By Chris Trotter*
The politics of kindness may have left a deeper impression on the New Zealand electorate than is generally acknowledged. Though the nation has not quite arrived at the point of asking: “Jacinda who?”, the speed and thoroughness of the former prime minister’s political eclipse has been remarkable. The temptation, therefore, is to assume that the ideas that characterised her premiership have similarly faded into the background. That the “Politics of Kindness” no longer has electoral currency. But, in George Gershwin’s memorable formulation: “It ain’t necessarily so.”
Certainly, there are strong echoes of Ardernian kindness in Grant Robertson’s sixth budget. The extension of childcare subsidies to two-year-olds, allowing children to ride free on public transport, and, most importantly, the abolition of prescription charges – all point to a still-strong compassionate impulse animating Prime Minister Chris Hipkins’ cabinet. Indeed, the Finance Minister’s strategic preference for borrowing over spending cuts stands athwart the Reserve Bank Governor’s recessionary pathway. In effect, Robertson is demanding to know whether the Governor counts himself among the kind – or the cruel.
Hipkins and Robertson are asking the same question (albeit considerably amplified) of their National Party counterparts. “What will it be, Christopher and Nicola? Responsible compassion, or unkind austerity?” The voters need to know.
Astonishingly, the National leadership replied to Labour’s question immediately, telling the voters that prescription charges would be reinstated by an incoming National Party-led government. Given that Labour’s policy of free prescriptions was the announcement received by the electorate most warmly, National’s pledge to nullify it struck most observers as nuts. It is explicable only if one assumes that Luxon and Willis are convinced that the electorate is counting on them to deliver policy medicine of the bitterest kind. Or, at least, every bit as bitter as Act’s.
Act is fast becoming the biggest single obstacle to National forming a government. It has enlarged its share of the Party Vote almost entirely at National’s expense by arguing that only the Act Party is prepared to manage the New Zealand economy with the rigor it requires. In doing so Act has corralled a significant percentage of those voters who like to use their votes as weapons - primarily against people they perceive as undeserving of the state largesse lavished upon them. They expect any incoming right-wing government to discipline and punish these “parasites”.
National’s problem, assuming it really is planning to get all medieval on the asses of the undeserving poor, is that the women-voters of all ages who deserted it for Labour in 2020, the voters it so desperately needs to win, may not be all that keen to take up their allotted seating in the National-Act Theatre of Cruelty. Contrariwise, if National shows the slightest sign of returning to the “Labour-Lite” days of John Key and Bill English – let alone to “Jacinda’s” Politics of Kindness – then they risk seeing even more of their voters deserting the National mother-ship for Act’s swashbuckling space-cruiser.
Presumably, it was to avoid such damaging descriptions that Luxon and Willis were so quick to announce their intention to restore prescription charges. But, their resolve to be right-wing pirates every bit as scary as David Seymour and his crew turned out to be less-than-adamantine. Within hours, National was walking back its hardline commitment to austerity. Perhaps the holders of Community Services Cards and superannuitants’ Gold Cards could be exempted from paying prescription charges. “Targeted assistance” – that’s what National stands for. That’s what it would be offering.
If only it was that simple. Unfortunately for Luxon and Willis, all that those crucial swinging-voters will remember is that, first, National was against abolishing prescription charges, and then, the moment it registered the force of the public backlash, its leaders couldn’t backtrack fast enough. In other words: Luxon’s and Willis’s first response made them sound cruel, and their second made them look weak. Is their anything more pathetic in the world of Sado-politics than a “Dom” too squeamish to wield the whip?
Significantly, this backtrack over prescription charges is very far from being National’s first. Over the past year, Luxon, in particular, has appeared to stumble from one hastily-corrected policy misstatement to the next. The public is perplexed. Is it a case of Luxon having bold right-wing ideas which he simply cannot persuade his timid, more centrist, colleagues to accept? Or, is it simply the Leader of the Opposition talking off the top of his head about matters he is not equipped to discuss, and then having to walk his statements back in the face of unrelenting media questioning and caucus fury?
Regardless of the explanation, the cumulative effect of these gaffes is electorally sub-optimal. Luxon, a man with next-to-no serious parliamentary experience; a man, moreover, who spent a large chunk of the past 20 years living and working out of New Zealand; stands revealed as a man not so much out-of-touch as tellingly unfamiliar with the cues most Kiwis respond to without thinking. His performance is reminiscent of those German soldiers who, during the Battle of the Bulge, were apprehended wearing American uniforms. The GI’s tested these imposters by asking them questions that any genuine American could answer without hesitation. Those who failed the test were shot as spies.
It is Luxon’s ongoing struggle to present himself as an authentic politician that explains his failure to make the sort of steady gains in the preferred-prime-minister polling stakes that are the sure sign of a prime-minister-in-waiting. Even worse, Luxon shows every sign of lacking that “gut feel” for politics that distinguished Rob Muldoon, David Lange, Jim Bolger, Jim Anderton, Winston Peters, Helen Clark, John Key and Jacinda Ardern. Unlike those leaders, he has yet to come up with a political narrative in which not only dyed-in-the-wool Nats, but also a solid majority of ordinary New Zealanders can see themselves.
Muldoon promised “New Zealand the way YOU want it.”, Bolger talked about restoring the “decent society” following the betrayals of Rogernomics, and John Key held out the promise of “a brighter future” as Labour’s lustre faded. An opposition’s narrative need not be one the whole country can agree with, but it must be one in which most New Zealanders can see themselves living – more-or-less happily.
