National Party leader Christopher Luxon was sworn in as Prime Minister on Monday morning, starting the clock on the first 100 days of his coalition government.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins formally resigned earlier, clearing the path for the new government to take over and begin delivering on its campaign promises.
Once sworn in, Luxon and the Governor-General together appointed 27 other Ministers and two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries from across the National, Act and NZ First parties.
Each support party has secured three Ministers inside Cabinet, as well as some more junior roles, which has inflated the size of the executive council slightly.
Luxon will hold Cabinet meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday to agree to National’s 100 day plan with some modifications due to coalition agreements.
He said the top priority for the incoming Government was to “fix the economy” in an effort to slow the rate of inflation and bring down the cost of living.
“That does mean a series of things, making sure we are generating savings out of the public service and that government spending is prudent. But equally, doing things like making sure we get the Reserve Bank focused on a single target,” he told reporters.
National’s 100 day plan includes introducing legislation to remove supporting maximum sustainable employment from the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy mandate, leaving just its inflation target.
This was also included in the coalition agreement with the Act Party, alongside a promise to seek advice on three other policy adjustments.
The Reserve Bank is currently tasked with keeping inflation between 1% and 3% in the “medium term”, but the new government will seek advice on giving it a more specific time target.
It will also get advice on removing the Treasury observer from the Monetary Policy Committee and even returning to an old model where the bank’s Governor was the sole decision maker.
Stephen Toplis, head of research at BNZ, said employment and inflation were “inextricably linked” and removing the dual mandate would make “very little difference” to policy.
Toplis said BNZ’s research team had mixed feelings about giving the central bank a specific timeframe to achieve the inflation target. A short time limit might result in an unwelcome increase in volatility, and a long time limit would be no different from the status quo.
“We should repeat our strong view that inflation targeting is crucial but so too is flexibility. In that regard we are strong believers in being able to use the full width of the target band," Toplis said.
Other economic policies proposed in the 100 day plan mostly include overturning Labour-era policies.
These include the Auckland regional fuel tax, the Clean Car Discount, repealing the Fair Pay Agreement legislation, and restoring 90-day trial periods for big businesses.
National also intends to push through public spending cuts during this time. Public sector chief executives will be told to slash contractor spending and reduce their budgets by 6.5%.
Act’s coalition agreement co-signed this last agenda item but suggested it could go further with a reference to the increase in staff numbers since 2017.
The coalition agreements require both Act and NZ First to support National’s pledge card, fiscal plan, tax plan, 100 day plan, and its 100 point economic plan — with some exemptions.
For example, the taxpayers receipt will not go ahead and councils wanting to use the medium density residential standards will be required to hold a vote. Both are Act Party adjustments.
NZ First put the kibosh on allowing foreign buyers back in the housing market as a way to fund income tax cuts.
Tax cuts are not included in the 100-day plan and would likely be introduced as part of the May budget next year and come into effect in July.
The coalition agreements, while endorsing National’s 100 day plan, also require the government to form a “jointly agreed 100 day plan” based on all three parties' priorities.
105 Comments
Yep, the local government sector is imploding before our eyes as they all get underway with Long-term Plan development. Nearly everyone of them getting a credit downgrade, thus facing higher debt servicing costs.
ACT suggested GST-sharing - which I think needs to happen under-urgency, and they ought to also include in that legislation a change to depreciation rules for LG as well. It's a crisis out there and most councils seem to have only one idea about cost cutting; that being redundancies - and that isn't getting them anywhere near enough to avoid double-digit rates increases.
If central government want to reduce the cost of living - they need to give local government the ability to reduce rates, or at least cap increases to no greater than the rate of inflation.
Private insurance cover is going through the roof as well. Another matter that requires legislation under-urgency.
And there really isn't time for ACT to fluff around on regulations - again, needs urgent attention to improve productivity. They are going to need an all hands-to-the-pump approach, and instead they're going to spend all the top brass' time and energy on directing the headcount- downsizing. Counter productive to my mind. If there are public servants out there doing stuff that doesn't need to be done - then get them doing stuff that does need to be done! It's not like there is a lack of it at the moment.
