By Chris Trotter*
You have to admit, Judith Collins made a reasonable fist of responding to Grant Robertson’s 2021 Budget. It wasn’t enough, of course. It would have required a truly Churchillian performance to dispel the magic of Robertson’s speech. Labour has well-and-truly learned what National appears to have forgotten: that people feel long before they think. And Robertson had just made a goodly portion of the New Zealand electorate feel righteous. As performances go, his was a bloody hard act to follow.
Still, the leader of the Opposition has not forgotten how to use her sword. Her thrust against “Meccano lessons” at the Hillside Workshops was deadly. Unfortunately, she failed to follow it up with an equally devastating assault upon the whole import substitution policy to which Robertson’s proudly proletarian pitch paid homage. There was, after all, a reason why Labour, in the early 1980s, began casting around for something to replace the Sutchism that had dominated Labour’s policy-making since the late-1950s.
It is one of New Zealand political history’s greatest ironies that Rob Muldoon, the “Young Turk” who won his spurs attacking the massive import substitution programme unleashed by the Second Labour Government, should have ended his career amidst the wreckage of “Think Big” – as he called his own updating of the left-leaning economist, civil servant and historian, Bill Sutch’s, radical economic development policies.
Indeed, it is interesting to speculate on what might have happened if Muldoon had remained true to the instincts of his younger, private-enterprise self, by continuing to reject state-directed development in New Zealand. Had Muldoon embraced the same ideas as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the late-1970s and the early-1980s, it could easily have been Labour which ended up betting the farm on one last roll of Sutch’s dice.
As things turned out, it was Labour’s new leader, David Lange, who found himself proclaiming that New Zealand couldn’t go on being run “like a Polish shipyard”. Egged-on by his Treasury advisers, and the smarter elements of the Fourth Estate, he was persuaded to join his backers (Roger Douglas, Michael Basset, Mike Moore and Richard Prebble) in “thinking the unthinkable” about New Zealand’s economic future.
A strong case can be made that Labour’s willingness to “think the unthinkable” made it possible for National to give up thinking altogether. Initially confounded by Labour’s abrupt change of ideological direction – not to mention the near universal praise heaped upon its new “more market” policies by the mainstream news media – National floundered hopelessly. Its win in 1990, which the news media proclaimed a “landslide”, was, by MMP standards, a remarkably close contest. National may have received 47.82% of the popular vote, but the combined popular vote for Labour, New Labour and the Greens was 47.15%.
Thanks to the First-Past-the-Post electoral system, the new National prime minister, Jim Bolger, was spared the challenge of governing with a one-seat majority. He may have campaigned in the poetry of “The Decent Society”, but the prose he governed in was all written by the same neoliberal scribes who had authored Labour’s policies – albeit with considerably sharper pens. The National Party’s finance minister’s, Ruth Richardson’s, “Mother of All Budgets”, so loudly condemned by Grant Robertson in Thursday’s Budget Speech, was really only Roger Douglas – with bells on.
By the time Labour (with the Alliance in tow) was back in control of the Treasury Benches, its acceptance of the ground rules of Neoliberalism was, if not complete, then sufficiently substantial for the emergence of a style of governance that could be, as John Key went on to prove, as readily adopted by National as Labour. Conservative purists railed against Key’s “Labour-Lite” approach, but it proved more than equal to the challenge of a global financial crisis and a devastating earthquake. It was certainly enough to secure nine years of National Government, which might easily, in the absence of “Jacindamania”, have stretched into 12.
Historically, this is par for the course with National. From the Opposition Benches, it railed against the Keynesianism of the First Labour Government, only to embrace it as the price of electoral victory.
Muldoon shot down radical Sutchism in 1961, only to see Holyoake and Marshall adopt a watered-down version of the same well into the 1970s. In 1979, beggared for options in the face of seemingly indefatigable “stagflation”, Muldoon became the last, and easily the most radical, of the Sutchists.
Bolger played the same game with Neoliberalism: railing against its brutalities from Opposition; then allowing Bill Birch to crush the trade unions, and Richardson to poleaxe what was left of the welfare state, from the safety of the Government benches.
In 2008, Key accepted a less-sharp-edged version of Neoliberalism from Helen Clark, and cruised effortlessly to three electoral victories in a row.