Jacinda Ardern’s enduring political legacy is that fewer and fewer New Zealanders can see themselves living happily in a society where kindness no longer counts. There was time when Kiwis would vote for bullies – but that time has passed. At need, New Zealanders will use their vote as a shield. From preference, they will use it as a tool. But, increasingly, they are refusing to use it as a weapon. Labour grasps the need to “be kind”. Until National does likewise, it will not be the government.
*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.
180 Comments
Quite true, however I don’t think it’s actually necessary to be kind, labour haven’t. Rather it’s about having a marketing campaign, strong media bias that paints you as being kind. Introduce policies that don’t really change people lives and then trumpet how kind and wonderful you are.
Yep.
reflecting on this, Ardern was probably the most insincere PM in NZ history. I thought she was a phoney at first but fell for her, at least when first elected.
The gut is usually right.
I am at the point now that I would rather see a sincere right wing government than an insincere left wing one. As I have said before, you may not like their policy but at least you generally know where the Nats stand.
Yep, hard decisions need to be made. The public need to be told upfront and honestly that not everyone will win form the election and we need to get back to the basics and focus on health, education, police, and incentivise innovation. To vote for red or blue is to vote for the same problems that we have had for decades with the same rehashed policies having the same result.
I don't though. I genuinely don't. Bill English was a modern day philosophical genius compared to Luxon, who seems to have forgotten that Jesus yeeted the money lenders out of the temple.
I've been pushed away from National by the $5 script fee deal. I'd rather take the likely higher taxes from Labour but get the extra daycare access than indulge a party that wants to tilt the deck in favour of property investors while it bitches about people getting a $5 fee on essential medicine. What an appalling reflection on the state of National, a party that used to consider itself 'pro-family'.
A lot of the money people save is going to go to chemist warehouse and the like shareholders.
No. Chemist Warehouse have this policy as loss-leader - it gets foot traffic into their store. If they were making a total loss on the policy, they wouldn't do it.
Urgo the current policy is returning them a small profit, enough to offset the loss in eating the $5 co-payment themselves.
When this policy comes into effect, Chemist Warehouse will lose that foot-traffic and the associated small profit.
Winners: NZ public. Losers: Chemist Warehouse.
An advertisement campaign only need to run for so long… I believe that the chemist warehouse will still take a huge share of the prescription subsidy simply because if you have to go to the chemist anyway and chemist warehouse is known to have great deals you might as well have a browse at chemist warehouse rather than twiddle thumbs in a tiny pharmacy elsewhere. Making up $5 from misc item sales takes a lot of sales!
Yeah, those property investors are just the most evil GV. Unlike the people that expect others to pay for their shit. Like prescriptions. Rides on a train. Daycare for their kids that they can't afford. Those people are salt of the earth. And National, sheesh, definitely not pro-family any more. Not proposing to pay anywhere near enough to people to have kids that they can't afford. Bloody outrageous and anti-family. I mean, who the hell respects personal responsibility. These people are sooooo out of touch.
Do you have any clue at all how much daycare fees costs? Do you have any concept of what it costs to have kids for young families who also have to pay mortgages? When "kids they can't afford" is ruling out deep six-figure households, you're either completely misinformed or using it as a front for what is becoming almost effectively an argument in favour of eugenics.
The economic reality is that the people you want to be having kids, who can provide a loving and stable home, can't afford to. Take your "kids you can't afford" nonsense outside until you actually understand how few people would meaningfully be able to have families without support, unless you're just really saying that only private school kids with mummy and daddy money should be allowed to breed.
Key's trip to Waitangi weekend with a random poor Maori kid from Auckland was a pretty strange PR stunt in hindsight. It worked for him at the time though I believe. The media must have been well on board.
He also campaigned on bringing down house prices, because he cared about NZ'ers being able to buy their own houses. lol.
Woke is generally being aware of injustices against minorities that the majority of people are unaware of. At its basic level not a bad thing.
Where it becomes a problem, is when people start looking for injustices that don't exist and drawing incorrect correlations between negative outcomes and people's race/gender. The whole "victim mentality" comes into play.
This is where you end up with outcomes such as unproportionate representation in democratic processes, where 1 vote = 1 for some, and = 2 for others.
A decision by the supreme court does not mean it is right or acceptable to taxpayers, I suspect many have the view that a criminal has lost their right to partake in civil society, but on release the criminal has paid the price and is then accepted back into society, hopefully having learned to become acceptable members of society.
I'm 50/50 on that. Does a Landlord with 10 properties in Levin get 10 votes? Meanwhile having 10 votes across 10 councils does not equate to a 10:1 voting advantage as they're areas in isolation.
But you make a good point. A landlord living in Auckland shouldn't get to vote in Levin. Their name might be on the rates bill, but it's the tenant paying and living in the house. Administrative nightmare though given the transient nature of our rental market.
In the case of the Landlords, I assume multiple properties in the same jurisdiction will fall under 1 rate payer identity so it's still 1 person 1 vote.
My share portfolio means I vote in various AGMs. Does this mean I have a more than "1 person 1 vote" ratio if I own shares in 6 companies?
Maori seats do not give Māori any extra power. It is just a parallel electorate system that they can choose or not. The votes per MP are roughly the same as any other electorate. They get no additional votes or representation from the votes. Regardless of if you think it is a good idea.
So it seems the only time people get more than one vote is if your a landlord like Luxon. As he owns property in Auckland and Wellington, I wonder if he votes in both council elections?
No its intent is that we have equal say, in whatever area that effects us, we could each get 100 votes each election it wouldn't change the underlying meaning of one person one vote everybody should be equal no matter what race they are no matter how rich they are. True its not the case but it should be and we should be moving towards it not away from it. The argument that look we do something bad here so we can do it again doesn't make sense.