The Local Govt Act needs to be repealed & replaced. The 2002 revisionism permitted councils far too much about councils pet projects & feelz without the priority obligation to ensure basic infrastructure was provided & maintained.
If you really want Local Govt fixed properly then only ratepayers should be able to vote.
Would tenants which includes me, get no say. In that case, when the landlord asks to put the rent up because of increased costs like higher rates I will tell them no.
However if only property owners vote there might be more decent city councillors than the likes of Tori and her nutters
But GST sharing means less GST revenue for central government to keep and use. So good-ish for local government, but it makes things harder for central government.
Seems like zero-sum game to me.
And then Nact is going to free up greenfield development. And while the developer might pay for immediate infrastructure in the development, they won’t pay anything for the flow on effects on wider council infrastructure. Which means more debt for council to incur.
Not zero-sum in that interest charged on LG debt/borrowing is at a higher rate than central government. And local government must write a balanced budget - whereas central government can run deficits. In other words, local government must set rates annually that equate to their full expenditure plan for the year.
That's why rates go up and up well beyond inflation - when they re-value their assets, depreciation increases and (like depreciation) their capex/infrastructure interest on borrowing must be recovered in full in rates bills.
And most of them are already at or nearing their debt limits.
Plus, many of their expenditures are to fund democracy (council meetings, public consultation, information provision, legal/expert opinion) - which to the end-consumer (ratepayers) should be zero-rated for GST in my opinion. GST on those activities is like a tax on a tax collected to administer democracy. Fair enough to be charged GST on their services (rubbish collection, sewerage and water reticulation), but democratic administration, no.
Not only is debt huge in LG, but even worse the thing I feel really bad about is that, there has never been/ is/ and never will be any plan to pay down debt like a person paying off their mortgage would have.
It comes down to the Councils saying that they had a "lazy balance sheet". So debt was loaded upon debt. And oops, cost of debt has gone up. There are all these hugely costly vanity projects which do not make the Council any money. Complete financial disasters all over NZ.
While you have some fair points (some spending has certainly been wasteful), there are a number of things that are a challenge to councils:
- the political economy of setting rates. Very hard to increase significantly in accordance with investment required - and then the problems snowball
- the issue I mention below with unplanned greenfield developments getting through the environment court, despite council opposition, and either lumping councils with the need for a whole lot more debt, and/or cancelling planned investments in existing communities
- rampant immigration, through policy set by central government that councils have no control over
To be fair, the last two items there are related. Unplanned greenfields development occur because councils don't plan enough capacity to meet demand. It's not really their fault though, most of them use stats population projections (with some minor adjustments for the councils large enough to afford to hire someone to make them) to forecast demand.
The problem is stats methodology pays far too much attention to long run trends and not enough to current government immigration policy. Leads to persistent undershooting of projections vs actual growth -> shortage of housing in plan -> unplanned development gets the tick in environment court.
Ultimately in the end we have a planning and local government system set up to accommodate low growth, while central government pushes for high growth. The inevitable shortage of housing and infrastructure, and high debt levels for councils are the natural result. Especially once you give them scope to piss what little money they have up the wall on pet projects!
So you would disagree with the councillor in Christchurch who asked how can you possibly spend $1.4 mill on a street busker event of four days or perhaps then go on to applaud $18mill on a 800metre walkway equating to $22,500 per metre and still counting, providing little more than what was there before but removing the ability for locals to fish as they had been doing for 150 years or so. Wish Andrew was still around on here to over match that with the similar squandering that has crippled Tauranga.
I would have to have the full details to decide. If the busker event drew in thousands of tourists it may have been worthwhile for businesses that pay rates too (for them events are a basic requirement of council). $22000 per metre is nothing these days, the East West link National want to build costs more than $1 million per metre.
Get real. You are comparing a pedestrian stretch for maybe at the most 500 people a day and a construction in appearance little more aesthetic than a Kansas stockyard.And then go and talk to the folk further north near the coast who still need to zig zag down their streets to avoid the pot holes and resort to portoloos because their streets sewage repair is still in the too hard basket.