And now, thanks to Covid-19, Labour finds itself, once again, strategically placed to set a new course for economic and social policy in New Zealand. With the monetarist policies that have, for the past 40 years, constituted the core of Neoliberalism, discredited (by that inveterate foe of all theories – Reality) Prime Minister Ardern and Finance Minister Robertson find themselves at a turning-point very similar to the one their party encountered in the early-1980s.
Confronted with the immediate challenges of a global pandemic, and, behind them, the even more daunting challenges of climate change, governments all over the world are shrugging-off the dogma that there is no problem so great that it cannot be solved by giving the market its head. State action, on a massive scale, is once again being seen, by politicians with an eye to the future, as the indispensable agency of economic and social survival.
Ardern and Robertson have grasped this ideological shift a great deal faster than any of their rivals. Certainly, it has encouraged them to deploy the sort of rhetoric that would have made their predecessors cringe. Targeting Richardson’s Mother of All Budgets and raising benefits in a long-delayed one-fingered salute to this hated left-wing symbol of neoliberal cruelty, was only the beginning. As the Budget Debate wore on, Labour’s backbenchers could not forbear from getting in on the act. The new MP for Wairarapa, Kieran McAnulty, delivered the lines most likely to raise the National Party’s collective blood-pressure:
“Yes, I am a socialist and I’m proud of it. Yeah, there you go. Thank you very much. Bring it on. And I’m very proud to say to the good people of the Wairarapa that they elected a proud socialist as their MP.”
The only real questions, after Thursday’s Budget, is how long will it take National to realise how profoundly the political game has been – and is being – transformed by Covid and Climate Change? Will it be two, three, or four terms? And, how many leaders will the party have to elect, and discard, before it finally masters the new language of electoral victory?
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
97 Comments
Governments, I am afraid, are being permitted to borrow and spend now (as not in 2007-11) because private borrowing and debt and rates are no longer working and debt there cannot be increased further. So, bonds are extended willy-nily and like confetti, for State/government largesse, which remember, is funded by debt that those governments pay interest on. Those holding all the bonds for this debt have a nice safe, non-productive and effortless way of being a rentier class par excellence. What, Chris, is Labour saying about re-distribution of power and influence and wealth? is it cutting taxes for the lowest paid? Is it building decent affordable houses for rent, using direct labour organisations? Is it implementing a GGT or inheritance tax. Spare us the peons to radical Labour. This is a technophile, touchy feely government yes, but wealth inequality is off the agenda. Crumbs for the poor is not a power shift.
I agree a bigger 'big bang' is needed. I keep coming back to Gareth Morgan's Big Kahuna - a massive transformation of both our welfare and tax systems are needed. Everyone should read that book. I am hoping Labour are still looking seriously at how to implement a UBI (universal basic income). In these global times we find ourselves in, it is the only way to truly achieve the best measure of social justice and a life of dignity for all.
Morgan doesn't 'get it' any more than Trotter does.
Neither really understand - I stand to be corrected - the role energy plays, or the current and progressing state of resource depletion:
https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/16_2021.pdf
pdk,
Another fascinating link; thank you. It makes sombre reading. On P40, the inverted pyramid shows tar sands to be at the bottom in terms of EROI. That is no surprise. Thus an obvious question is why it has been happening for many years? Rationally, surely Canada should have been importing oil with a significantly higher EROI? Riccardo's theory of comparative advantage should apply.
As the certainty of diminishing returns forces itself on the global consciousness, then i think the tar sand model if i can call it that, will be appied more widely. EROI will take second place to the perceived necessity of maintaining the status quo for as long as possible. nations will deem it essential to maintain supply and indeed, many citizens will demand nothing less.
This is the world in which my 4 young grandchildren will grow up and it will present them with an enormous challenge.
Tar-sands aren't something we moved to after X and before Y. We are still pumping light sweet crude from aging Fields (like Ghawar) but the demand has seen us going for less-and-less best options, because we've used up all the rest; we use a mix. But it's a reducing-in-average-quality mix. And we're going past the volumetric Peak (it may well have been 2018, all-in) about a decade after we went past the quality Peak.
The gap between supposed growth and energy underwrite, is being made up in off-putting maintenance; in debt, and in low/no interest. So we'll see more infrastructure failures as time goes on, more debt, less ability to repay it. I worry that your grandkids will be at permanent war, just to keep valdating access to life-supporting stuff.