You are right there I own 2 houses in the same area I definitely get only one vote. People who don't own any properties get 1 vote too. I see it as equivalent to being a dual citizen you get a vote per country. I am fine with you only get to vote for one council in your primary place of residence, it probably should be changed.
Pointing out some bureaucratic oddity with voting doesn't invalidate that we should all have equal say. If you are concerned about rich people getting more say, I think look no further than political donations, a significant political donation probably gives thousands of times more influence than you should have. That is where rich people have the advantage, not voting for multiple councils.
Being a 16yo when I started fulltime work in 1972 & paid youth rates while working & contributing better than my "adult" colleagues, I generally agreed with that until quite recently.
Now that the Judiciary with the connivance of defence lawyers & the academic Psych 101 industry have decided that noone can be held fully responsible for their multiple rapes until at least the age of 25 I've had cause to reflect & reconsider.
The word woke supposed to be the past tense of awake, so literally it means awakened. Woke people generally consider themselves to have superior moral political values compared to the rest of us. In reality, being woke equates to being a sanctimonious narrow minded person with an extreme leftist or Marxist view of the world. At the far edges of extreme weirdness, a very woke person might believe in postmodernism and moral relativism which are dangerous corrosive ideologies.
reflecting on this, Ardern was probably the most insincere PM in NZ history. I thought she was a phoney at first but fell for her, at least when first elected.
See, that's the funny thing. She is actually the most sincere PM in NZ history. What she's been able to achieve has often not lived up to her aspirations or rhetoric, but that's not because she's phony. It's because politics is hard and you can't simply transform the country into your image overnight.
You have to take people with you, or they revolt. Just look at the anti-vax nutbar crowd. Politics is the art of the possible, always has been, always will be.
The fact that you see her as being the most insincere PM in NZ history is really what explains the fundamental disconnect between you and I on how we view this Labour government - I see Labour and Ardern as doing their best in the most difficult governing conditions faced by this country since World War 2, you see them as dishonest liars. That viewpoint colours everything else.
While ,I too agree that Ardern wasn't the most insincere PM in our history her unreasonable idealism let her down.There is a disconnect between what the majority of the populace will tolerate and what they see as unreasonable. Clearly, a lot of the policies of the current Govt, under her leadership were seen by many of us as unreasonable.
Ok if she was sincere then that means she and her government have been hugely incompetent. They have had a huge amount of power over the last three years yet have done little meaningful in terms of some of their key policy positions. With that amount of power, I don’t buy the ‘hard politics’ angle.
So I trust you accept incompetence.
I don't think they have been "hugely incompetent". As I said, they've faced the most difficult governing environment in this country since World War 2.
I'm disappointed in what they managed to achieve, but given National would have been far worse, I'm happy enough.
Agreed. Past governments have been lumped with things like the GFC and still delivered on promises. The issue many have is the sheer lack of transparency within this current lot, as it doesn't take a PHD to see the lack of accountability when government incompetence gets repeatedly blamed again and again over a long stretch of time on external factors, hence incompetent. Small example on top would be the cost of living payment lolly scramble in amongst an increasingly inflationary environment based on evidence yet to be explained apart from media complaining about the cost of living. Metrics at the time were very clear, this would simply stoke the fire.
Leaders make hard decisions, admit when they're wrong, open the books, explain their rationale, move forward, not evade, elude, excuse, make knee jerk decisions based on populist ideas.
No it’s more than just opinion - line up their achievements against many of their core policy promises- housing (kiwibuild and state), transport (light rail), child poverty, crime. The RMA reform is a mess and may not be completed, which would be a blessing. They have been pretty lame on climate change.
Note - I am not a National fanboy. Last two elections I voted Labour and Green.
You really are quite divorced from reality Labourthide. You're still clinging to propaganda nomenclature using terms like anti-vax, conspiracy theory etc. People saw through that a long time ago. People know perfectly well that covid19 almost certainly came from a laboratory, and that ivermectin, zinc and vitamin D are effective prophylactics and or treatments. They know that natural immunity is superior to, and safer than the mrna injection for most people. They know that the mrna-vaccine is relatively unsafe and ineffective compared historically to other vaccines. They know the all-cause-mortality is currently running higher than normal, and that’s probably because of the mrna vaccines that were forced on us by the government. What you don’t seem to understand is that the more you gaslight people the angrier they become. That's why a strong political resistance movement formed with NZDSOS, VFF etc, and it’s why you saw what probably amounts to the greatest political protest in New Zealand's history on parliament grounds. Suppressing the truth and continuously doubling down on propaganda with sinister outfits like the “disinformation project” is likely to result in a very bad outcome for the country. The best thing that can happen for this country is a change in government.
The daycare policy from Labour is life-changing. It means parents can return to work, and in places like Auckland, expensive mortgages make that a pre-requisite. Having the extra income then disqualify you from assistance while people in the regions who don't need it but would get to benefit from it by virtue of lower living costs is a slap in the face to exactly the kind of people you actually want to be having kids in our cities, not just people who do not care about returning to work because someone else has always picked up the tab and always will.
Ultimately the National policies are no longer aspirational. Their tax policy for indexation is shameful, and the fact they see a $5 pharmacy fee as worth nickel-and-diming the electorate over instead of pushing for near total pharmaceutical access reform shows you just how knee-jerk they have become. And they continue to promote either from a private schoolboy network or out-of-touch Gen Xers who want to decry any change since the late 1980s as 'woke' with meaningful additional insight.
There is no bigger picture or greater good here anymore. They are no longer the party of business and hard working middle class Kiwis. They are the party of reflexive opposition and a demonstration of the insulation of the political class.
