By Chris Trotter*
“The state of the nation is fragile.” Such was Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s sobering conclusion to a State of the Nation (SOTN) address that left many questions unanswered – and even more unasked.
How, for example, does one strengthen a state when those charged with administering it believe the elected government is guided entirely by the wrong beliefs? How is public morale to be lifted when the nation’s key influencers hold huge swathes of the population in contempt? How is New Zealand’s crumbling infrastructure to be remedied in the absence of the sort of publicly-owned design and construction agency that oversaw the creation of so much of New Zealand’s key infrastructure from the 1940s to the 1980s? How can the nation’s productivity be lifted without a wholesale reduction in the size and influence of the professional-managerial class across both the public and private sectors?
Christopher Luxon had distressingly little to say about these issues.
It is not as though he doesn’t recognise the hostility of the political class towards the Coalition Government’s plans, or the obstructions being raised against them, it is just that he is unwilling to say much more about this resistance than that his policies “won’t be popular with everyone – I get it.” Someone should tell the Prime Minister that allowing your programme to be defined by the objections of its critics is never a good idea.
It is all very well to describe the state of the nation as “fragile”, but if you don’t then explain why it’s fragile and how you intend to make it more resilient, then all you’ve achieved is a further demoralisation of the population. When what the people of New Zealand need more than anything is inspiration, telling them that their government’s policies won’t be popular can only be judged as a pretty uninspiring prime-ministerial offering.
Most voters would agree that it is a good thing for an incoming government to carry out its election promises in a timely fashion, but the fortunes of a “fragile” state cannot be turned around in 100 days – or even 1,000 days. Indeed, as a figurative device, this focus on “The First 100 Days” has drifted a long way from its historical origins in the rush of remedial legislation that distinguished the first three months of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration.
These bills, many of them unread by members of congress, were passed in what was dangerously close to a state of panic. Roosevelt had delivered his inaugural address on a day when the doors of virtually every bank in the United States remained firmly closed to their distraught depositors. When FDR told his fellow Americans that: “The only thing we have to fear – is fear itself.”, he was not being rhetorical. There were many who believed that American capitalism stood on the brink of complete collapse, and that if the future didn’t belong to the communists, then it belonged to the fascists.
Roosevelt’s avalanche of legislation was not about ticking-off promises made during the presidential election campaign of 1932, it was about showing the American people that he would do just about anything to haul the American economy out of the hole into which it, and the millions of Americans it sustained, had fallen. Those action-packed “first one hundred days” were immortalised by America’s leading political columnist, Walter Lippman, after – not before – Roosevelt acted.
And action was the key. As Roosevelt declared: “The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
It is this commitment to “bold, persistent experimentation” that is missing from Luxon’s SOTN speech. Present in spades, however, is Luxon’s condemnation of his predecessor’s experiments, and his delight at being able to purge them from the nation’s statute books. But, public gratitude for an incoming government’s repeal of unpopular legislation, and for its termination of unpopular policies, has a very limited political shelf-life. Eventually, as Roosevelt so rightly said, a government has to “try something”.
What Roosevelt’s admonition does not envisage, however, is trying something that you and/or your party have tried before – many times – only to discover, each time, that it doesn’t work.
What is it about National that leads them, inexorably, to the poorest and most vulnerable people in New Zealand society? The beneficiaries to whom they then insist on delivering fatuous speeches about “welfare dependency”? Luxon was certainly playing true to his party’s form on Sunday (18/2/24) when he declared to his anything-but-dependent audience: “We’ll do everything we can to help people into work, but if they don’t play ball the free ride is over.”
Free ride? As if attempting to survive on a benefit in New Zealand is a matter of sitting back in your taxpayer-funded limousine, peeling-off $100 bills from your bankroll, and using them to light your fat Cuban cigars. That the constant deprivation, the acute humiliation, and the unrelenting stress of never having enough money to live on, is something beneficiaries actually enjoy; something they seek out; something they’ll do everything they can to prolong.
Has Luxon ever done what every prime minister of New Zealand should do – sit down with a group of unemployed New Zealanders for a day and just listen to their stories? The chances are high that he hasn’t. A poll of National Party members revealed that 70% of them knew no one who was living on a benefit. Presumably, this is why Luxon is able to describe National’s latest effort at punishing the poor as “tough love”. Well, the “tough” is certainly there, but where is the love?
The fragile state of our nation will not be strengthened by applying pressure to its weakest citizens. If New Zealanders really are the people Luxon describes: a people “big enough and smart enough to face reality when we need to”, then the questions he needs to put to them are pretty simple.
How was it possible for a nation of barely three million citizens to create and maintain an infrastructure that functioned, schools and universities that turned out well-educated and enterprising students, a health system that kept its people healthy, and a workforce whose members could afford their own home and enjoy the weekend with their families?
