New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters says reinstating the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) will be a bottom line for his party in any post-election coalition government negotiations.
He told the Taranaki Chamber of Commerce on Friday his party “regards the PGF in its current form as a pre-condition in any future government formation”.
Peters’ office confirmed to interest.co.nz this means the party will be seeking another $1 billion a year over three years for the PGF.
This is the first bottom line NZ First has revealed it will bring to the negotiating table post-election, should it have the opportunity.
National Leader Simon Bridges has ruled out working with NZ First, but Peters told the crowd (who live in a blue electorate): “Having been in politics a long time, and a member of the National Party for over 25 years, the one thing our Party is confident about is that the first call we will get on election night 2020 will come from the National Party.”
Peters stuck to the Coalition Government’s position that its focus is on a transition to a lower carbon economy, and didn’t mention the ban of new offshore oil and gas exploration permits affecting Taranaki.
He earlier in the day announced a PGF investment of $19.9 million in a hydrogen energy facility in South Taranaki.
Hiringa Energy will produce “green” hydrogen from renewable electricity and water, which will be used to power the Ballance Agri-Nutrients’ Kapuni plant.
Immigration cuts by an unspecified number
Peters indicated reducing immigration would again be a cornerstone policy for NZ First going into the election.
He didn’t put a number on where he thought net inward long-term migration should sit, as he did ahead of the 2017 election, when he said 10,000 people.
Rather he said “NZ First is going to lead the overdue debate about what is a sustainable population policy”.
“We think you need to make it clear to your politicians how many is too many. We will then act on your choice.”
Net migration has eased under the Coalition Government, but only to 44,000 people from a peak of nearly 64,000 in mid-2016.
Peters dubbed current levels “unsustainable”, saying: “Not only does it distort our economy but in our view we make it too easy to become a New Zealand citizen.
“Immigration settings are accentuating the flow of people into our cities, Auckland most profoundly, but at the expense of regional New Zealand.”
He said, a vote for NZ First would see:
- “the permanent residency qualification raised from two to five years;
- “the introduction of a rural visa scheme (replicating successful schemes in Australia and Canada, that will apply to communities with fewer than 100,000 residents, and which will place into law an obligation for migrants to stay in their specified place of settlement until they have secured permanent residency;
- “greater ministerial control exerted to ensure Immigration New Zealand administers agreed policy settings.”
Tax relief targeting SMEs
Peters also promised “targeted tax relief” to benefit small to medium sized businesses. His policy includes:
- “Accelerated Depreciation – That is, allowing business to depreciate at the same rate as Australia to help them bring forward their investment decisions;
- “A ‘Give it a Go’ Scheme – Where we will offer special tax concessions for certain business start-ups in rural and regional New Zealand.
- “An Instant Asset Write-Off Scheme – which would allow small businesses with turnover less than $1 million to claim immediate deductions for new or second-hand plant and equipment purchases such as vehicles, tools and office equipment up to a combined value of $3,000 annually.”
Peters also reiterated NZ First's opposition to a capital gains tax.
48 Comments
Immigration policy, population policy, are both valid public policy ideas to debate (even if they have been debated endlessly over the years). But please keep the tone respectful, on the issues, and recognise that there are a range of views that can be had. Cheap slagging, and racial profiling will not be tolerated.
Therein lies a massive problem proven overseas and repeated by governments here.
If the populace of a country has no say in these things then the policy is simply something being done to them. It appears to result in resentment, anger, and th growth of populism and extremism over time.
Politicians are incredibly stupid if they continue to give the local populace no say oe continue only to criticise the local populace for wanting a say.
If generous, it could be suggested we had a “sort of” debate around immigration last election – it was one of the key election issues and Labour/NZF pushed a firm line of number reduction.
For some it was a defining issue.
So we had a “debate” of sorts – reduce numbers was the mandate – Labour/NZF got their hands on the wheel – and then happily swept the whole thing under the carpet.
So yes, it’s no surprise some are a little angry.
Ordinarily I would be very amenable to developing skills within New Zealand above recruiting from overseas but, on this one occasion, it's looking like I'll be willing to give the next government a free ticket to do whatever is required to avert an economic stagnation. We cannot sit on our hands any longer. For the the winning party will be the one that is willing to invest most in infrastructure and economic development within their term in office.
The issue I have is that NZ First in the current Coalition government has been the tail wagging the dog. It has got a disproportionate number of policies through but stopped many of Labour's. This is not democratic and does not reflect the will of the people.
There needs to be legislation that coalition agreements clearly set out the agreed proposed policy work any new government will do, roughly in proportion to the votes e.g. LAB 36.9% : NZF 7.2% : GR 6.3%.