The daycare policy from Labour is life-changing. It means parents can return to work, and in places like Auckland, expensive mortgages make that a pre-requisite.
What we'll likely see is the cost of daycare will be hikes to make up for the windfall as the govt pays a fixed contracted rate lower than the usual for 2yr olds. The policy will allow parents to return to work for up to 20hrs per week and that s if they're able to get a work from home job or one that allows them to work odd hours. Most daycares I know don't allow the current free hours to be used as a whole-day block, instead they allow say 5-6hrs per day max, then often parents will pay the remaining hours. This will make it less affordable for anyone else putting kids in daycare and ultimately reduce the effect of the parent going back to work, and thus the policy itself.
I mean we have two contrasting policies from both parties, neither reflect the huge demands on daycares and massive waiting lists. I'll the one that I can actually access over the one that is of no benefit to me or most other working couples in Auckland thanks to a poor design if that's all it comes down to.
They've already said they're taking a tax policy to the election. You'd be fairly daft if you think this won't have some sort of tax relief targeted towards the low end.
A tax-free threshold seems likely, but as that's a very expensive policy, a new source of revenue would have to be found elsewhere.
Given National's central policy at the election is going to be tax cuts - as it always in when they're in opposition because they believe magical tax cuts solve all problems - there's no way Labour's tax policy is just going to be 'on the pile' of their other campaign promises like you suggest.
Everyone will be comparing National's package against Labour's - and Act's and Greens' as well. Hopefully TOP's tax policy will get a look in too.
Major problems for Labour is are they trusted - Kiwifail/Light rail/Kiaroa orantagotang/Homeless numbers/Health deliveries/Crime say the distrust is massive and widespread so may be impossible to get voters to believe promises whilst suspecting more Mawree freebies, higher taxes. National also has an element of distrust so as usual the swinging voter facing high inflation and increased mortgage costs will be the actual decider of who Govern NZ post Oct 23. I would be interested for your answer on Labour sucess;s that actually really benefits all NZers?? You should exclude benefits that only benefit a Labour favoured section of society and most of the targeted benefits to the special people.
A change in tax thresholds would be much fairer. Rather than only rewarding those with children. Other than the $5 prescription waiver, have to have children to benefit - including the public transport discount etc. If I was not to have children, why do I have to subsidise those that do?!
The Ardern administration had the courage to shut down the cruelty and horror of live animal export by sea. To me that really counts as proof that they weren't just all talk on "be kind". It's a principled stand on reducing unnecessary suffering.
And National wants to bring it back. Perfectly on brand.
You mean like how we mostly all avoided getting infected with the worst (Delta) variant, because they disagreed with people like the Texas governor who said old people should just accept dying for the sake of the economy? Yeah I would say that was pretty good for the humans here.
Look I was ultimately as disappointed with JA as you were, she turned out to be a damp squib on many issues including climate change action, which was largely her 2017 mandate ("this is our nuclear free moment!"). But I think Chris Trotter is dead right here and I'm grateful for the higher standards we have of our politicians as a result.
Luxon’s and Willis’s first response made them sound cruel, and their second made them look weak. Is their anything more pathetic in the world of Sado-politics than a “Dom” too squeamish to wield the whip?
Well if we all voted on policy instead of personality this wouldn't matter one bit. If we all vote based on policy then the successful government can turf out the leader if not up for the challenge or as stronger leader as necessary. Vote for the direction we should head at the crossroads folks, not the model of the car that will get us there.
That certainly came across as miserable from National that promise to reinstate the $5 charge. Indicative of their mindset. It has always concerned me the propensity for many in our community to decry the poor and unfortunate in our society. Begrudging any support they receive from the State. If we want to reduce our crime rate and empty out our prisons we need to lift people from perpetual and intergenerational poverty. Which means giving them money and support to not only to alleviate their desperation to put food on the table and pay their bills but to give themselves and their children the chance to participate productively in the workforce like everyone else. There is no other way to achieve this. We can’t isolate ourselves from the criminal class in our society. We enable the leaders of the criminal class by perpetuating the ‘punishment first’ strategy. Maintaining and enlarging the pipeline of new recruits.
Not true. If a doctor prescribes me 50 paracetamol tablets it would cost $5 to collect it from a pharmacist and I would have to wait whilst it is dispensed. I could pick up 100 ethics brand paracetamol from chemist warehouse for $2.99 which is cheaper for more, and critically I could be in and out of the store in 3 minutes rather than the 15 it often takes for prescriptions. All this together means I will 100% ignore paracetamol & ibuprofen scripts because I feel they are not needed.
Then tell your doctor not to proscribe it if you don't need it. It isn't rocket science.
Also your anecdote of panadol really has nothing to do with people who have to transfer $2 out of 1 bank account, $0.89 out of a second bank account into their primary account so they can afford to pay $5 to get the prescription they need.
It's really important to remember that the current surcharge is $5 per medicine prescribed. So, if you have multiple different medications (co-morbidities) - you have to pay 5+5+5+5 (to whatever number) for that trip to the chemist to fill your prescriptions (note plural).
I think a lot of people think the surcharge is a single $5 dispensing fee - no matter how many different medications one is on.
I'm guessing Luxon/Willis didn't realise this. What was wrong about their 'rapid fire' response on budget day was that they likely failed to speak to their shadow health minister, Dr Shane Reti. And this is a worry about their leadership style.
True as this is, there is a limit where the Ministry of Health pays the rest which in effect nullifies any more prescription charges after 20 prescriptions, and most commonly people with health conditions get multiple months of drugs in one prescription:
https://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/conditions-and-treatments/treatm…
Correct. And there are providers that will courier your medicines free of charge if you take 4+ prescription medicines daily e.g. ZOOM Pharmacy.