That generation got the one-off benefit described in the link I put up. That benefit will never happen again. Compared to the lives their grandchildren will be forced to eke, they're on the pig's back. Not bad - considering what they did to the resource-supply and the sink-capacity in their brief tenure.
Throughout the infinitely large universe there is an infinite amount of even the rarest materials. Claiming we are running out because our space craft do not yet venture that far is akin to the Spanish saying the world was running out of silver before Cortez started shipping massive shiploads of the stuff to Europe from the “undiscovered” americas.
Energy necessary to move in a vacuum is much lower than on earth. So much energy hits our upper atmosphere each day it’ll take us next to forever to be able to consume it all. Gravity wells generate energy, just because we have yet to build commercially viable gravity generators does not mean that they will not become viable in the next few decades. (The main issue is getting the energy back to the surface). A single team sent into space could theoretically send an astronomical amount of material down to the earth’s surface without the need for much sent up to them.
Re GV’s comment - Pensioners get far more $ per week than other beneficiaries (ie net $437 per week if living alone and $672 per week for a couple). Pensioners also get the winter energy payment of $20-$30per week, and can get other assistance, such as the accommodation supplement to help with rent or mortgage payments. The pension is not means tested so any KiwiSaver or other savings are the cream on top of the pension. Most councils also offer rates relief, including deferring rates. Hence NZ pensioners are rarely in poverty, particularly if they own their own home.
The way our progressive tax system works (with tax brackets married to a %age of tax paid up to certain amounts in income) any amount of money earned that is declared tax free, or a lower percentage than the bottom tax rate - is a tax reduction that would be applied to ALL taxpayers. This is the problem with cutting taxes for the lowest paid - in fact you are instead cutting taxes for everyone.
Hence, the Clark Labour government brought in Working for Families - an in-work tax credit for households with children.
If inflation stays low I suspect National will wander the wastelands of opposition for some time as I doubt they will embrace change. If inflation picks up and is sustained however there are a huge number of people who would really be pinched by rising retail interest rates who might be sympathetic to a line on controlling inflation.
Incidentally New Zealand is still talking about returning to a balanced budget over the long term. Compared to many other Western countries that's actually still very risk averse economically. The US has announced most of it's spending and just effectively deferred talk of taxes until some later date.
"Compared to many other Western countries ......." blah blah blah. How often are we hearing this lately?
Let's all jump off the tenth floor. I'll go last and on the way down Il ring home.....don't worry mum, compared with the other guys I'm fine, they just dropped past level 1, I'm still passing the 9th.
That's how BS these comparison statements are.
Wow - a beyond good political history lesson - explaining the ironies of our left and right.
This line in particular sums it up: A strong case can be made that Labour’s willingness to “think the unthinkable” made it possible for National to give up thinking altogether.
A pleasure to read - thanks interest.co.nz for publishing Chris Trotter's pieces. Always insightful.
While somewhat entertained by CT's replaying of history, he is quite remiss in this analysis in some areas. In my view the rhetoric that Labour has used is just words, and nothing more. Although they have increased benefits, it is not by much, while they have rigorously avoided taking substantial steps to fix one of the most serious issues facing most lower and middle income Kiwis today - housing costs. So it really doesn't even look like a sticking plaster solution, but more like a single, very thin piece of tissue over a deep cut.
Despite his call in an early speech around their election in their first term of "real jobs for every one, everywhere", he and his Government have essentially done nothing to move in this direction, and we are well into their second term! Indeed if one were cynical, one could even argue that they have worked to increase dependency, rather than to lift people out of poverty.
I somewhat agree with you murray86 - there is so much yet to do/address to really bring our society back to that happily, egalitarian place it was post WW2. But the socio-economic life/childhood of my husband growing up here as a boomer in post-War NZ just doesn't exist anymore. The 'ills' of the Western world (I was raised in the US in the 50/60/70s) have caught up with NZ.
I agree, benefits need to increase far more - but I'm hoping in the 'next round' Labour bring in a UBI. And in the meantime, I hope they address regulation of the rental housing market; and that the state-built and NGO/iwi cooperative-built social housing just takes off with a bang. I think a billion dollars was allocated in this budget for papakāinga housing - joint efforts between the government and Māori. so, there is much more going on in the housing/poverty alleviation area than the headline benefits imply.