Sounds like he's had a huge taste of power with 7% due to the weakest PM we've ever had in history and now can't let go of the slush fund, AKA our taxes. I guess he's hoping those who voted Winston First to teach National a lesson forgot everything and falls for him again :D Need to fix MMP to be more like Germany where the largest party gets the first go at forming a government first, otherwise nothing gets done. 1 large, 1 small is preferable than 3 stooges who doesn't know wtf they are doing with a secret coalition agreement that we have not seen/blocked from seeing/voted for.
weakest PM we've ever had in history
I think Ardern's often full of hot air but I'd contend that the weakest PM we've ever had has to be John Key. Why? Well, he had loads of political capital and a majority government and yet failed to address any of the meaningful issues for fear of losing power. He wasted countless years ignoring issues which are all coming to a head.
Both major parties are currently a waste of space.
I very much agree with your last sentence. Key did a good job shepherding the country through the GFC, along with navigating the economic damage of the earthquakes. I'm not confident that the current PM would have done nearly as well with those severe challenges but we cannot know for certain. We can only look at the various elements and compare (100k houses, reduced poverty, billion trees, etc.). Yes, Key did not make any of these aspirational promises. By the same token, he also did not fail on these promises. Yes, he promised to fix housing costs, which he was just as successful as the current PM on the same promise. Making aspirational goals does not make a successful politician. Then again, making the right aspirational goals appears to be the way to become the next successful politician as long as success is defined by gaining the most votes.
Current pm is an interesting study.
The COL structure she rigged up is faulty structurally unsound, and has been left so, nothing has been done to improve the talent of her team.
PM & pm dept had the opportunity to repair the structure and act in a way to improve the talent.
Once in power PM & pm dept had the opportunity to move the party to represent the majority of population. Thereby securing power. Rather they have maintained a shrill activist tone.
Look at the undiplomatic way they run international relations. Australia, USA, Isreal.
Look at the way climate change was presented as the danger to all humanity, now compare how you feel toward caronavirus covid19 compared to climate change. Shaw & Co are nowhere to be seen now.
The rallying cry was CC will be like how Labour championed nuclear free. Terrible idea. Looking back, nuclear never killed anyone, it was never the problem suggested, now gen3 gen4 it is the energy question answer.
These core elements of weakness are represented in the govt. delivery. Kiwibuild, infrastructure stop & go. Poor handling of virus (compared to Singapore and South Korea).
What will pm do? Become Helen C internationalist type or David Lange sad & faded type figure at the end of it.
'Nuclear never killed anyone' oh for gods sake. What planet do you come from Henry? Not this one thats for sure. Why do you think the powers that be stopped testing bombs above the ground. They went to sea? They went to Oz, then decided the whole idea of testing was really really bad.
So I guess Fuku, Chernobyl were just fun and games. You know those peoples lives in all this terrible history of nuclear you just rubbished. They were lives to be lived. Cut short. Servicemen. Nuclear plant workers. Pacific Islanders. Miners. And many generations now of cancer. Unexplained cancer. Plus thousands of tonnes of waste. Leaking. Not fixable. Left for following generations.
I know it's strange, because of what we were told when we were young.
Look at gen3 and gen4 nuclear power plants.
More people die installing solar panels.
Frances nuclear power industry is effective.
Gen4 uses gen4 waste as a feedstock.
Let's not conflate the anti war movement with nuclear energy.
If you are concerned re the good works of Greenpease, review Patrick Moore's work, and gp's now business model.
Look at last week in Christchurch & project slime.
Times have changed, we can't keep living in the past.
Commenters on this site seem to conveniently forget when talking about the last National government that they also did not have a majority. JK had to beg the Maori Party or Peter Dunne to get things across the line. Meaningful RMA reform was blocked in such a way. But JK wasn't weak. He commanded the ship, he stood up to poorly performing cabinet members. Ardern is pathetic in comparison to all other modern PMs.
Fine words from NZ First, and btw David, I would suggest immigration has not be debated "endlessly", or at least the debate that has taken place has not been noted for quality or rationality.
Personally I am deeply sceptical about Winton's assertion that immigration has slowed, but amongst all the various categories of "inflows" it is easy to choose statistics to fit your argument!
However, Winston doesn't tell us how government can significantly slow inflows without collapsing the housing market and creating a disaster for all those kiwi house owners who have telephone number mortgages.
It seems that both Labour and National have welcomed the immediate sugar rush of funds accompanying many immigrants, but have failed to look beyond their 3 year Parliamentary terms to the long term effects.
I think many Kiwis have been deeply uneasy about our immigration record and about the supposed benefits outweighing the very definite downsides.