The prescription fee is capped at 20 items (for a family). The number of people who genuinely can't afford a prescription is essentially nil. You show me one, and I will show you 10 who drink or smoke.
Read this: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/09-02-2023/when-5-at-the-pharmacy-cos…
The evidence shows that charging $5 for prescriptions results in more people spending nights in hospital because they can't afford their medication.
Blame it on cigarettes or alcohol or whatever other moral deficiency you want to, but the fact is they are costing you and I in the health budget.
If all it takes is $5 forgone in co-payments to incur $90 in other costs within the health system that all taxpayers pay towards, then it's moronic to continue charging that $5 co-payment.
That resets every February. If you need 8 medicines that $40 you have to pay in one lump.
Should people budget better throughout the year in anticipation of this cost? Yes. Do they? I'm sure many do, but some won't, or can't, and others have emergencies that crop up that give them no choice but to dip in to their savings.
You are not representative of all the population of NZ. Ibuprofen and Paracetemol? No-one needs a Dr to get those. This will make a massive difference to those on regular meds for the rest of their life - some people take up to 10. 10 x 5 = $50. It will make a difference to providing community and outpt medication to patients, which then means less admissions, which then means things like routine surgery can be done, ED will have less people turning up, people are getting treated for the medical issues (pain relief for a headache doesn't come under this umbrella). Less strokes, less MI's, less infections, This has been studied - the report came out with the policy announcement. Paracetemol and ibuprofen - what a simple life you must lead in the medical sense, unlike hundreds of thousands of kiwis .... I hope you remain lucky.
There was a community pharmacy from who I regularly obtained my meds from and paid my $15 or so. He also complained that these corporate chains were taking business away from community pharmacies. I had a technical chemical question about a product and he said he would get back to me. Wasn't expecting and answer that soon but after a week no answer. Phoned again and one of the staff said the pharmacist would get back to me. This is about a year ago and I'm still waiting. Needless to say the corporate chain pharmacist gave me an answer there and then so now shop at the corporate chain pharmacy. When I pop in for my meds also do my other pharmacy shopping.
Any technical chemical questions about any pharmaceutical problem can be answered in about 1 minute on the internet. Pharmacies are only for getting stuff, in my opinion. If the foreign owned chain is better than the local outfit, then Kiwis seem to be using them. Just like the foreign owned supermarkets, hardware, and junk stores. As long as the government lets these people suck money out of our economy and send it overseas, we seem to support them.
I call bullshit on this comment. Pharmacists get to know their pts and have knowledge to share with patients, as well as the chemical make up of medications, the way the chemicals interact, the risks and adverse effects. Doctors use them for advice constantly. They are employed at hospitals to go through medication charts to protect pts - they write in the green pen in those charts. They literally save lives. Continuity is actually really important, but not valued in our current times. Their knowledge around drug interactions and over the counter drugs/alternative and herbal supplements and treatment, are second to none. Pharmacies look and act like a retailer through necessity but pharmacists are a valuable, expert group of people that add to successful healthcare of our population and it is insulting to suggest they are equivocal to a 'junk store'. Just insulting, quite frankly. I hope you are not involved in healthcare in any way, because that 'opinion' is literally a danger to patients.
I mean, I genuinely don't understand why people were against their response to this policy. Initial response was ? but the targeted version is ideal.
It's $5.
Those on the bones of their ass can't afford it, to everyone else it's nothing.
I guess more importantly is the inflation context. Govt spending being more than forecast has bumped wholesale rates and retail rate forecasts. In this context spending an additional $690m where for 95% of those who benefit their behaviour will not change (135,000 people didn't pick up prescriptions last year due to cost, and the policy benefits 3 million people according to the Health minister), is stupid.
"but the targeted version is ideal."
The targeted version is NOT ideal. It puts huge barriers to people accessing the care they need and those are REAL barriers that people face, having to sign up for cards and prove they're worthy, it's undignified and the whole process adds unnecessary cost. Universalism is more expensive but it's more equitable.
I'd also point out that 'targeting' the policy at superannuitants - gotta keep them happy to not piss off that large voting bloc! - will also be subsidising many very well-off baby boomers who are sitting on pots of cash.
In any event, Bernard Hickey wrote this article in February before any of this stuff came up in the budget, which suggests that for every $1 foregone in co-payments, the government says $18 in other health care costs.
People don't pick up their prescriptions because they can't afford to, and end up going to hospital as a result.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/09-02-2023/when-5-at-the-pharmacy-cos…
Being poor doesn't make you a criminal. Being a scumbag does.
I grew up pretty poor and around people that were very poor (Far North). Some worked hard at school, applied themselves in sports, etc and lifted themselves out of that position. Others chose not too. Everyone gets a choice.
I would rather see support going to people that are trying to help themselves, rather than just giving it away to anyone in the hope they will do some good with it (spoiler - they won't).
It doesn't confine anyone to that way of life. Many people walk away from such a life without becoming criminals themselves.
What a garbage argument, all sorts of people have lived with immense trauma for their entire lives and have varying degrees of response to it, including completely overcoming it. The obsession with trauma and the therapeutic reaction is a trait of narcissism.
Some may well do, but it doesn't detract from the evidence that if you as a child were exposed to physical/sexual abuse you are much more likely to end up in prison. It is intergenerational and until we address this (which granted their are some good community programs doing so currently) then all the rest is just ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff ala, ACT and their more prisons policy. People who believe otherwise would benefit immensely from spending a month with a social worker to open their eyes.