I attended a Zoom meeting on budget evening held by ActionStation where many of the NGOs and individuals working in this poverty alleviation space provided their thoughts/feelings on Budget 2021. All agree - the benefit changes were not enough. Hence, all these organisations that are working collectively are beginning to develop their next strategy of public awareness and lobbying with the principal objective of ensuring that every New Zealand can live a life of dignity.
I have faith that these people-powered organisations working collectively will get there. Join us on that journey!
Kate how do you deal with the issue that raising benefit rates has created a situation where the benefit as a wage is a competitor to the earning ability (and I don't mean legislated for wages - but productive output) of the unskilled?
And the comparison between the benefit rate and the hourly rates is not straight forward. Subsidized housing, supplementaries and all the add on's need including.
This is why we have unemployment and jobs available. It believe this will get worse. And I am not bashing the individuals - they are just responding to the motivations of system we operate.
Was with a grey nomad recently. He was throwing off about beneficiaries who won't work/ go and pick fruit etc. I said hang on matey, when you rock up in your $130k campervan and pick fruit for a few hours before hitting the wines...you get to pocket (after some tax) the whole lot - you keep all your super and most of your pay. Would you be so keen if you lost 70 cents in the dollar?
There' your problem. All of these behaviors are driven by the incentives, or not, we provide.
'driven by the incentives, or not, we provide'. Yep. On the weekend talking with a mate who owns a large expanding business. They are often hiring, warehouse duties, delivery driver etc level. Above min wage jobs, regular non weekend hours. Applications usually include a reasonable number of beneficiaries. A high ppn, often more than a third, fail to show for interview. They are contacted and another appointment made. Same result, with similar 'explanations' when called again, this time with often a request for a letter for WINZ setting out that so and so has applied for a job but due to personal circumstances couldn't make the interview. Mate always refuses to provide the letter. Ardern was recently claiming the unemployed aren't that way by choice. She needs to get out in the real world as clearly more than a few are.
What though is astonishing is the high level of intelligence, street cunning if you like, that comes to the fore, and which you touch on re the Winz letter, as how to manipulate and rort the system. Have senior lawyer friends who explain the same shenanigans around legal aid and playing the court system and scheduling with masterful delaying and other stymie tactics.
Yep. Earwigging the other day in a public space on a loud conversation between folk who from their conversation were all beneficiaries. It centred on over seas travel they had saved up for and were planning later this year. A key topic was the devices to employ to get WINZ to pay for some of the things they will need in support of this travel such as passport photos etc. The inventiveness was an eye opener. The nonsense idea flitted briefly through my mind that this level of resourcefulness might be an employable skill.
Beneficiaries who leave NZ have their benefit stopped for the period theyre away, whether the person informs WINZ or not (unless they leave for a valid reason such as family wedding) WINZ systems are matched with Customs. If be surprised if WINZ would help with paying for a passport.. would be unusual
rastus, that is the beauty of a UBI that is set at a level that allows for people to 'get by' with dignity (much like our universal superannuation was conceived as). Those on superannuation can choose to work part time, or to sell goods/crafts on TradeMe without having their superannuation clawed back, or abated. Abatements that are applied to all other forms of social welfare here in NZ are a disincentive to work.
This is a critically important aspect of universal basic incomes (UBIs) which subsequently answers that competition (with wages) question. People who just want to 'get by' and paint, or look after their children, or pursue new skills/knowledge (higher education) have the UBI and the ability to earn additional money, as and when required.
Does that make sense to you? Let me know if not and I'd be happy to answer any further questions/objections you might have.
Not a fan of the UBI Kate. Having a work ethic should be a necessity. Every culture has at its core people who work hard to survive. In our society today we have fostered a group who don't want to. No matter how you look at it, this is not good for or society and communities, and worse, is an unproductive drain on resources. As others have said, it is not really their fault, but rather a product of our system.
As PDK is relentless at pointing out, we are fast running to the end of cheap and easy resources, as well as the consequences of unrestrained consumption, and the population pressures are demanding that we discuss solutions that do not include unrestrained population growth. So why do we persist in looking at socio-economic models that support high dependency and lack of self sufficiency?
This a somewhat hard nosed and challenging question, but it needs to be answered. And the sooner it is, the easier the solution will be.