I can never understand the 'build back better' mantra where community facilities are concerned. Like for like - unless some new functionality based on updated regulation (eg,, more accessible, more earthquake resistant) is required.
Council's seem to add more bells and whistles based on economic development (i.e., competition with the other main centers). It's like they are all trying to keep up with the Jones' - as opposed to simply meet a real, present need.
And don’t mention the international wide bodied jet airport 4 hours drive from the CCC catchment and in defiance of the CCC trumpeted climate emergency and then ask the CCC if they are so cash rich when exactly can the hard pressed rate payers expect some sort of dividend from this venture.
Drove from Chch to QT via that proposed site recently. My only guess could be that they want to take business away from Queenstown's Airport? The old competition with the other main centers mantra - at a cost to ratepayers. That said, QT is so congested these days - and I did wonder whether there might be some speculative land investment going on in Tekapo and surrounds by well known Cantabrians with CCC/EC influence?
Well yes it just accommodated in the overall $2.3 bill debt of the Christchurch City Holdings isn’t it And let’s not think then even about the $2.7 billion debt of the City Council itself.Anybody want to hazard a guess as to when the airport will actually get built, and because 100% of the money for that will need to be borrowed as well, when the debt and interest thereof is repaid and the rate payers commence getting some dividends.
Local government cuts are going to have a big effect on unemployment. Looking over the notes from Hamilton City Council where I live, the list of things being pulled back on is detailed and expensive. Things like street sweeping, tree pruning, pool operations, etc, all of which involve contractors or employees. On top of this you have earthquake issues, massive road maintenance costs, etc. Just a sh*t show all around and I think our local government situation will end up being a drag on the country for decades to come.
New Government is a glitter-coated turd. 💩
It shows no respect for public health - the health of our communities.
It’s encouragement of tobacco products and smoking 🚬 is downright short-sighted stupidity. Seymour, in particular, is a menace to health policy. A plonker if ever there was.
TTP
Is smoking a matter of personal responsibility or a public issue? It does cost society by inflicting random health issues on mainly middle aged and elderly but those costs are covered by the tobacco taxes. If it is as evil as burglary or speeding then make it illegal otherwise let the individual decide.
It's as much as matter of personal responsibility as heroin or meth. Why the distinction. Well because the tobacco lobby (Chris Bishop's old job) pays the right wing parties to promote it.
We're getting slaughtered in the international news on this. Promoting smoking to pay for landlord tax cuts is how it's being pitched. Great for our international image and appeal.
Agree with you here. Its a higly addictive drug that should be controlled.
Having had a parent die from smoking related cancer I know how difficult they are to give up, even in the face of death.
I can see why Jacinda called him an arrogant prick.
If it was up to him our streets would have all sorts of dangerous drugs on the street because its a matter of individual responsibilty.
Using the sale of cigarettes to fund tax cuts its reprehensible.
In many ways yes, in some ways no.
Here is some reversing that does not appeal to me:
- Reinstate property tax perks
- More greenfields development to protect NIMBYs
- Increase residential speed limits
- No investment in rail
- regional development subsidy
- Tobacco laws reversed
- Tax cuts when the we have a deficit
- Clean car discount removed
- Funding for walking and cycling removed
Doesn't the ban on sales creep year by year until shopkeepers will be asking adults if they are over or under 45?
I hate smokers and smoking, have never smoked and never will and I'm convinced it is a major factor in cancer and heart attacks. But I hate the moralising more - posh Pakeha saying this will hit Māori and Pacifica as if those benighted people have no moral agency and need a wise virtuous govt to force them to do the right thing.
If smoking is so evil make it illegal for all today.
Nah, they are getting rid of that age raising aspect as well, I understand. Given the public backlash, I imagine they'll flip-flop on that however. So, unable to grow more excise-payers from today's children in the future. Tobacco lobby (I suspect) disliked that particular aspect of the new legislation the worst as it puts the kibosh on growing a new generation of addicts.
