholes such as the family home. Okay, maybe with something like a 10 year bright line, I may be in favor of that... This is most certainly not a posture for National!

I do point out where I see bias, particularly when there is bias shown in a News article. If I were to see a bias that was in favor of National in a news article without an appropriate balance from the other perspective, I'd be pointing that out as well.

My argument about the pipeline is that finger pointing at National in isolation without any mention of the full facts of the case is clearly biased reporting. There are a few facts that suggest that the essential problem does not lie at the current governments feet. Personally, I'd not put the problem at the previous Labour governments feet (other than selling a rather important national asset). Auckland Airport, well, they do not get a free pass... I hope that this is costing them a LOT of money.

by RickStrauss | Mon, 18/09/2017 - 10:52

"Hang on...don't you guys normally argue that privatisation is good?"

by RickStrauss | Mon, 18/09/2017 - 11:15

"You'll struggle to find a line where I identified you as National rather than referencing your track record of supporting them. Feel free to quote, but it looks like you've misread."

Perhaps you were confused regarding the difference between being part of a party vs. being a supporter of a party? Where do I describe you as a part of member or employee of the National party rather than a supporter (based on your comments on this site)? This seems pretty a pretty clear and basic difference.

Neither did I saw the risk was FIRST identified in 2012 or only identified then. That's another error. I did not that it WAS identified to the current government in 2012, and their backup plan was for Kiwis to drive less. I merely highlighted that National had some responsibility TOO when this thread seemed to go straight back to the usual blaming of a party that hasn't been in power for nine years - a passing of the buck. We don't know that the same risk wasn't identified the first time around and the same back-up plan specified.

Yes. Let's agree that fault lies with both parties, yes. Labour should have required a risk management plan when it was privatised, and National when the risk was subsequently identified to them.

I'd recommend reading for comprehension on my comments and replying to the content included as opposed to implying content that is not there. As to my "support for National as based on prior comments on this site". Can you provide clear evidence of this support? BTW, I will derail one obvious conflation,pointing towards where I note a bias towards Labour is not evidence of support for National.

I'd recommend reading for comprehension on my comments and replying to the content included as opposed to implying content that is not there

That was my request also.

As to my "support for National as based on prior comments on this site". Can you provide clear evidence of this support?

Actually...I could go off and search for some...but I think I'll call mea culpa instead. I suspect you are right and my identification of you with the usual suspects was unfair and in error.

I withdraw and unreservedly apologise to you for conflating you with the hardcore supporters here. It was unjustified. (In my own defence, my original target was more around fans of privatisation of things in general - rather than members of a party or their votaries...however, I had no right to assume that of you either.)

I am more interested in fairness and the truth than winning imaginary points in an internet comment battle :-) And I do enjoy reading your comments here.

Apology accepted. I'm sure that I have misread things as well. Such is the annoyance of the medium.

As to privatization, I have to agree with your sentiments for essential services and services that require a large initial investment that have a public good (a dam for hydropower and flood control would be a good example) . There are many essential services that should be owned and controlled by the public. That said, despite my dislike of the various energy companies being sold off, I saw a good opportunity and bought into all three (I waited and bought Mighty River Power on the open market after the share price initially, the other two via the initial IPO). Might as well profit off of the governments stupidity... :)

Two questions for Ms Adern:
1. What is your stance on benefit fraud?
2. What is the status of the MOU with the Greens?

Feel free to draw your own conclusion on the linkage between these two questions.


"1. What is your stance on benefit fraud?"
Make sure you direct that one at Paula Bennett, also.

Do you have any evidence that Paula committed benefit fraud? I doubt it very much. You just don't like the tall poppy. I think she is awesome.

Do you think some people have less human rights than others too?

Paula Bennett comes across like she wants to rip your head off all while outwardly smiling. A not so secret repressed axe wielding maniac.

2. Is I think publically available info. The MOU still stands and still expires on election day.

Seriously ?

Thank goodness I dont own any residential investment property

Its amazing how the Greens think that Landlords who have risked their capital and exposed themselves to the vagaries of the housing market are perceived as cash cows .

The awful truth is that if you destroy those people providing rental stock , you will end up in a much worse place than we are in now , simply because the NZ Government cannot house everyone , it cannot be done .

Their eternal enemy is the petite bourgeoisie. There is a deep resentment with common folk getting a little comfortable. Mums and dads and P&T workers shouldn't be able to make capital gains on a rental property, it's not right.

Heh, nice caricature. It's concerning there are so many folk who really believe this though.

The awful truth is that if you destroy those people providing rental stock , you will end up in a much worse place than we are in now , simply because the NZ Government cannot house everyone , it cannot be done .

Not really. For example, speculating on house prices is not the "provision of rental stock". Most of the rental housing market is not owned wholly on the objective of "providing rental stock."

Also saying that the NZ govt cannot house everyone is completely wrong. Of course they can. They're not constrained by financial resources.

If there is a change of government on Saturday it's going to be a financial train wreck if the Left truly believe what you've written about Government having no financial contraints #puppiesfartingrainbows

If there is a change of government on Saturday it's going to be a financial train wreck if the Left truly believe what you've written about Government having no financial contraints #puppiesfartingrainbows

What I wrote has nothing to do with a change of govt. National or Labour could house the population of NZ if they so wished. There are no financial constraints. If you would like to suggest that the govt is constrained by financial resources, feel free to demonstrate why they are.

Read what I wrote. If the Left truly believe there are no financial contraints to housing everyone in New Zealand then it will be a financial train wreck. I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm saying it would be a financial train wreck.

Read what I wrote. If the Left truly believe there are no financial contraints to housing everyone in New Zealand then it will be a financial train wreck. I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm saying it would be a financial train wreck.

Saying something would be a "financial train wreck" simply because you may not like the color of the team is meaningless.'s like we have to ignore NZ's entire history of fostering affordable housing outcomes now to align with the way dyed-in-the-wool National voters insist on portraying a party that's actually expressed interest in beginning to address the housing crisis.

How do you progress in resolving problems?

Most people realise that the first step in solving a problem is admitting it exists. National's denial of the housing crisis precludes them from taking meaningful action to address it, as evidenced by their last nine years of inaction.