Don't disagree WM, that we are often quick to decry the poor & unfortunate, but I do take issue with your statement that "there is no other way" than to give money & support.
I think every parent would agree that it is often necessary to be cruel (by the child's perception) in order to be kind...ie look to the longer term outcome.
On tv we see a frequent parade of unfortunate circumstances..."no home,...solo mum struggling to raise 3+ kids,...pensioner in difficulty paying the rent...etc.."
A basic principle of transport accident investigation is not to gloat on misfortune or apportion blame, but simply to find the cause/s and publicise same so that others can learn. Likewise it always annoys me that the tv interviewer never tries, politely, to get to the heart of the distress,..."and how did you get yourself in this pickle?"
I would hazard a guess that the single biggest cause of impoverishment is marital breakdown, and yet as a society over the past several decades we have trivialized marriage and the raising of the number of kids we can afford. We have just made it easier and more casual to get in and out of relationships. Separation is so often a financial disaster over a very long term.
So yes Labour appears to be "kind, " & National "unkind" in wanting to reinstate the $5 prescription fee, but someone else will have to pick up the bill for Labour's "generosity ",... probably the middle class young families already struggling to pay their taxes and set aside monies prudently for that ever possible "rainy day".
What does this tell us? We should be focusing on raising better men. Teaching; Accountability, owning your flaws working on them, respect for women, communication, emotional regulation all from a young age and by setting an example. If men are the primary issue in such areas, it is clear where we should direct our focus to.
We need more male teachers by a huge number to counter this, as the widespread media coverage of paedophiles coming out of the sector through the 90's-2000's but dissuaded many men from seeking a teaching career, and many who did left through being stigmatised for everything they did. My best teachers were male and I only wish more children had the same opportunity, especially for those you mention who need a make role model more than ever.
I like this comment. Boys need male role models and to be taught how to regulate their emotions. They also need stable loving home environments. As someone very wise once said to me, if the family doesn't value children then someone else will. For boys that can often be gangs.
This is one of the core societal issues we face. Boys without male role models are more likely to engage in crime, to lack motivation, to lack empathy and to wind up filing stereotypes men get put into from domestic abuse statistics. Women have had such fantastic strides in equality over the last 50 years which I am nothing but supportive and thankful for, having a wife who earns a good chunk more than myself for example, but we need to focus on the boys and the med more in society without persecution or being shouted down for wishing to do so. We can focus on mental health and funding more psychology for victims, definitely, but prevention is better than cure in every sense.
Most of the world's population lives in abject poverty and most of them don't belong to the criminal classes. Poverty is no excuse for ram-raiding a liquor store. I've met many refugees that have come here with absolutely nothing, but have been successful due to hard work, study and self-improvement. Their children have also been successful because they value education and a strong work ethic. Contrast these people with the local welfare dependents with a multi-generational hand-out culture.
Loved this line "assuming it really is planning to get all medieval on the asses of the undeserving poor".
I think the issue NZ has is that many of the "poor" people that rely on welfare are in that position because they can't be bothered doing anything else. Why would they? $1200 a week for a single parent with 3 kids sounds pretty sweet. I'm all for helping those in need but goddam...
Exactly.
We have been smashed here with high living costs due to excessive accomodation costs (house prices and rent), food (via a duopoly) and tax brackets that never move (bloated government spend/costs and poor delivery).
The outcome is that (just to afford to live with no frills) both parents need to work long hours.. and as you say at the poorer end of town it quickly becomes more attractive to do nothing. And at the mid end with skills Aus is more attractive.
A government with vision to end the mess is more electable than one with all these short term financial sweeteners (the plaster the wounds dint cure them) or kindness (again the suffering is still there.. being nice isnt relevant)..
We have been smashed here with high living costs due to excessive accomodation costs (house prices and rent), food (via a duopoly) and tax brackets that never move (bloated government spend/costs and poor delivery).
Lest we forget high childcare costs. Childcare centre input costs don't change much with the price of accommodation, food and taxes. They simply put the prices up because they are a business trying to maximise profit as best they can
Exactly - it is kind to see a suffering child and give them a drink of water and hug
It's a different word entirely to forgo the hugs and instead focus on reform or policies that might actually the help prevent that suffering in the first place.
(not sure if Mr Luxon has the instincts to come up with a plan for the latter and to sell it to the voters)
That's exactly my point. It is much more attractive to get the money from welfare than work and contribute to a productive society.
But who pays for these people to spend all day with their kids? Probably a middle class wage earner who is doing 40+ hours a week, battling traffic every day, and either not having kids or not seeing their kids because THEY ARE AT WORK.
Are we ignoring non means tested super and tax rinsing via property speculation here, or...
Say those three children grow up and two of them become productive members of society for 30 years, pay their taxes. How many years of work at inflated wages would it take to pay back the tax bill?
vs how many years of work will it take to pay back the asset bubble?
When complaining about those who don't work, it's easy to look down because you aspire to move up. People who made off with $m in 2021 from NZ property... Please tell me the hard productive work they've done for this country that justifies the tax free gain off the back of working people.
If we're funding the next generation with our tax then I am all for it, because look how well funding the last generation with our tax is going for us (I don't mean those who actually need it, just to be clear.)
Here's some basic math using current numbers and ignoring inflation for the Super. "We paid taxes all our lives" they proclaim.
- Super: $20k p.a.
- Avg Life Expectancy: 82 (17 years on super)
- 17 x 20 = $340k
- Median Salary: $62k
- Paye = $11.6k
- 29 years of entire PAYE = 1 x pensioner paid for.
dan, you conflate the maths of the issue with the social contract the Government and the to be pensioner have entered into. The Government says pay unto us, and we will pay unto you. Until the Government sorts out how it is going to fund the pension (or not), then the maths is meaningless. I would say about your maths, you have forgotten the time value of money.