Either have no benefit system or a UBI.
No benefit system is a no goer. A UBI can potentially create a work ethic, simply by setting it at a rate that is not quite comfortable - but the individual knows comfort is available by going to work and not having the wages docked (unlike our present 70 cents in the dollar abatement rate).
Exactly, you get it there, rastus.
And more to your point, murray, many people have amazing work ethics, but they don't get paid in the traditional way you are thinking. Think mothers, think brothers and sisters who help with the younger children, think artists, think those striving to become self-sufficient on their own land. All people should not be forced to work for money in the traditional sense of a 'job' that you have. Additionally, many, many people are simply unable to work due to illness and/or disability.
Kate - you constantly go on about the demand side - benefits/rents/UBI all nice to have but by failing to address the supply side - increased productivity leading to greater wealth creation you are proverbially - p***ing in the wind and will be surprised at getting wet. NZ keeps dropping down the list of successful economies for this very reason regulation destroys the will to innovate and adapt and rare successes like Rocket Labs are in spite of regulation not because of it.
Hi Rumpole. It's not that I am not aware of the supply side, as you refer to it with respect to our socioeconomic issues in NZ. I'm very aware of our dismal record on productivity. I a fan/follower of Michael Reddell's blog (croaking cassandra - he is a former RBNZ economist).
But that 'space' isn't my forte, whereas I'm well read on the issues and active in the movement regarding poverty alleviation in NZ. Think of it like the WEAG (Welfare Expert Advisory Group) wasn't tasked with productivity issues in their brief - just as the Productivity Commission isn't tasked with welfare/poverty alleviation in theirs.
That doesn't mean that I (or those individual entities advising government) aren't aware of wider issues in our economy. For example, I believe that our welfare/benefit abatement regime discourages work/innovation on the part of beneficiaries. Getting rid of that welfare (safety net) model and replacing it with a UBI would, in my opinion, improve our nation's productivity overall.
So, I don't ignore opportunities for wealth creation - I just don't comment on them perhaps as much as I do the social-side of our socioeconomic issues..
Rumpole, NZ's dismal performance on productivity is because Governments changed employment law, removing the sacrosanct 40 hour week limitations. This has allowed business to achieve a 'false' impression of productivity by reducing labour costs. But this approach is not only false but also paper thin, with very limited gains to be made. They have strenuously avoided investing in technology and systems that build efficiency, reducing cost per product, and investing in innovation.
What are you smoking Chris?
The Latte Socialist Labour Lite Klub are deeply committed to Roger Douglas's Neoliberal Policys of the late 80's and 90's.
They know nothing else as they we're born into that era.
The widdle princess got an education in the 3rd/4th Way UK Labour Blair policies where she did time there.
I hear the 'Wairarapa Gold' is selling well amongst the socialist latte neoliberal
Labourites shindigs.
Need to smoke a little less.
I have noticed that a number of commentators on this site use the term “socialist” or “socialism” as an insult rather than a descriptor, conflating socialism with communism. Their failure to understand this difference reflects a woeful understanding of 20th century history. The excesses of Soviet-style Five Years Plans and Mao’s Cultural Revolution created untold misery for Russians and Chinese people, and reveals the bankruptcy of revolutionary change driven by ruthless ideologues. Ironically, the neoliberal excesses driven by ideologues such as Thatcher, Douglas et l created much misery for people in their societies while enriching a few. We are still dealing with the structural inequalities caused by such policies, and an objective study of history might benefit commentators on this website who lack an informed understanding of the varied application of socialism. Can I recommend considering the concept of the “common good” for a start?
What we see here is extremism Kate. Too many people cannot see or allow a person to be a centrist, which requires aspects of both socialism and capitalism. Kiwikidsnz below is a clear case of this sickness. All capitalists seem to think socialist principles are a threat to their profits and therefore potential power and influence. Really it is fundamentally a case where people cannot or will not think critically, analysing their own positions as much as they consider others.
The inconvenient truth for the socialists is that ALL Govt Public Sector wages/salaries, GDP & public welfare benefits are ultimately funded by taxation on Private Sector profits created by capitalists in the first place; thereby employing, paying wages/salaries, income taxes, GST etc to fund the entire economic system that provides the surplus for distribution.
Wrong. Try thinking in therms of 'underwritten by'; ' funded by' is a miss-match in terms.