I've deduced you may be over thirty; do you want shopkeepers checking your age? I carry my goldcard but I'm not forced to use it and no one ever challenges it (I wish they would).
The age raising aspect sounds really daft - another example of how a well-intentioned virtuous idea has unintended consequences. Seymour is right - we need to keep govt out of matters of personal responsibility. A healthy society is full of people taking responsibility for their actions however stupid they may have been.
SO much garbage in one comment. Remarkable.
So, the 'unintended consequences' is having one's ID checked? What a catastrophe that would be! And only at the cost of saving billion$ in healthcare expenses.
"A healthy society is full of people taking responsibility for their actions however stupid they may have been."
Citation needed. Why can't we all just speed past schools because we're in a hurry? People, on the whole, can not be relied upon to make good decisions all of the time for a whole variety of reasons. Sometimes regulations/taxes/law changes will alter peoples' behaviour for the better.
Make weed legal and tax the hell out of alcohol.
Save money on policing; save money on ER and ACC; save money on prisons; starve gangs of any revenue they draw from cannabis sales; save money on prescription painkillers, anti-anxiety and epilepsy meds; grow a whole new horticultural industry with lots of value-add processing off-shoots.
Reforest all the eroding hillsides in pot plants - they grow like weeds, after all.
I'd far rather the police save money from cannabis enforcement and focus that money and time on meth enforcement which rips families apart, is ferociously addictive and notoriously hard for addicts to get away from, and results in much higher rates of crime due to increased aggressiveness and unpredictability of users, aggravated assault and robbery to fund their habits etc. I would like to hear your rationale otherwise.
Why the strength of anti-tobacco against the mild concern about alcohol. As a broad generalisation both are bad but tobacco tends to kill smokers in unpleasant ways when they are getting older (sad) and their family has grown up whereas alcohol addiction destroys innocent families (evil).
We spent over a billion dollars renaming things. Instead of employing more cops, doctors, nurses, etc.
While not technically communism, it was certainly an exercise leaning towards prioritising ideology over actual results.
While I don't care what any public service is named, make everything run perfect first, then you can spend money on frilly stuff.
A billion dollars? We were talking to someone who was complaining about the change of name from NZTA to Waka Kotahi and how much it would have cost. We Googled it out of interest and found someone had made a request for the cost under the Official Info Act. It cost $636 for a new sign at the national office, the design work of the new logo was done inhouse and stationery would only be reprinted with the new logo as needed. Just one example, but interesting to know these things.
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/About-us/docs/oia2-2020/oia-6648-response.pdf
"At the suggestion of a subscriber Curia in June, July and August has asked 1,000 New Zealanders if they know the English name of various government agencies in Te Reo. We now have results for six agencies:
Manatū Hauora, Ministry of Health: 8.1%
Te Manatū Waka, Ministry of Transport: 7.7%
Te Putea Matua, Reserve Bank of New Zealand: 5.7%
Te Pou Hauora Tūmatanui, Public Health Agency: 4.6%
Waka Kotahi, NZ Transport Agency: 50.1%
Te Aka Whai Ora, Maori Health Authority: 11.1%"
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/11/luxon_is_absolutely_right.html
Maybe they should have asked people if they knew what each agency does with the names in English? how many know what the difference is between the ministry of health, and the public health authority? I don't..
The ministry of transport and the nz transport agency??? i know that one , i think .
Let's get rid of the publicly funded police and let it just be survival of the fittest. I bet all those old landlords would start complaining then when the gangs just took over their houses and stole their possessions.
Jesus, we're resorting to calling all public services = communism. But planning regulations which prevent people from developing their own land is somehow libertarian.
Improve productivity - which unwinding initiatives will do that?
Perhaps deleting unnecessary regulation will have that effect, but that's not an unwinding - it's a new initiative.
Rebranding all the government agencies that use Maori names will definitely be cheap and quick and focus resources on the right issues.