Rick, J.C ... hey, it looks like you guys have no idea of how the rental market works and what is the the real Gov capability of housing people ... you are just pulling BS out of thin air ... So stick to politics and stop embarrassing yourselves any further in a subject you have no skin in .... troll away

Hey Eco Bird...might wanna check out NZ's actual history rather than making up an alternative narrative that suits you. This book is quite digestible:

Why not also check out Germany's history too?

The German example especially will be a revelation to you in how the government can create the right policies to create desirable housing outcomes rather than a giant housing bubble as in NZ.

first forget about Germany and no one can dare comparing us with them .... so move on from useless narratives ...

second, after being in the rental business for this long, no such books or short stories will change what I see and hear first hand from fellow investors, RE agents, advisers, accountants, and lawyers we deal with almost everyday .... I have seen what is worse than could be described in a doco or a book .... there are cowboys and idiots in every industry giving it a bad look and name ... the majority of landlords are responsible business owners looking after their plant and customers ( like any other) .... and they are housing a big proportion of the NZ public ... forcing them ( some) out of business will exacerbate the housing issue - it is not only a matter of the Gov can or not house them, it is the matter of finding these resources to allocate them to a bigger hole than the health system .......Most of the current HNZ stock is old , dirty, mouldy and crap ... some need complete rebuilt and huge clean up investment ( Gov has started selling some to build better homes on the same land - but opposition use that as ammunition to fool people unfamiliar with details) ...

If the rental WOF is applied ...the Gov of the day needs to find few billions to tidy up its current STOCK .... which would be a good start - but there is no money for that ... and it will be a big ask!!

The Green party still think that money grows on trees, hence dishing around promises and other people's money like some greedy beggars suddenly handed power to rule !!
another example of no plan , no consequential studies, just emotional blackmail to harvest desperate votes ...

It takes more than a short book to get our heads around a very complicated issue !!

It's not constructive to seek to exclude real life examples from NZ and overseas history in order to try to back up your own point that "you guys have no idea of how the rental market works and what is the the real Gov capability of housing people". It's important we learn from actual history.

BTW, NZ's history is actually filled with some governments increasing social housing stock and others selling it off, in cycles. Ideological bents, etc.

Rick, J.C ... hey, it looks like you guys have no idea of how the rental market works and what is the the real Gon capability of housing people ... you are just pulling BS out of thin air ... So stick to politics and stop embarrassing yourselves any further in a subject you have no skin in .... troll away

Not talking about the rental market. The reality is that the govt has unlimited capacity to produce affordable housing. It is not constrained by budget or resources. The private sector is constrained, but the public sector (well the central government) is not.

The only good thing about the coming economic crash is that those benevolent slumlords will be out on their ear. Passive income was the road to ruin.

1) what economic crash
2) if there is an economic crash, we will ALL be hurting
3) why would passive income be the road to ruin

Because it requires the labour of someone else to provide it

1) theone thats baked in
2) Yip - thats why I said it was the ONLY good thing
3) Because its like ursary, its sets in place a debt call in the system...which permanently enforces a call/leverage on resources - that passive surplus has to come from somewhere ... and if you follow it through is why we have and are continuing to INCREASE our trashing of the environment. Its growth OR the environment.

lol, what do landlords have to do with the environment ?... I guess they are helping it by providing people with alternatives to deep holes !!

Its great when you get to dig those same holes though isn't it?

Passive income Eco bird.
All Debt = money =(what landlords are presumably paid in) = a call on energy resources.
As far as I'm aware Landlords do not exist outside of the environment.
IN the language you may understand ... its about leverage ... leverage on the envt.

Your Energy Cycle theory is becoming very hard and complicated to understand by most of us, I know that you keep relating everything to energy ... but just take it easy mate ... we know, you love energy preservation !!

the last thing leverage is related to is energy and environment ... maybe not in your books ! but we remain hopeful ..

ha - fair enough

Yvii - you may be interested in this article re anticipating the crash ... its nicely written

The inevitable answer to what ails us is, of course, DEFLATION! The author alludes to this in his responses to questions after the paper. It's a solution he dismisses but acknowledges as a possibility. And isn't this what the article is all about after all? What will 'get us' next time, that we don't expect? The answer is deflation.....

It would be disastrous if the actual houses were what stood to be destroyed

The houses don't disappear, just the rent seeking leeches attached to them.

Correct ... Well, chances are that Labour will be forced to buy them at market value to lodge the flood of renters protesting in the streets .... !!

Oh, BTW ...These rent seeking Leeches are housing the THIRD of the POPULATION !! in case you didn't know ... which I suspect you are one of these people !

You are quite simple aren't you.

Leeching from a third of the population. That's living dangerously in a democracy.

It's more than a third, it's over 40% for everyone, if you only count millennials who now out number boomers, then it's more like 60%.


The bless and the curse of western democracy is that a party or a group of parties will only look after a proportion of society in the short term by sacrificing long term benefit of the entire nation.

What's the difference between Western democracy and democracy?

Western Democracy otherwise known as Liberal Democracy.

Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism.

There could be many forms of democracy. The Chinese Communist government considers itself to be a form of democracy. Even Western Democracy doesn't have universal suffrage as people under 18 and, I think, the incarcerated have no voting rights.

Huh? So the Chinese people actually voted in the communist party?

Even dictatorships are a form of democracy.

The Chinese dictatorship just changed what the word democracy actually means (possibly a confusion in translation). That doesn't mean it is a form of democracy. They are a dictatorship.
I wish people would stop calling it Western democracy, as if it just another form of democracy.

Vote for change! Change from a steadily growing economy with low unemployment and steadily improving standard of living, to a broken economy with high tax, heavy borrowing, 70's style industrial relations problems and devastated productive industries. #Letsscrewthis

#Yeahlet'sscrewthisupcompletely - vote Labout/Greens

Funny how many of those self proclaimed "glass half full types" are now mired in their own deluded negativity as they come to terms with being on the wrong side of history.

Older and professionally and financially established people are far more able to weather a recession than young graduates. They are the ones who really miss out when the economy tanks under a tax-and-spend labour govt through not getting their first break, and missing out or falling behind on vital first few years of experience and income. But older people also have memories of bad times, care about the country and the young, and don't want to repeat the mistakes (in contrast from the younger vote for change crowd who don't have that experience to draw on - lambs being led to the slaughter by vote-yourself-rich policies of labour/greens).