The Government has sorted out how they fund the pension. They're doing it right now, by running down other services and underpaying nurses. This "Social Contract" is bankrupting the country.
Fair point on the time value of money, I assume that applies when pensioners claim they paid a tonne of taxes towards their pension back when they were making $10k per year?
dan, I don't have an issue with the Government sorting it (even get rid of it by phasing it out). I have an issue with people thinking that they can short current pensioners. See my response to centre below. If Government is going to lift taxes from you to fund a "pension", then they better bloody well fund it. And there's no means testing either. They have taken money for a purpose, use it for the purpose.
Bollocks centre, the Government guaranteed to pay a pension by introducing a Social Security Tax of 5% of earnings in 1939. Which became an Act of the same name in 1964 until repealed in 2018. Effectively, pensioners have been saving for their retirement along the way. Until the Government comes up with a solution, they have to pay. Simple as that.
You need to inform yourself, here is a paper on the history of superannuation in New Zealand. It's from 2008 before National stopped contributing to the super fund so our situation is actually a lot worse, but the overall history is accurate.
A new Social Security tax of 5 percent of earnings (one shilling in the pound) was introduced to cover the increased costs of pensions, other social security payments, and health. In practice, the tax was not enough, and much of the social security cost increases had to be funded from general revenues.
We don't have that tax anymore, and super in New Zealand is unique that is funded from general taxation rather than from a dedicated fund. It is explicitly a "pay-as-you-go" scheme. Super as it is structured was not a contributory scheme like you and many others seem to assume that it was. The Muldoon government scrapped the super fund when they came in and since then people have not been contributing to their own retirements, but funding the generation before them. This was fine in the 20th century when demographics were far more balanced and people didn't live as long, but that is not the case now and the demographic situation is worsening.
The social contract is not a legal argument, there would be a legal basis for your claims there if people had been contributing to a superfund during their working lives but the majority have benefitted from not having to pay into one and getting super funded by the current generation. As I have repeatedly stated on this forum a setup as we have it is inherently unsustainable. At a certain point, we will have too many people collecting super vs working and actually paying taxes, that also need to fund other services such as healthcare and infrastructure.
And in some cases not even doing the minimum requirements for citizenship and parenting.
We need a government that gets all medieval on those asses, or we face a growing, uneducated, destructive, sometimes criminal underclass on a state sponsored lifestyle better than the struggling double income parents who pay their way.
Bank economists predict an interest rate increase this week, as a result of this inflationary budget.
Apart from the increase to childcare support, which was entirely appropriate support to those who need and deserve it most.
It is a strange strategy in an MMP system to lurch right when another party (ACT) has already secured that flank for you. Replacing Luxon with Willis would be an improvement but she is also a silver spooner. Private education followed by cushy Fonterra roles. She has lived in an echo chamber all of her life. Erica Stanford is their only hope; socially progressive, environmentally friendly and a good grasp of the education portfolio. She is also business savvy. Unfortunately, she may struggle to please the meaner element in her own party. Luxon needs to stop visiting National friendly places like the Clevedon market and go to the Otara market instead to see how many New Zealanders are getting on.
The issue is the centre looks like the right now, if you listen to the chattering classes. Those at the Saturday and Sunday markets, be it Clevedon or Dunedin, are increasingly fed up with politicians who fritter their money away with nothing to show for it. The country needs a Wayne Brown type as much as Auckland does - prepared to engage with and fix problems and take the hits from the media. Look what years of centre left PC has done to Auckland- and same thing is happening to the country. It just hasn't had as long, and inherited a healthy economy when it came in. Another three years of these losers will be a disaster.
The primary goal of the two big parties is to preserve the two big party system. I do think that there will be some in National who would prefer being a token opposition rather than being in government with ACT. The party is just so ideologically challenged (as in they have no perceivable beliefs or principles) that if no one steps up ACT will be dominant party of the two regardless of seats.
I just think it is hard for those that have had it easy all their life to fully appreciate what other people have to contend with. They live in a world of "old school tie" based on who you know, rather than what you know. Do you think a 15 year old Sam Uffindell would have got a second chance at another top school if he had been at Papakura High? No, he would have been expelled and ended up ram raiding dairies.
Trotter might be right on the mood of the voters this year. But that's because they have been fooled, but won't be forever.
They will find their belief wrong - that the government can afford things they cannot.
When the nation plunges into miserable poverty because of it's mad overspending government, they might wake up. But maybe not.
"Jacinda Ardern’s enduring political legacy is that fewer and fewer New Zealanders can see themselves living happily in a society where kindness no longer counts"
“The complete list of Labour’s appalling record just off the top of my head.”
https://twitter.com/mikeall84403276/status/1656898457301549057?t=cktXtTu6v-ahGk4HqEdwlg&s=03
Apparently the words "co governance/government" have also been erased from mainstream media in recent weeks.
regardless of how much tax they paid or not.
Regardless of how much they need it. It might be hard for people to wrap their head around it, but Government superannuation should not be treated like some sort of loyalty scheme but instead seen as the welfare/benefit that it actually is and given the state of the country's finances eligibility should be tightened.
Yep, it's quickly becoming a major problem with how demographics are shaping up. In the next 30 years it's projected that 25 percent of our population will be over 65. That could potentially be 1.5 million people collecting superannuation if nothing changes. That isn't even taking into account that people are living far longer and more money is being spent through the health system.