"Nurse please refer this patient to the emergency ward he is very very sick"
"Sorry doctor, I believe we're waiting for the graphic design agency to upgrade the logos on the referral forms, the incoming government has directed all Maori words to be expunged from official documents"
Lol, Luxon has clearly been briefed that we are almost certainly well into a recession - he has started warming the public up for it. Ironically, the recession is the result of RBNZ being overly aggressive on monetary policy and the Govt pulling back hard on public spending. So, the response? Errrm, focus the RBNZ on being more aggressive and cut public spending!!! Seriously, buckle in, the first 6 months of 2024 are going to be eye-wateringly bad.
Yes, and if "all they've got" is downsizing, then watch the Job Seeker costs balloon out just as they remove the RBNZ's sustainable employment criteria.
It'll be widespread across both local and central government. In many towns/cities in NZ, local government is one of the biggest employers.
They may well have inherited the approaches to a massive recession. The forthcoming reports from Treasury will obviously be critical. Don’t think there are many thinking NZrs who don’t realise things are in a bit of a mess. This lot now have the responsibility to do something about it. Let’s just hope what they do do is positive but at the same time appreciate betterment will not occur overnight.
A common theory about labour. Not sure if they have caused a recession in their last 15 years of power though have they? Did we get one during Covid? People said the same about Clark and Cullen, then we survived the GFC easily while almost all other countries went down big time
Actually if anything it feels like things are starting to pick up again, National may find it hard to blame Labour unless things get worse quick.
I think the mall traffic jams are more a sign of sad hyper-consumerism than anything else. Also in a funny way it might point to problems ie. people out to pick up a bargain or two at a much lower price while they can. I mean, I didn’t buy a thing on Black Friday but I got a couple of items on Singles Day at Barkers with 60% off, pretty much ticked off my new clothing needs for 2024, so next to no clothing spend next year. Tick.
I imagine there is quite a bit of that psychology at play with Black Friday numbers. Also possibly a fair bit of early Xmas shopping?
Recent retail data has been poor.
how long until the first scandal, need for a minister to step down, i notice AB didn't get anything after his extensive shareholder that were not declared came to light during the election. hope they all have those skeletons hidden firmly away, now they are ministers there will be a lot of digging around, those that have been there for awhile will know what's coming, the new comers will need to learn fast as the reporters will start looking for stories now the election is over
Well with WP into full broadsides some of the media will be baying like the Baskerville Hound for any sort of scandal and might yet have to fabricate one. But nonetheless you do sort of get the feeling that it’s one of the photos that might be looked back on in the future by the posers, sooner or later, where you say my god look how young, happy and together we were back then.
Speaking of skeletons...the MSM are tonight clutching their pearls in horror as Winston calls them out on the PIJF $55M that required them not to question Labours Treaty dogma.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/11/winston-peters-makes-fa…
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/11/jenna-lynch-analysis-wi…
Edit:
...&...RNZ also in denial https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/503394/deputy-prime-minister-winst…
Who can forget, the first address from the podium of truth, the whole nation waiting for answers and the very first question from the gathered let’s say journalists, something like - how much is the rescue package for the media going to be and when are we going to start getting. All those now affronted by WP today, perhaps Jessica, Tova & Jenna, might like to explain who exactly that questioner was and why the very nature of that question did not identify potential temptation and reliance, for governmental approval.
"Worrying about the past when the present is much more scary..."
There's a world of difference between the Labour party and the MSM conniving to gaslight an entire country for years vs a single politicians moment of petulance when provoked in an interview.
As you know.
Terry Baucher commented just the other day:
39% trustee rate
The Agreements are silent on whether the outgoing Labour Government’s intention to increase the trustee tax rate to 39% will be implemented. This is part of an existing tax bill which lapsed when the last Parliament rose. This particular bill must be reintroduced because it includes setting the annual income tax rates, which must be passed each year to enable the funding of the government. This initial silence implies that that the increase in the 39% Trustee tax rate is going to remain. We'll have to wait and see but we'll probably get more specific information when the Half-Year Economic Fiscal Update is released next month
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.