This is the nation that Luxon celebrates in his SOTN speech for splitting the atom and climbing Everest. The New Zealand that nurtured its citizens “from the cradle to the grave”, and where the Prime Minister knew the unemployed by name.
At their simplest, the questions Luxon needs to ask boil down to just two: What made that earlier New Zealand possible? And what will it take to make it possible again?
*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.
174 Comments
"let's look at the children born in 2022 who will be turning 18 in 2040.
By the end of their birth year 12,639 of them were dependent on a benefit provided to their parent or parents. That's 21.5% of all babies born that year. Over one in five.
...Dealing with 40,000 young people on Jobseeker right now is critical. But so is looking to the future and turning off the tap that feeds inter-generational dependence.
Labour's soft-on-sole-parents approach has to go. That means ending the nonsense of not naming fathers and reintroducing work obligations for parents who add children to an existing benefit.
But more broadly, the cash-for-kids scheme has to stop."
I didn't see that overall assumption in profiles comment?, "naming the fathers" is an incidental component.
Intergenerational dependence is of course the key component of the Lefts voter base, along with such institutionalised dependency as the massive 36% increase in public servants 2017-2023.
Conflating Covid into this discussion is another strawman.
"Intergenerational dependence is of course the key component of the Lefts voter base"
Are you sure? Have you looked at voter turnout for that demographic?
If you're including pension beneficiaries in that bucket you'll find that a significant portion is more aligned with right leaning voters, in local elections pensioner beneficiaries are MORE right leaning.
That's a problem, then. Older Super beneficiary voting for National is a huge thing. After they removed the surcharge on income above super in earlier years as an election bribe...
However, on wider benefits we do need to ramp down Working for Families and Landlord (accommodation) Supplements, as these are ultimately benefits to lower company wage costs and support higher rental yields and prices. Removing market protectionism that reduces supply (e.g. restrictive zoning) would accompany such ramping down well.
Don't forget to adjust K.W.'s ideas about 'increases' in number in the context that Labout/Greens want to get everyone who is eligible into these benefits (as they are entitled to be) whereas the previous government wanted to keep as many off as possible to show how tough they were on these 'bludgers' and how good they were at getting these people into work (even when the numbers actually working barely changed).
When poor people see children as an income stream, why are we suprised when poor people keep producing children? Every time you see one of those "poor me, I'm in emergency housing" stories its always some 20 something woman with 5 kids and already pregnant again. Each kid is worth a big bump up in benefit money, and a higher priority for a free brand new KO house. You can't blame them for working the system when the system rewards them so. As Charlie Munger said "show me the incentives, and I'll show you the outcome".
But these aren't the people having kids. The next generation is being raised by the 30 - 40 somethings, a large proportion of, who are too posh to push and tie up an operating theatre and a huge amount of hospital care time. The rest turfed out within 48 hours. You need to look at some demographic stats before dashing to the keyboard and perhaps try reading a little Paul Spoonley. The research has been done. Try ; 'The New New Zealand', 'Rebooting the Regions'.
"Too posh to push"?? Are you serious. The state of maternity care in this country is appalling. If you are lucky enough to be able to find yourself a midwife (after calling about 20 odd to see if they have availability), do you really think you can just choose to have a c-section? As they cost the tax payer $50k, this is prioritized for those women whose lives or infant's lives are in danger, or who have pre-existing complications such as placenta previa.
It would appear you and many others here have no idea and are just consuming and parroting a narrative. Like Luxon how many beneficiaries and solo parents do you know? Have you sat down and spoken to any of them to understand their situation? Like Key who had the benefit of a state house, and a set of circumstances that propelled him in a certain direction, and believes everybody should do it the same way without acknowledging that everyone will be affected differently by their circumstances. The issue is way bigger than "welfare" dependency and "economic" outcomes. There's a number of societal, educational, psychological and emotional factors at play.
But hey let's bash and deride the beneficiaries. In their position of non power they won't be able to defend or speak up for themselves. No-one actually wants to listen to them.
I've been in the system both as the "paying" father and as a solo father receiving the "benefit". It ain't no free ride.
Punishment, penalties and fear is the opposite of love and will not create positive long term outcomes. We've been doing it that way for how long now and what's the result?
It's always impressive how much Luxon has his hand out for taxpayer money, yet despises the poor getting some.
Moreover, the party of John Key the beneficiary in stable housing and income, and Paula Bennett who was given a housing corp loan and taxpayer money for the payments...they're the party wanting to clamp down on others who might get the same help.
But never when it comes to their need. They just announced another $40 million of taxpayer handouts to commercial property, they handed out $1 billion to investors in South Canterbury Finance, they handout out huge amounts in taxpayer welfare to property owners via Southern Response. They give themselves universal benefits in their old age.
It's always rugged individualism for the poor, and taxpayer money for themselves.
Never seems to bother them that their preference to cut for others what worked for them, doesn't in the end result in better outcomes for society.