We extract, consume and excrete. That's all we do. We have done it at exponentially-increasing rates for 200 years - a blip - courtesy of a one-off stock of fossilised sunlight. Those 'taxes' and the debt-issued tokens they represent, are calls on more extraction, consumption and excretion, and on more energy.
Governments (and L/G's) assume those tokens will be able to be exchanged for same, in ever-greater quantities, forever. There is zero correlation between the tokens, and ultimate depletion. We could set up any number of constructs, which do what we do - extract, consume, excrete - and which apportion rights to tap into that stream. Which is all money does; the rich get to tap into it more, the poor less. This is why trying to alleviate 'poverty' is misdirected; it needs to address population and per-head consumption. Redistributing access rights through taxes will work temporarily, but not permanently.
Nowhere in socialist centrism is there any mandate that a business owner cannot make a profit. Where do you get that bit of drivel from? it is more about how that profit is made, what pay and conditions they reward their employees with, and how they contribute to their communities.
The current crop pf capitalists (and this includes most of our politicians, left and right) have proven themselves more intent on inventing new forms of bondage. In any decent society that should not be acceptable.
What? This is goal of socialism/Marxism (they spend a lot of time coming up with moral justifications for this). They get to control the proletariat and keep anything they produce in excess for themselves. They get to have the club or party to boss everyone else around and enjoy privilege.
How about redefine the definitions a little, otherwise CT will be able to in 10 years time add this period of history as just another cluster*$&@. to add to the previous history lesson his article gives us.
We have crony socialism and crony capitalism. That's it.
So of course benefits had to increase and minimum wage increases before that because an increase is needed to counter the losses due to higher rents, house prices, etc. But at the end of the day, these income increases get captured by the system, ie rents go up, house prices go up, etc. to be repeated ad nauseam. It is a negative-sum gain. That is why things are getting worse, not better.
The problem with any benefit is that the cohort immediate above the benefit cut-off line is financially worse off than those that qualify. This would not matter so much if the pathway up was easier than the pathway down, but it's not. Thus the incentive for this group, unless given a counter incentive, is to give up enough to qualify for the benefit.
To get trapped in this grey area, just above the benefit cut offline, and not be able to move forward of this and break free into the realms of 'financial stability and freedom' must be soul-destroying.
And while this is bad enough at an individual level, when it involves an increasing sector of what used to be the middle class, then you know that the system is failing, and is not sustainable.
It's a poor indictment that 1/3 of the pop. is collecting some sort of benefit, but an even greater tragedy that a greater % of the working population cannot earn enough to cover their present and future needs, and are worse off for doing so.
There is nothing proud in being whatever name you want to call yourself when things are getting worse, not better.
'To get trapped in this grey area .........must be soul-destroying'. Those unemployed with benefit income below your 'grey area' group, who are physically and mentally able to work and for whom jobs are available that will pay enough to compensate for extra travel costs etc above what they'd have made on the benefit, are not by definition 'trapped'. It is a lifestyle choice. Supplementing this income with a few cash jobs in NZs huge black economy then propels them into a similar effective income band as much of hardworking middle NZ.
I'm not sure you got my point.
The hard-working, honest (ie don't want to take the benefit incentive when they are able to work) cohort just above the benefit are trapped, when by honest endeavours that they cannot get ahead enough to escape this income 'no man's land.' ie this group are earning less net, than those on a benefit (and also collecting a few cash jobs) and this amount is not sustainable for them to stay in this cohort, yet society needs this group to exist, ie lower to lower middle class, but for them to exist they need a certain amount of income to live comfortably.
Many in this cohort, would like to move ahead and improve their circumstances but the system is now set up to reward you with doing less rather than more. Of course, you can free yourself from this by giving up and dropping back to qualify for the benefit, but is that the message we should be sending.
Further, this grey area group has now expanded to include the cohort above that, ie the middle class. Soon everyone except the top 5% will need some support. It is no coincidence that more and more working poor are having to turn up at food banks.
You point is bang on Dale.
Add to this the madness of the min wage. Making it illegal to employ someone at a wage agreed between two people. Often those who have no skills and cannot produce enough of value to be employed at the govt set rate. The outcome is no ability to gain a job, to upskill, to better themselves and move up the system. Of course govt try and mitigate their foolishness by creating BS work schemes and other tax payer wastage.