Learn some economics and economics, and it will become quickly apparent just how bad things are going to get under the twin assaults of 70's industrial relations policy and tax-em-till-they-bleed and grow-the-government fiscal plan.

Older and professionally and financially established people are far more able to weather a recession than young graduates. They are the ones who really miss out when the economy tanks under a tax-and-spend labour govt through not getting their first break, and missing out or falling behind on vital first few years of experience and income

That doesn't make any sense. Taxes remove savings from the private sector while spending increases savings in the private sector. Whether or not you're a graduate is irrelevant. Yes, they're likely to have student loans to repay, but I believe that Labour's policy on student loan debt repayment is as accommodating as that of the existing govt.

Your shocking reply shows how shallow your economic evaluation is Mate ... and how this type of limited views could pull the whole country backwards ...

maybe it is time for you to listen to experience and read some history, I am sure that will widen your views .. or at least take your calculator out and reconcile you coming budget ....

Can someone get Eco Bird some valium, I think he's about to fall off his perch...

You forgot give us a spin past all the following National qualities

I thought real GDP was flat - how is that growth?

Don't question - just drink the Koolaid.

GDP growth is around 2-3% over last few years (last two quarters 0.4,0.5%)

Labour's fantasy fiscal plan requires 4.5% average annual GDP growth over next 3 years, something that has occurred once in last 40 years) and nearly 5% revenue growth per year average. And if you believe that lie, then you are truly deluded.

Its the Stephen Joyce Spin Fan Club !! rarara

Its the take a look at Labours fiscal forecast club. It speaks volumes to anyone even minimally numerate who isn't insanely partisan. Can you present any believable argument without invoking miracles as to why GDP growth would average 4.5% over next 3 years? or why govt earnings would increase at nearly 5% per year over same period?

It is a nullity, the fiscal forecast you present when you are pretending you have a viable plan, relaxed about lying, or just plain deluded

Sluggish, the data that Foyle has highlighted is accurate and factual. Your response gives me little hope in regards to having intelligent discussions about the actual issues instead of childish name calling. I had higher hopes for the people on this site. Maybe when the election is finished and the idiot rabid partisans retreat back to whatever cave they came from the discussions of the issues can resume.

Interesting data from the labour website. Comparing the various parties fiscal forecasts would make for a good technical analysis article on

"a broken economy with high tax, heavy borrowing, 70's style industrial relations problems and devastated productive industries"
That's weird, I don't remember that with the last Labour government. In fact there was a lot of growth, government debt paid off, and retirement savings. Scaremongering by any chance?

And a massive structural deficit at the end of their little party due to the explosion in spending promised without the means to pay for it. It took 6 years to return the economy to surplus after Labour's irresponsible blow-out.

"In the year ended June 2004, core Crown operating spending was about $35,800 per household in fiscal year 2013 dollars, yet the government still had a fiscal surplus of 3.8 per cent of GDP.

By the year ended June 2009, the government had lifted spending per household by 21 per cent to $43,400, in the same dollars, and there was a fiscal deficit of 2.1 per cent of GDP.

Electioneering spending enticements, such as interest-free student loans, Kiwisaver subsidies and working for families, were part of this spending transformation.

Despite recession and tax cuts, core Crown tax revenue in the year ended June 2009 was almost exactly the same, at $37,100 in fiscal year 2013 dollars, as in the year ended June 2004.

On these statistics, the switch from fiscal surplus to deficit between 2004 and 2009 was caused by an unsustainable spending splurge."

This "massive structural deficit" line from the NZ Initiative relies on a base assumption, however, that in today's light doesn't look that great. Especially with a few other facts taken into account.

Labour paid down debt significantly, without which National would not have had the room to borrow to cut taxes following the GFC. The June 2009 point is right in the aftermath of the GFC.

Both the NZ Initiative and National also favour as a general assumption here that less spending per household is always better. It was not Treasury, but rather John Key (from all sources I can find) who spread and popularised the line that NZ was "facing a decade of deficits".

National has notably also only reduced spending per household to around $41,700 per household, and is delivering poor outcomes in health (for example)...Which should lead most reasonable people to question the basic assumption that less is always better.

It's also pertinent that Labour was using some of that spending to try to address issues that were known to be heading toward NZ in the future, ones National has more or less kicked down the road for others to deal with. E.g. the Cullen Fund was set up with the express intent of addressing the demographic boomer timebomb hitting the pension, via pre-funding. National's eventual act when pushed? Instead, give the pension to all boomers at age 65, then reduce the entitlement for following generations...Another example of living at the expense of preceding and succeeding generations.

So you had paying down of debt and the pre-funding of the boomer Pension timebomb as two components of spending that was only $1,400 more per household per year than National are running under the banner of "sound fiscal management" while people are dying because there aren't enough beds in hospitals.

There needs to be a bit more put into questioning what is sound management than just a basic dollars per year spend, especially given the way the quality of some services seems to have been affected by National's frozen funding (recall the Police issue, where Judith Collins got to the point of calling Bill English out [Source])

For example, note from the article:

In a nutshell, the National-led governments will have achieved a fiscal surplus in 2014-5 after years of hard grind in holding down the growth in real spending, while population growth reduced real spending per capita and per household fractionally.

In so doing, it has preserved most of the increase in government spending per capita achieved by the Labour-led governments between 2004 and 2009.

This ongoing level of spending is much higher than would be necessary to fund the provision of current goods and services of a nature that only government can provide, such as immigration services, police, the courts, defence and public administration generally.

Notably absent in the NZ Initiative's list of what the government should be funding? Healthcare and education.

It comes down to asking what is really sound management? Reducing tax and running down public services - as we've seen over the last few terms till things get bad enough and complaints loud enough that budgets increase for these? Lowering taxes instead of providing to young Kiwis what was provided to your own generation? Only addressing the boomer pension timebomb by keeping the pension at 65 for them then upping the age for younger generations, instead of pre-funding using some of the wealth in the good times?

Lest we also forget, National has simply increased funding to the Accommodation Supplement and Working for Families ("communism by stealth", as they called it) because they haven't taken effective action on the housing crisis. Subsidising business owners and property investors rather than addressing the underlying issues.