New Zealand can't have that much of skewed ratio of workers to beneficiaries, the system can't handle that. There is a reason Australia set up their super system the way they did, and ignoring this will eventually cause some major issues.
https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/one-million-people-aged-65-by-2028/
Just imagine it, if someone stood up and said point blank outright "sorry pensioners, the bucket will be dry in a month or two so we have to cut back your payments, we understand you'll be upset, but no matter how upset you get, the bucket will still be empty. We know some of you are doing alright and can do without, so maybe consider a voluntary withdrawal from the scheme so a fellow oldie can afford to eat next month"
Would love to see the reaction and the actual uptake after that.
Sure bud do you want to see the rise of the 65+ ram raiders ? People cannot exist on no money, what do you think they are going to do ? Everyone resorts to extreme measures when the money runs out no matter what age they are. The government is going to have no option but to keep paying out. Younger people do make me laugh, so you are telling me not a single millennial will put their hand out for the super the second they become eligible ?
Happens more often than is reported on. They often claim "wrong pedal".
- https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/4429342/Elderly-driver-hits-wron…
- https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/6216094/Elderly-driver-crashes-through…
If the pension is means tested when we retire, and we're beyond the means/income test, then no we won't put our hand out. Just like we didn't put our hand out for free tertiary education, and we don't put our hand out for the unemployment benefit. Or 3% state advances corporation home loans.
Plenty of under 40's are probably just assuming that it's not going to be there by the time they retire and they will be trying save up for their own retirement themselves. But it's pretty hard to save for retriment if 30+ percent of workers income taxes go toward servicing super costs. The other options are work till they die, or kill themselves.
Pretty grim but that's the reality, there isn't an unlimited pool of resources to draw from at some point something has to give. Can put your hand out much as you like but the fact is that the economy cannot properly function if over 25 percent of the population is collecting superannuation alongside other expensive services without directly contributing towards it. Unless some miraculous new technology or source of energy comes along this is the path we are on. That could very well happen but we should be planning for the course that we are on rather than assuming everything will work itself out and hand wave the issues aside.
Really we should be triaging super so that it's only going to those that need it if we are intent on not changing anything else about how it's structured. We should have copied the Aussie super scheme when they bought that in. 10+ percent of your yearly income dedicated purely to your own retirement in the long term is a much, much better system than relying upon general taxation that is paid for primarily through workers incomes.
Yep! My two millennial assumptions for when (if) I retire: No/limited pension. No own home ATM.
I appreciate it was "promised", however what promises remain for our generation, or the next generation? Not a whole lot. And that's just fine. We can't cash out on exploiting exponential workers forever. Even if I was promised the pension, but at the expense of my kids being able to provide a home and food for their own families, nah. No thanks.
It was promised, and they'd literally have younger people generation starve before they even consider allowing that "promise" to be reneged on.
They were duped but it's someone else's problem. Muldoon duped them when he scrapped compulsory super. And then they were duped again when the top marginal tax rate dropped from 66% to 33% in the late 80's, convenient when many would have been about to encroach into that bracket.
I wonder how many that were "promised" are also National Provident Fund members?
What about:
- "Sorry pensioners, $17b per year is all that the taxpayer can afford. You'll have to trot down to your next local Grey Power meeting and work out how you'll collectively make do with the budget you have to work with, like the various Government services.".
- "Here's an idea, decide who needs it the most and redistribute any savings to those less fortunate. Put aside any idea that paying taxes all your life and enjoying success/wealth in your later years also entitles you to an extra income stream from the Government".
I usually enjoy Chris Trotters articles. But this one is typical of a dyed in the wool left winger. So National have to be kind do they? The implication being that National are not already kind. But Labour are. Except that Labour has been so kind, most people are worse off than they were when Labour were first elected. Is that the kind of kindness that Chris is envisaging?
No. Don't be "kind" like the Labour and Green parties have demonstrated.
Be honest. Be real. Be truthful. Be compassionate. Be careful. But don't be "kind".
We know what they mean when they say be "kind". They mean "Do as I say and Think as I tell you to think or I'll cane your arse."
"Be kind" is very Orwellian.
Sorry CT. Noise. Political noise from the loudies of the left once again.
The big issue is co-governance & how it will destroy both New Zealand & Aotearoa in that order. That more ordinary Maori cannot see that this is heading back to the tribalism of two hundred years ago is a sad reflection of both their greed & their stupidity.
They'll (I won't be here) be cannibalistic again before the century is done.
National just doesn’t get it. The political centre moved left quite some time back.
Neoliberalism has screwed the country (the US even worse), leaving us with huge social and environmental deficits.
National should abandon the ultra right wing gun toting neoliberal ACT party and move to where the centre now is.
Our government size is small compared to some Scandinavian countries and I suspect small given historical tax rates in NZ before 1984.
We need to look after the vulnerable and use our capital productively to rebuild our infrastructure and Re establish decent public services.
I've been thinking this for a while and Chris Hipkins has picked up on it also with his 'coalition of cuts'.
National should be streets ahead, but with the ACT voting block so large, National is being kneecapped as the centre recoils in horror at the giant machete David Seymour is holding.
Is unleashing a toxic substance masked as a vaccine for a virus that has never been proven to exist an act of kindness?
The Hatchard Report
Ardern promised caring and transparency and delivered neither
Ardern was a product of the WEF Klaus Schwab Young Global Leaders implanted into the Political landscape of NZ for a specific purpose and agenda
$5 is not a lot but its 'borrowed' money - lots of people dont need it free incl me - free to community Services card or oldies. Its all borrowed money that someone has to pay back - its all politics so I am looking for financial disclipline and its pretty clear this budget didnt have any
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.