A terribly depressing environment for the bottom sectors - created by misguided socialist twaddle.
Dale. No, I did get your point. We are on the same page. I was mainly ranting about the implication that government and business has an obligation to ensure the financial incentive gap between benefit levels and paid work are sufficiently wide to make work the obvious choice. That there is no social obligation to be in paid work wherever possible.
Yes, but as the research shows, the cohort immediately above the benefit are always worse off, that is why you want both the number on a benefit and the number in the group immediately above to be small, otherwise it can multiply out very rapidly and consume a huge part of Govt (those who are working) taxes.
That does not means you deliberately reduce money to those needing a benefit, but you create a society where there is very little need for a benefit in the first place, and those in the cohort above the benefit are earning enough for a decent living standard.
I think the fact incurable medical conditions cause permanent often degenerative disabilties has more to do with lack of moving off welfare. When you lose the ability to stand or lift your arms or breathe unaided you can still read and write, you can in fact do engineering or accountancy but few orchards & even government departments will have job openings for you. Most will not even give you access to the worksite to begin with. Many will deny you any business trade outright as well. You also cannot hide behind the fact you thought they were able bodied because you could not obviously see their disability just because they do not wear a sign around their necks saying I am severely autistic or I am blind or I have a severe medical condition that leads to regular frequent seizures and paralysis or heart attacks or I have a severe brain injury etc. Very few employers would hire someone who has no transport access to a worksite or has a medical condition either (even if that condition has no effect on productivity). How many interviewers offer transport or remote options and seriously consider the remote over those who could come to the inaccessible office, sadly quite few. Further abuse of disabled people and their carers who are the few lucky ones who can even get any income support (most of the time they are put on jobseekers even if they are unable to find any work from any employer due to incurable diseases they did not choose or cause) after several specialist medical reports signed and sent to government departments while being denied any work at all, (and so many still get denied income support at this point even after frequent specialist reports and no other income), will be met with the reporting any hate crime deserves. Yet you expect those who face the highest costs of living to exist and pay living costs on the lowest income. Your attitudes are literally killing the most vulnerable in NZ. What would change if those so disabled no employers consider them were able to have a livable income and enough to afford housing, seeing their community, local parks and healthy food. Currently you are denying the disabled even access and rights to housing, education and access to most businesses. Ever thought about karma.
So Karma would then give me a disability to prove a point? Which you have missed entirely.
You are misrepresenting my whole argument. I'm not talking about the people with a disability that are on a benefit, I'm talking about the relative difference in income with those on a benefit that can work, and those not on a benefit that can and want to work.
The fact is that the cohort on a benefit can be earning more than those in the cohort immediately above them. And whatever they are earning in both groups may not be enough, but that is a different argument, and if those with disabilities need extra support, then that has nothing to do with whether they are on a benefit or not.
No karma kills us all in the end all we can do is pray it is not the more common journey many disabled people face in NZ of severe degradation, often homeless and painful. You forget many disabled have no income and no income support, followed by those lucky enough to get any income support where the income support for disabled is the lowest of the low, the least of all of them even though they have no chance for employment and often face high medical costs. meanwhile those still working over the age of 65 all get benefits far higher and at far higher cost to NZ even though they can get employment still. Try explaining why those with the lowest opportunity to get employment with the highest physical barriers to it and highest cost of living have far less income than even the lowest paid employee. Try living on less than $3 an hour (a legal wage in NZ) then get back and say that is fair to someone who faces the highest cost of living and cannot even enter 98% of homes and buildings in NZ.
Great points, Dale. A Universal Basic Income is the answer to so many of the issues you raise. It would get us out of that trap you refer to as the 'benefit cut-off' line. With a UBI, there is no cut-off - it is a universal sum paid to every individual working or not. Just like superannuation.
yes, it is a strange one, but Universal income is a little contradictory to my comment above 'you create a society where there is very little need for a benefit in the first place, and those in the cohort above the benefit are earning enough for a decent living standard.'
While a universal income has some appeal (who doesn't like free money), and some people are quite happy to be managed, who is paying for all of this?
Hi Dale. The cost of a UBI is covered in exactly the same way that all of these COVID-related QE dollars are - that being through the government (Treasury) borrowing via the RBNZ. And bear in mind there are also massive savings by way of administration of the current means/needs tested benefit system, given the UBI is universal. There would be very significant savings in both WINZ and IRD activities. And those savings are on-going, not just a one-off.