Jimbo - do you remember the state of global economy during the last Labout Govt's term ? comparative boom times before the bust where even my wife couldn't spend all the tax take, especially when Cullen refused to adjust tax bands and give a little of the over-tax take back to the public - instead he and Helen set NZ up with massive contingent liabilities in their last term in their fraught attempts to stay in power. The test of financial skills is in the bust not the boom.

I think Peters will go with National now. TOP are dreamers, there is no chance that they will get 5%. But Gareth’s main goal is attention so I guess politics is perfect for him. However, he’s pathetic.

Gareth Morgan is "pathetic"? In terms of what? His career? Or his political vision?

Is this a troll?

His policies are pathetic. They are all academic and not thought out deeply. There are so many adverse effects from his policies that he hasn’t considered. Why didn’t he pay tax on the lump sum gains from his son’s trademe business back in 2006 if he was so dismayed? You can pay voluntary tax in NZ.

I don’t think anyone can argue that his main goal isn't self-attention. He doesn’t seem to realise that the vast majority of people think he is a goose and are sick of him.

OK, it looks like your emotional distaste. I take it that you think land tax is academic. Land tax does exist in the "real world." Or perhaps you want to argue that it hasn't been applied in NZ. That's the issue you face with any new change in taxation policy that is designed to change behavior.

I'd vote for TOP if it weren't for the 5% threshold. Catch-22.

I personally think that Gareth's motivations are altruistic. He is correct that the current system of taxation is unfair and should be changed. We can debate what those changes might be, TOP's wealth tax would be challenging to implement. The people who complain the most about are those with vested interests in the status quo.

I agree, SimonP. Yes, TOP's changes will be challenging to implement (viz Property King, above), but it's far better to confront these challenges than accept the fast-emerging social failures resulting from clinging to a keeled-over status quo.

A generation whose most noticeable contribution to life in this country has been bidding up house prices will find TOP's policy analysis and its policy pills hard to swallow. But the facts are plain. While home-owners, property investors and speculators congratulate themselves on their winnings from a skewed tax system, a generation of renters is consigned to dependence and insecurity, and growing numbers struggle to heat a caravan.

In my direct experience, TOP has inspired both more intelligent and less self-interested political discussion than any of the other parties. Regarding Gareth Morgan personally, I can think of only a handful of NZers who have given as much to deserving causes in this country and internationally. But presumably this makes him a tall poppy.


National are definitely focused on short-termism economically by rewarding un-productive rent seeking behavior rather than productivity. But whomever you think is better at handling the economy I have to say that voting National is very short term thinking if you care about NZ as a nation to hand to the next generation. If National win, and import more of the National leaning Asian vote ) we could end up like California which has been true blue ever since the amnesty act of 1986 . China knows that democracy is our weakness. There is no need for a war ships or fighter jets just print some money and come on in on China Southern Airlines. With so many of them we'll see an ethnic party spring up and an increase nepotism in the workplace. Kiwis will become second class citizens like the we're some kind of banana republic.


I reckon without the immigrant vote National would be obvious toast, maybe would have been in 2014 as well


I like to think I have my eyes open to these issues but every so often something comes out that surprises me. National party actually have a trained SPY in their ranks who lied about his background and National are fully okay with this. Unbelievable.

Maybe Boatman could explain how this is a good thing and we should vote for National.


Voting should be citizens only.

Should taxation also be for citizens only ?

Nope. There's nothing novel about requiring citizenship to vote.

So in NZ all the PRs can vote - this must be about 400,000+ PR people with no fixed allegiance to NZ - they may return to their country of origin, they have achieved PR via study+ job + living here for a year or 2 or buying a house or buying a business etc.
But they can vote to decide the Government of NZ.

Yep, pretty much.

Yep. I was a PR for 37 years before getting around to citizenship. Initially, the US didn't allow dual-citizenship (NZ always did) but the US changed its rules on that many years ago. Even so, given I was always able to vote as a Permanent Resident, I was just being a bit administratively lazy in not applying for NZ citizenship. I never had any intention to move back to the US.

Then my US passport was about to expire - so I finally decided to become a citizen given I'd lived here more of my life than I ever lived in the US. In other words, yes, this is where my loyalties lie.

I think its absolutely wrong to give PRs the vote - in fact because you have that right as a Permanent Resident it sort of serves to de-motivated PRs from seeking citizenship and (in doing so) declaring that loyalty.

PS - and although I could always vote here, in the old days (around the Muldoon era) I could not own land over (I think) 10 acres in size.

"they may return to their country of origin," - so can most of the "new" citizens .
On the other hand there are quite a few people here in the position Kate was until recently - cannot take up NZ citizenship without losing their original citizenship , live here for years/decades ; I think they should be able to vote.
Making NZ citizenship a pre-requisite for voting would in effect leave the countries of origin to decide who can vote and who cannot , depending on their dual citizenship laws. Seeing that NZ does not itself impose any limits on its citizens with respect to acquiring/keeping other passports it would seem a strange rule to have.

Not sure why China makes Kiwi NZ second class citizens? IS nepotism in the workplace so rare in NZ culture? You gotta be kidding me.

You know what will make Kiwi not only NZ but also World second class citizen in future. Below is an incomplete list of my observations:
1. close minded
2. refuse to accept new stuff
3. international isolation
4. fear competition and new ideas
5. POOR Education outputs resulting from POOR inputs
6. Not work/study hard
7. Blame government not parents when kids do not have nutritious lunch.

1. You mean like we don't have free speech and free press? Nope I think you mean China.
2. Not sure what "stuff" you are talking about?
3. NZ is an open economy that promotes free trade. Again I think you mean China.
4. As above, we promote free trade and getting rid of trade protectionism. For protectionism, look at China.
5. Given your history, I don't trust that you have used facts here.
6. You sound like a Chinese parent.
7. I'm glad to live in a country where criticising the government doesn't land you in jail (not like in China).

You sound like you lived in 1980 not 2017.

Your point 3 and 4 (3. NZ is an open economy that promotes free trade. Again I think you mean China.
4. As above, we promote free trade and getting rid of trade protectionism. For protectionism, look at China.) really amuse me!!!

You should substitute China by USA. Then, your points will be valid.


Enjoy 1980.