Peters has had a lot to say on the issue but his record of achieving a more balanced ploicy is "spotty" to say the least.
I think the changes made by the coalition government so far have been excellent;
https://nzil.co.nz/immigration-law-changes-nz-2020/
Capping the number of parent visas issued and upping the earning requirements of the sponsor will be making a big difference. I suspect the next round of reform if this coalition gets in again will start capping a number of other visa approvals. As the author of that information (an immigration consultancy) states - across a number of measures, it has become more difficult for new immigrant approvals.
It is going in the right direction - I really fear all this good work will be undermined with a change of government.
yep, I think NZ's experiment with Winstocracy, where we hold an election only to then let a bitter bloviating BS artist chooses the govt and run roughshod over the 93% that didn't vote for him is a failure that should be consigned to the rubbish bin of history, along with the Narcissistic blowhard himself.
Sometimes you don't get everything you want with only 7%. The unknown is what would have been the policy outcomes if NZF got 10% or 20% or more? Btw if you do care about the economic/environmental/social impact of excessive immigration/population growth who will you vote for?
I have difficulty imagining NZF getting into parliament at the next election. There may be room for a popularist party thumping the patriotism tub but NZF have let their voters down too often.
Taking one example immigration - NZF only mentions it just before elections. NZF have had two years to discuss it; attack the rorts, attack the current cruel bureaucratic freeze, discuss keeping it in line with a population plan, discuss the quality of our immigrants, etc. However they lost all authority when they proposed a change to our existing quota to 10,000pa which is below the number of Kiwis falling in love with foreigners and therefore always was unacceptable.
Sounds good but could we could trust him? He/ they didn't deliver on last time's promises. High immigration hasn't solved any significant economic problems and has made the infrastructure shortfalls, public health stress points & housing affordability etc worse. Let's actually have the debate or conversation around a population policy for our country. Having traveled widely I count myself lucky to be living here. This is real time population growth on our planet
https://www.census.gov/popclock/world
It's disgraceful because it is appallingly low quality spending, and the extremely shoddy way it is administered leaves a giant opening for corrupt practices of which there have already been some rumours with regard to NZF. Besides which Peter's voting block is likely to be (quite literally) decimated before the election.
Too many people look at net migration which is harder to control with NZers coming and going. What matters most is residency approvals as that impacts long term population growth. This government have reduced residency approval target to around 35000pa down from 45-50000pa during previous governments. While I am with Michael Reddell and think it should be reduced to about 15000pa it's better than nothing.
Much as I hate the Nationals and believe they are a chinese communist glove puppet party the reduction in approvals was instigated by the National govt just before the last election by an adjustment to the earnings threshold. Labour have not changed anything significant but have acheived a modest reduction by deliberate cruel bureaucratic delay. From personal family experience we know applications however reasonable are not assigned to a case officer for about a year and then crazy random requirements come into play (such as police clearances expiring because of INZs delay).
Michael Reddell proposes moving in steps to a quota of 15,000. Given the increased refugee quota and the many recent immigrants with strong ties to their country of origin I doubt we would ever get to 15,000 but 20,000 would align us with most other countries.
Maybe the discussion should not be about a quota but about the number of low-paid immigrants - the Uber drivers and fast food operatives. It is low-paid immigrants who prop up dishonest businesses to the disadvantage of honest businesses, discourage training Kiwis, discourage automation, reduce job opportunities for poorly educated Kiwis and import 3rd world work conditions.
True. Until you become a citizen your allegiance is to another country.
But if you were a self-admitted senior spy for another country and are now a NZ list MP who has never found a single fault with his previous country's dictatorship then there may be some who doubt the purity of your current allegiance to NZ.
Both Labour and Winston First were going to reduce immigration (permanent residence visas leading to citizenship in my book). Reducing from 50,000 to 49,999 is a reduction and so both Labour and Winston first will claim to have made a reduction. There has been a marginal (perhaps around 5000/yr) since the Coalition has been governing. This is pre-electioneering and both Labour and Winston first have had sufficient time to make a meaningful reduction to 10,000 to 12,000 a year. About the same number when I was admitted 22 years ago. As a swing voter no more Winston or Shane Jones and their party for me. Labour definitely no (Greens/Labour coalition out for me) so that leaves National. Unlikely to vote for them so I guess I won't be voting for the first time.
Peter's cannot be trusted. His dishonesty and duplicity are legendary , and his coterie of fellow travellers with their pejorative remarks about anyone who does not look like them is frankly out of line in an open diverse society such as ours.
I will not be voting for him again.........ever
The Gov't won't have any spare money after this virus takes hold.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12…
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.