Borrowed money has to be paid back. And the savings of UBI over the status quo, is still far greater than if we did not need any of them to the extent that we do.
But if I had to choose between UBI and the Status quo as the only two options, then it would probably be the UBI as the lesser of the two evils.
Trotter is as perceptive as ever with his 'people feel long before they think' comment. It explains much of the astonishing swing of voters from centre left national to more left labour. Disenchanted with nat party dysfunction and suckers as ever for a hearts and mind glitter show, a personality cult leader employing an outstanding PR team cemented the deal for middle NZ kiwis. But those same reactive feelings will just as easily be reactivated by the perceived threats to our freedoms and societal cohesion posed by politicians advocating major democracy eroding change to NZs laws and political power structures. Ardern's shrieking demand in the house recently for Collins to either get on board with or deny the current zeitgeist that the treaty is a partnership, was a revealing exhibition. Feelings in an electorate presented with similarly polarising propositions could be quickly activated.
Again, another contradiction, Don Brash calls for one law for all, and is married to a woman of Asian heritage, as does Collins and is married to a man of Samoan-Chinese heritage. Are there meant to be different laws for people of a different colour?
And I don't see us as a nation moving towards being a more cohesive and inclusive nation when the diversity ( as in the division) of everything is the new policy.
I think Thomas Sowell covers this topic very well. We are just the USA thirty years ago and catching up fast, much to our detriment.
Are there meant to be different laws for people of a different colour?
Dale, upholding and imbedding the Treaty of Waitangi in our constitutional framework has nothing to do with colour - instead the issues is one of whakapapa. I have grandchildren who whakapapa Māori but have no 'colour' that gives an indication of their heritage.
We do have one law for all - that 'catch phrase' is a mischaracterization. I assume what Don Brash (and Judith Collins) actually mean is we should ignore the relationship in law established between the British Crown and Māori, and we should ignore the rights and obligations conferred by it on both parties to that Treaty.
In the history subjects I studied throughout my schooling in the US, the many treaties the US government signed with indigenous tribes/peoples - and then breached - are taught to highlight the ill-treatment of indigenous people in the US application of democratic principles. I think what is happening in NZ (as the Prime Minister points out) is that we as a people are becoming more aware and understanding of the effects of colonisation on indigenous people the world over. This is why John Key I assume, agreed to sign up to the UN Declaration on the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The 'line' that you are running - or the worldview that you are ascribing to - is changing, in a good way, to my mind. Understanding more of te reo Māori and NZ history are the factors that I believe are moving/will further move us (NZ society) in this co-governance direction over time.
So throughout your schooling in the US, and since, did you read any of Thomas Sowell's books?
Thomas Sowell's talks of the missing century following the American Civil War where black Americans made huge improvements, and then from the 1960's on, have lost them. IE they cannot blame slavery as the reason for that decline. We also see the same history in NZ following colonialism, and then from the 1970's on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTM2EmWqUec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsHdB0M2Sq4
The effects of being alive today are no more negative for any individual Maori, or their descendants than if they were on the wrong end of any Maori on Maori conflict pre colonialism.
No individual alive in NZ today who is a descendant of those times can claim they are better or worse off because of what happened. All we know is our very existence is due to what happened, ie you would not have existed if that had not happened. It is logically impossible for any individual that is alive to point to an alternative existence they would have had, had colonialism not happened.
But there is a benefit of course in claiming there is an effect that can be righted, a benefit for a few at least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty0NwT2yLuM
Do we really know that NZ is becoming more socialist? Labour won the last election by a landslide mainly due to Covid and having a far more popular leader. Had the Nats been in power and performed as well with Covid then I’m sure they would have had a landslide too. And remember the Nats didn’t really lose the election before last, Winston bluffed it.
The benefit rise was a fart in the wind and will end up passed on to landlords. If Labour were all the things you're saying they'd have enacted a rent freeze. The fact that Labour is still popular says more about people than it does about Labour. So, mostly shallow, low information sheep
Well, Chris. I think you've got what you've been dreaming of!
The Mowrees are Comin! There's a Republic on the Horizon!!
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/jacinda-ardern-believes-new-zealand-will-…
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.