I notice that you do not defend your comments against NZ, and that you ignore my points 1 and 7.
Keep pretending to be open minded though.

People tends to be more objective if they have experience living in both countries. In the case, Xingmowang might be right.

Jian Yang has lived in both countries, so yeah no.

I don't know Yang's view regarding above argument but you can ask him about it.


I dont think the billshitter has any idea when he says the logic of the opposition is to slaughter all the cows and most of the urban population.

Have you heard of the 100% Pure campaign Bill?

Its what makes our dairy and tourism popular and as you well know its total BS.

Unfortunately its something we expect a govt to manage and after 9 years of dairy protection and unmitigated immigration NZ is stuffed and the usual BS provided by the govt doesn't cut it.

The world is cottoning on we are full of shite

I guess he was trying to kid townies into thinking that dairy cows lived out their lives in clover to keel over from old age, at the moment. Maybe what he should have said was that perhaps we could not replace the dairy cows we slaughter when their production drops

Al Jazeera - special investigation into NZ's environment is an eye opener, well, for those who believed the BS -


Al Jazerra also have a couple of documentaries on issues likely happening in NZ: (China's home invasion - focuses on property in Vancouver/Sydney/California) (Indian abuse culture in Australia)

There we have it, Al Jazeera have provided three reasons to vote anything but National:
- Environment is ruined
- Fake student immigration is a threat to our western values
- China buying NZ wholesale at the expense of young kiwis

I'd happily forgo $20 a week to stop this.


An excellent video, all NZ must see it - much more important than the feel good Country Calendar. Al Jazeera doing our investigative journalism - Fran O must be so proud.

Massive failure in public policy , team from OECD were told by the Min of Environment that Dr Mike Joy was unavailable, removable of Cant reg council, Nick Smith clearly lying in parliament, the list goes on....

Incorruptible NZ - Tui ad.

The world knows we are idiots.

Kiwis so dumb.


You guys don't really know who Al Jazeera is, and why they are so interested in Shitting all over us all of a sudden ??.... maybe you will change your mind pushing around this kind of BS when you know who they really are !! and to what purpose they are doing this - certainly not that they are the environment angels !!

Ironically, most of you complain about MSM and the damage it does, while you fall for some crap that might suit your present political views and interests....

So, it's not true?
Just scaremongering?

Do tell us, wise Eco Owl

I know they are a Qutar state run media company. So what? If these documentaries were focused on middle eastern issues I'd be suspicious but I don't see what interest Qutar has in our rivers or internal affairs.

It's a fact that Chinese buy a lot of property, Indian culture is brutal to women, and our rivers are filthy.

Solidname, thanks very much for the link. I'd seen the trailer advertised on the channel but had forgotten about it since. Has Part 2 been released? I looked on the web page but saw no link.

I've followed both the ECan and the HBRC events very closely over the years (as well as the related RMA decision-making processes and the appeals etc.) - and that is one of the best summaries I could ever imagine might be put together.

That channel is the best news/documentary channel we've ever come across - and it's on Freeview - so all NZers can access it.

Off topic soz. Who saw The Block auction last night? Turns out the phone bidder was an actor planted in the crowd!!

Was that the European guy with a phone stapled to his ear.

He certainly stood out amongst that crowd of Asian faces.


Yeah that guy.

And just because every property was purchased by buyers of Chinese heritage doesn't mean doesn't mean that........I mean........we shouldn't assume that.......hmmm........

No but, but no um, well yes but...

How about those All blacks?

Rubbish, the National party told us that foreign buyers account for less than three percent of the market.


Mate - the lies have become so everyday they've become desensitized


I think John Key has an element of responsibility to play in this - he made 'deception' cool and now the average kiwi thinks its ok.....

Deception? Deception?

Remember John Key being interviewed By David Sakur on BBC UK Hard Talk programme about 100% Pure Green crystal clear waterways

Gotta have a look at this Al Jazeera documentary
(I got that from those links upthread)

And in the first few minutes Brother Doctor Nikolai Smith of Nelson spinning that the pollution is from 100 years ago

Nikolai should have told John

I.e. when he started a sentence with 'at the end of the day' more often or not you had to put on a filter to actually understand what was going on...(his point would often be the opposite of the truth)

Master of platitudes.

Love it - Nick Smith: 'yes NZ does have fresh water challenges'.......

It looks like all of the 3% were there at the auction.

Northcote:- of course all the buyers were going to be Phil Twyford's Asian list names - had to be

It was very typical of the auctions I have attended recently. There has always been someone on the phone but they never seemed to actually bid, almost as if it is theatre. The auctions stall and there is a lot of pressure put on the vendors and real bidders. It is quite tedious however The Block auctions weren't a disaster for the real sellers as they got a 100% sales rate. A bit of a disaster for the renovators but only because the sellers demanded a handsome profit for themselves I suspect.

Those houses sold for a fair price considering their style and location. Any value added by the renovators was fairly superficial and a massive price increase because of their work was rather too optimistic. Buyers are more realistic these days.

Perhaps he was the token Kiwi looking bidder inserted in an attempt to show balance?

I'm sure you are half joking.. but... :/

Indeed...that's pretty epic.

He's absolutely fair in calling out all the culprits too - National, the previous Labour government, and the council.

What's needed now is people who will accept that a crisis exists and are willing to take some meaningful action to address it. There will be no quick fixes (lest some muppet will parrot "Labour can't fix things overnight!"), but for there to be a start at fixing things require acknowledgement that there's a problem.

The previous Labour Government did allow housing costs to start rising, but it was the 9 years of National that allowed housing to become the crises it now is.

Labour also introduced the investor category for immigrants as well, however, it did not initially include purchasing of residential real estate at the time. In 2011 the Nats changed the rule to include residential housing and I reckon that is about when it went ballistic.

Indeed. And National said they'd identified the crisis and campaigned on the need to urgently address it...Nine years later, there's no crisis and there never has been since they got it. Bizarre...What kind of newspeak is required in this universe?

Plenty of cheap apartments in Auckland that can house Teachers, but if your after a free standing house in inner city Auckland unless you are flatting, then vote labour and in 3 years and 10 years time you still will be flatting in a inner city house or living in an apartment like the rest of the world. Duncan garner shows his credentials in the understanding of property value and would like to see the size of his free standing home in London if he was offered a media job there.

Plenty of houses in Auckland that could house kiwis. Vote National and in 10 years time you'll have no kiwi neighbours left.

Yes a foreign stamp duty is inevitable and does make sense, but will make diddle squat difference to the value of a home on the isthmus. Even banning them outright will not see house prices going down, they account for under 5% of sales at best.

How many times do we have to go over this. LINZ, on the release of data about foreign buyers told us quite clearly that their numbers were not to be taken as comprehensive, there was up to 30% of buyers who were not identifiable.
Also remember that in Canada and Australia they count those on student and work visas and trusts as foreign, but we do not, the number is more likely to be north of 10% and I suspect it may be well north. They are gone now, and the market has stalled, kind of how a roller coaster almost does when it reaches the top just before hurtling down the other side.

Yet still they are not there.

The only way to make it work is stamp duty for everyone, to foreigners only makes to many loop holes, Uncle this, student that etc

Stamp duties punish anyone who needs to move for jobs or education. They are a terrible idea as they ultimately just result in longer commutes and more renting/less owning - like in the UK.

and AUS

The idea is to get rid of foreign buyers (or at least not let them back in should the Chinese govt decide to allow capital flight again) so whatever measure is applied does actually need to single them out. Perhaps total confiscation could be the consequence of cheating

The National Govt sacrificed Auckland in return for exports to China.
It was Labour and Phil Goff who signed this FTA however National are complicit by not doing anything to alter the agreement. So both are guilty of selling us out.

Again, this is how it went
The fta signed with China by Labour allowed for govts to be able to change the laws around foreign ownership. The problem arose when National signed the fta with South Korea which absolutely did not allow future governments to ban foreign ownership so that once that deal was done, the same conditions had to go to China, then the TPPA and any other agreements we might sign with anybody else.

More sharp divisions on the left. Shaw wants a CGT, captain caller publicly slaps him down. Although who knows, she may yet be forced into another embarrassing flip flop if the greens throw a hissy fit over this.

One of the side benefits of NZ voting in a bunch of inexperienced urban lefties, will be more of this entertaining hair pulling as they come up against green hard line marxist ideology.

Given the greens are opposed to technological progress such as aircraft, is it possible they got Russ Norman out with a digger to do the biz?

They are different parties, they are entitled to have different policies, kind of like the Nats and NZF on immigration and foreigners buying land here, innit? Negotiation will be the key.

Nats and NZF are not parties to an MoU .

And those Marxist policies are?

I suppose it's an improvement in a way to widen the vocabulary of the pejoratives though, so plus marks or should I say Marx (ho ho ho) for that.

Yep, points in for your dad joke, not bad.

Centrally planned and controlled economy, confiscation of wealth from the kulaks, etc etc. The parallels are there to a sufficient extent for the label to not be pejorative.

Do you check for monsters under your bed before you jump into it at night?

No. I read history and learn from it. The Greens used to be an environmental party but their agenda has been captured by political ideologists.

Yep, monsters under the bed, alright.

Those who won't learn from the past (ie seemingly nearly 50% of NZ voters) are condemned to repeat it.

Lol. All politicians of every stripe are political ideologists, otherwise they would run as independents, not join parties. The term ideology has become a proxy word used by people to describe principles that politicians espouse which they don't agree with.

and environmental bankruptcy ...they discovered that it is best to harvest votes from the Poor using emotional blackmail'...

I thank you, appreciation of a terrible Dad joke is always admirable. My best dad joke was when I was driving along, a nun dressed in her full regalia decides to step out in front of the car "Hope she doesn't make a habit of that" quips I, cue much mirth and amusement from me, groans and "shut up dad, you're not funny" from my captive audience.

Back on topic, the Greens are a social democratic party, I'm not entirely sure where they advocate for confiscation of wealth - I assume you're talking about taxes and in particular a CGT? I struggle to see why this is such a horrendous idea, tax is paid on income, capital gains is a source of income.

Controlling the means of production was a central theme of Marxism, again there's not too much of that in the agenda -

Last time I looked Winnie wasn't inside Nationals tent. Have I missed something ?

Yes, you have missed that are going to have to be if Nats want to govern, should it look like they could.

The context of your response was the here and now, not a future speculative possibility. Your comparison is therefore not applicable.

Picky, picky. The MOU between Greens and Labour runs out on Saturday night, so they are then in the same position.

But Shaw is saying a CGT will be a key demand in alliance negotiations with Labour. He's made that very clear. Either he will have to be a pussy and back down or Ardern will. It's called uncertainty.

So what? You are reading more into this than you need to, but go ahead, your scaremongering is actually quite entertaining.

Fact, not scaremongering:

'The Green Party wants a capital gains tax in the NEXT TERM of Government and will put that on the table in coalition negotiations with Labour, leader James Shaw says'.

Again, so what. Don't vote for them, then.

There is no realistic chance of a Labour govt without the Greens. There is no realistic chance of a National govt with the Greens. Labour means CGT (cos they are obviously itching to do it, just need the excuse the Greens would bring).

They will certainly extend the bright line test out to 5 years, excellent, and that will be compromise for the Greens

just some propaganda

There must be a lot on here that would be lovely at a BBQ coming into a election. On average there isn't that much differents between parties. Small plus and minuses here and there. You might win a little here but loose there. Some need a life

Less than 20% of farms will be affected by Labours plans - scaremongering bill?

"Dairy NZ states there are 12,000 dairy herds in New Zealand and collectively they consume 4.8 billion cubic metres of water"

"Using Dairy NZ numbers, economist Peter Fraser and agricultural consultant Dr Alison Dewes calculate the water consumption of New Zealand dairy farms is equivalent to the residential use of 60 million people."

"This is on top of the often quoted figure that New Zealand's dairy herd has the environmental footprint equivalent to 90 million people."

"However, in terms of water use, not all farms are created equal - as 10,000 dairy farms do not irrigate at all. As a result, they account for only three percent of the 4.8 billion cubic metre number, which implies the 2,000 irrigated dairy farms use the other 97%, which is 4.65 billion cubic metres."

"The bottom-line is Dairy NZ's numbers suggest fewer than 20 percent of dairy farms are using over 95 percent of the water - and that hardly looks like a random walk" Mr Fraser said.

"The implication is if a water royalty was imposed on irrigators then over 80 percent of dairy farmers will be unaffected" Mr Fraser said.

However, this message is not getting through to farmers.

"As illustrated by the farmer protest scheduled this week for Morrinsville, it is clear many farmers are being unduly worried by baseless scaremongering - especially as Morrinsville is hardly 'ground zero' for irrigated dairying."

"I therefore concur with the analysis undertaken by Radio NZ and the University of Auckland Public Policy Institute that irrigated dairy farms will face an annual bill of around $14,000 if a two cent per cubic metre water royalty was imposed - indeed, I calculate most of these farms will be paying between $10-15,000 each, which is nothing like the $50-100,000 claimed by the National Party.”

Who said that farmers weren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, Bill has them hoodwinked once again.

Indeed...concerning we're seeing outright dishonesty being resorted to so often in this election. It's like living in the Third World again (or maybe the USA?).

Any comments Middleman - these are independent numbers?

..or do you belong to the Steve Joyce School of Made up Mathematics?

IrrigationNZ, who uses some actual data says differently - remember not all irrigators are dairy farmers:

IrrigationNZ have assumed a typical irrigated farm in Canterbury of 220 hectares not a national average. Rule #1 of a successful lobby group, tweak the assumptions to make things look in your favour as possible. I wonder how much their "typical" farm spends on water reticulation every year and also how much capital gain is acquired when a water consent is granted.

Irrigation NZ has skin in the game, its hard to see where Radio NZ and the University have the same skin.

The farmer's placard in Morrinsville today say's it all to Labour:
" Don't bite the hands that feed you "
say no more !!


More like a petty communist , without any real courage of convictions . Real communists do not flip flop .

I saw the same guy holding one that said "Bring back Buck and Winston" :-).


National are running NZ like DickSmith retail store. Quietly strip the inventory. Import some cheap staff. Sell sell sell and sneak off to Hawaii before it crashes.

More polarisation in this election than ever. Wonder how the deal making will be done after the MPs are sworn in after 24th September. A stand still government for 3 years, any one ?

that is the danger in waging wars and driving social and industrial divides and wedges ...
No one benefits from it ..and might stay long after the stupid polys are gone ...
Let's NOT Do this ....

It's going to need to dedication even from the haves to starting to take action on the housing crisis. I'd doubt there's any other way. So long as things remain selfishly unbalanced I'd doubt it can be avoided completely...I reckon the anger will grow.

I actually started feeling that everything is being hung on the housing issue willy nilly and is now being used for an excuse for everything - and that we all know , is not true .. I mean not that half the people are homeless or anything -- exaggerating a problem and blowing it out of its context and proportion is no more than cheap political stance ... just like the Air fuel pipe story ... however, all this toxic cloud will be gone by Sunday and housing will be hardly mentioned for few months ...

Could be. Could also be that for those it affects positively (increased wealth), it's a minor footnote. But for the young Kiwis it's affecting negatively, it's massive. There's definitely a lot of anger growing over it.

there is definitely a selfish wicked crowed that is after growing and fueling this anger ... let us not fool ourselves and get carried away with this dirty narrative ... it will be all over dover in few days ...nothing will change and the polys will walk away .. and start looking for excuses ... and hopefully that anger will subside ....

Unfortunately I don't think you're right, it really is a bubbling anger, that's set to boil over, and unless something is done sooner, rather than later, then it will get worse.

The millennials out number boomers, they have every reason why they should give you a proverbial kicking at the polls, having got everything your way for 30 - 40 years the pendulum has swung the other way.

I've said it before you lot had better hope the millennials are kinder to you than you have been to them.

The millennials are our children. Mine have already worked out who gets what when we cark it. They'll defend their inheritances.

Ok so landlords are roughly 5% of the population, you have looked after yours.

My poor maths works out that if 60% of people own homes, 40% of people don't.

If 5% are landlords owning multiple properties that means 55% of the population own one house. 185,000 people live in HNZ housing according to their site, again roughly 5% of the population and that includes kids as well.

My bad maths makes that 5% of the population "own" 35% of the housing stock (probably more if you take into account kids living in HNZ housing) - in a democracy what do you think could happen there?


@ solidname .... Well, I think I am right , and as long as some idiots encourage them to do so and use the same stupid language as you just did , then there is little hope !!... but I still think you are in the minority .......
get some mouth wash mate ..!! maybe a bit of turbs will do it ...

Of course you think you're right it would be uncomfortable for you to think otherwise. I'm not entirely sure what the mouthwash reference is about, and I'm not sure but I think you're talking about Turps, when you say turbs, but again that makes no sense either. That aside I'm sure you think you're making a great point, and your attempt at an insult passes for witty repartee in the Ecobird household.

The anger can't subside if promises made are not kept. The election ad says "houses for all". That's unequivocal. If you don't front up with a house for everyone there will be trouble. I doubt they will make any real progress but they'll come up with excuses. More pointing at Boomers on single house sites as the problem.

Which ad is this? They have an ad promising "housing for all"?

Radio ad heard on the Mix. "Better healthcare, better schools, better transport, cleaner rivers and homes for all."

I reckon John Steinbeck could claim copyright infringement as it sounds like the end of Mice and men

OK. Yeah. We're gonna get a little place and we're gonna...

- We're gonna... - ..have...

We're gonna have a cow, and some pigs, and we're gonna have maybe a chicken.

- Down in the flat, we'lI have a... - Field of alfalfa for the rabbits.

- For the rabbits... - And I get to tend the rabbits.

That didn't end well for Lennie. He certainly never got to tend the rabbits.

Blimey that's a bold statement, just seen it on FB too. I'm assuming they're talking about getting people off the streets as opposed to everyone in their own "owned" homes? Even in my most ideological moments I know that's not possible :)

Talking of Steinbeck, Grapes of Wrath is quite apt too...

Tom Joad is a poster here. You'd think the narrative would have changed after 80 odd years. Bring back the Waltons and make it compulsory viewing.

This is not the most sensible assumption. There's a big difference between denial of any housing crisis existing, and a willingness to acknowledge it and start action to address it. Any willing politicians would simply need to highlight how much of a problem there is and how difficult it will be to fix - it's already being discussed in terms of a problem that will take a generation to fix.

But denying it for longer won't help fix it. Only in a parallel universe is denying a problem better than making a start on fixing it.

This election has been like having the drunk in-law to Christmas dinner. He drinks you dry, scoffs the trifle, fills his pockets with chocolate balls then proceeds to tells you how much he hate rich pricks like you, because you only got there by ripping off the proletariat like him. Once you've got his drunken butt off your property you tell your wife that he's not welcome back at your house, ever, no matter how much lipstick he wears. The wealth based divide in Society will not heal after this. The fences will get higher, more gates will be installed. Farmers won't let people pass over their land. Plenty of places overseas have gone this way and there's no reason New Zealand won't follow.

well put ... and totally agreed , that is what most of us (wise) are afraid of ... we dont want this to happen .. we are all being used cheaply by the polys ...
screw them !! I say

Labour seem to have all the classic bleeding heart intensions; houses for everyone, save the children, save the rivers, give more money to the poor, free education (isn't it already?) but OK.. but zero plausible plan to afford it all. Unfortunately for us we have front row seats to this train wreck once labour gets voted in. Luckily we have another chance in 3 years to get the right people back to fix things. Wanting change? You'll certainly get it. Won't be what you're promised though.

I am think you are 100% right ....

Lofty goals, eh? At least they have them. Old saw - every journey starts with the first step

The train wreck has been set up by a decade of indulging and encouraging a property and immigration ponzi, the creation of vast amounts of debt and little underlying economic and real wage growth. Many are now predicting the train wreck (even globally, for similar reasons) and they could well be right. Sure, there will be some who seek to blame everything on the election of their most-loathed politicians - and in that regard, it'd likely be more just for National to be in power when their ponzi falls over - but that's a bit of cheap opportunism, really.

Ponzi. Word that gets flung around here like skittles. Have you not noticed property investment and foreign home ownership is not a "problem" endemic to NZ? Has occurred globally like next big trend. So sorry how has that been all Nationals doing? Prices in NZ & AKL in particular have just caught up. Average price of a home in a nations biggest city of $500k is a joke. NZ is not a country bumpkin 7th state of Australia anymore and yep, with that comes investment.

There are many more measures used in housing than simply "Is Auckland catching up with Vancouver and Sydney?" And many more sensible ones.

Things are way out of kilter:

The only folk you'll really find who think this is the "new normal" or invulnerable to usual economics are those heavily financially and emotionally invested in it.

And Canada, the UK and Australia have put measures in place to combat either both or one of the sources of indignation - preventative measures on overseas buyers and/or removal of preferential treatment of landlords.

"sources of indignation" is very accurate - they are not really "sources of the problem".
Foreign ownership is really a small ( but annoying for some .. ) factor ; preferential treatment of landlords simply does not exist .
Twin elephants in that room - land use regulation and sustained low interest rates .
Until something changes on either for both electing another set of politicians is neither here no there .

Low interest rates has definitely been a key driver. They also have a knock on effect - foreign buyers have been a big influence, not solely because of the number (which I'd wager was significantly higher than is being reported), they've also been able to access even lower rates than in NZ and have been an encouragement factor. Low interest rates has allowed boomers to leverage equity on their existing homes to buy further properties, increasing the number of buy-to-letters in market. I'd say they're all very intertwined, almost like the myriad of cables that you plug into your devices neatly, only to find a minute late what looks like a giant hamster has made a nest in them, and you're buggered if you can untangle them.

edit - I'd also say no capital gains, negative gearing are all advantage landlords.

"foreign buyers .. which I'd wager was significantly higher than is being reported" - could you elaborate on that ?
Why do you think the real numbers are higher than those reported ? That would imply some foreign purchases avoid being reported as such - how ?
I note that if you mean purchases by residents on behalf of non-residents those are going to be difficult to stop with any prospective ban .
I give more credence to the line of argument that despite the numbers of foreign buyers being low they have a disproportional impact on the prices ( plausible ..but impossible to measure .. ) . Again , any ban would not be water -tight so it would struggle to address this effect .

Rick, I think the reason that NZ has the highest house price/income ratio is we're a small country, just a few overseas buyers could have a bigger effect. So banning foreigner buyers may help a little bit.

Ponzi. Word that gets flung around here like skittles. Have you not noticed property investment and foreign home ownership is not a "problem" endemic to NZ? Has occurred globally like next big trend. So sorry how has that been all Nationals doing? Prices in NZ & AKL in particular have just caught up. Average price of a home in a nations biggest city of $500k is a joke. NZ is not a country bumpkin 7th state of Australia anymore and yep, with that comes investment.

You mentioned that.

@propertyminx it's true that the house prices in NZ's major cities are not expensive compared with other big cities in the world. The 'caught up' property prices in NZ are actually good things to Kiwis who have already owned their home or had investment properties. Our hardworking kiwis could enjoy a better retirement once they sell them later on, or invest in business using the capital gains etc. But the problem is for those who haven't bought their home. It's not just a headache issue for NZ right now. I think except for CGT and land tax, can we also consider heavy stamp duties for foreign buyers if not banning them. But all the money government collected should help first home buyers rather than expensive free tertiary education etc.

The value of a house only matters to those who need to live in them, where they are, and if they can earn enough to do so. The value of houses is irrelevant to anyone else or should be, so the more that investing in residential property can be crushed, then the more likely people can afford houses where they live. Whatever it takes to achieve that is probably good.

Gee - in one of the links in there - you find this statement about the rate of effluent compliance on Waikato farms:

Of those farms, 23 per cent achieved full compliance, 2 per cent had a high level of compliance, 43 per cent were provisionally compliant, 24 per cent were partially compliant and 9 per cent were significantly non-compliant.

Less than 25% were actually fully law abiding, i.e., fully compliant.

We live in a shithole.

Yet the Waikato council says they "are heading in the right direction" WTF?

For those who want the truth about the NZ environment look at the link below, for those who prefer the head in the sand approach - don't.

Heres a thought on yesterdays rent a mob protest by the cockies - they were actually protesting for a dirtier NZ.
Sharpest knife/drawer!

Way to go team and keep up the sexism attacks on Labour's female leaders that were started by the billshitters "mad cow" and "ditch the bitch"