Luxon didn't mention any policy at all in his speech. What explains this?
It's like he didn't want to mention Seymour or Peters since anyone would mistake those two as the current PM. (They have him by the balls.) But he's to scared to death of slipping up and announcing a policy position they will bark at.
Very unsure about Luxons capacity to do anything. He's a caretaker leader. Maybe that's all he's really wanting anyway.
Cut cut cut do nothing, make the books look ok. New Zealand is going no where fast
It was more a rally than a speech - replete with all the ugliness of a Trump rally. Only thing he didn't subject us to was his evangelism.
So very reminiscent of the TINA approach fed to us in 1984, although more credit to Douglas as his ideology wasn't also tied to a God-fearing, lock-em-up or starve them into submission approach..
Gosh, the guy is a whingy bore (something I think he previously called New Zealanders). Inspirational only to those in the population who want to scape goat someone else for their troubles.
The nation may be in peril, yes, due to the new government who seems to have made no plans; who seems to have known nothing about how to read and interpret a budget; who seems to have developed no substantive policies during all those years in opposition.
"The nation may be in peril, yes, due to the new government who seems to have made no plans; who seems to have known nothing about how to read and interpret a budget; who seems to have developed no substantive policies during all those years in opposition"
That exactly describes Labour in 2017.
Apart from their secret ethnostate policies of course.
I am surprised at your cynicism Kate. I think the new government has lots of plans. A focus on productivity by an incoming government is a novelty in NZ.
We will have to wait more than a month or two to see if their actions speak louder than words.
I thought Luxon's State of the Nation speech was reasonably good. The point he was making was that all of us need to get a little real about our economic situation and that everyone has a part to play...maybe with a little pain too.
Quiet and unusual speech by Kiwi standards. It only seems a few months ago that our elected leaders were telling us of our golden future with a bigger and more active state planning all sorts of goodies! That didn't end well. The usual reply of a new incoming government has been to promise even bigger goodies and splashing of even more (borrowed) cash.
Good on Luxon for choosing reality!
The usual reply of a new incoming government has been to promise even bigger goodies and splashing of even more (borrowed) cash.
And that's exactly what National have done with their proposed tax changes (income and petrol excise). When infrastructure; education and health are all services in peril - that last thing you need is to collect less tax.
And had to laugh when he used the 'trickle down' theory as one of his excuses for those unaffordable policies. The only way to pay for them initially anyway is to increase borrowing.
The labour productivity measure is usually expressed as GDP per hour worked - it has nothing to do with tax paid per hour worked - so not sure what you refer to with respect to their "plan" to improve productivity - I assume you mean their plan to cut employee numbers in the public service (i.e., same output/fewer people)?
Do enlighten me on that productivity improvement policy! A link to it would be great - and I don't think the 100-day plan cuts the mustard. But then perhaps you do think that's a productivity improvement policy?
And even that is your explanation, a short why you think it is would be good enough to satisfy my curiosity.
The thing is I believe that Luxon is correct and have said what he stated before. He said the country is going backwards. A commentator a couple or so weeks ago linked a Croaking Cassandra article to proved exactly that.
The problem is as CT identifies, how do you fix this? the only target he identified in his speech was the jobless. But to tell them to get a job requires the jobs to be there for them to get first, and then doing that job needs to be worth the effort, otherwise people simply cannot survive.
So the challenge for the Government is creating an economy which creates the jobs. That will cost and must be sold to the public, but I and others have talked strategies on this in the past. Rebuilding national resilience so we don't have to import so much, but can maybe compete with other manufacturing nations.
Haha... When we were at our so called wealthiest per a correlation with GDP we were also still a colony of the UK and globalisation by multinational corporations hadn't taken over. We weren't really competing with anyone.
But aren't we now the wealthiest we've ever been trading houses to each other.
And it would appear the beneficiaries are holding us back.
We are importing 200,000 workers a year to do a whole bunch of unskilled jobs. Obviously these immigrants feel that "its worth the effort" to move here and work in these jobs. And clearly the money earned is enough to sustain a family, otherwise we would have huge tent cities full of immigrants. So why do the unemployed feel like they are too good for these jobs?
We had an economy that had jobs - record low levels of unemployment, desperate employers, businesses having to literally shut down because they couldnt get staff. And still the numbers of unemployed beneficiaries went through the roof. Its not the economy that is the problem.
We have had 1 year of importing 200,000 people.
Many of the immigrants have left their families at home, they can't afford to have their families live here due to the high cost of living. They send money back home where it cheaper to live.
Unfortunately many of the unemployed are not able to work as they will lose their benefits and don't have the "luxury" of sending their families to live in poorer countries where the cost of living is lower.
In a previous life I work in a UK jobcentre for a few months. The issue isn't that people don't want to work, the issue is that the wages are too low to live, the rich 10% take the bulk of the profits and as time goes on they take an even bigger share.
Trickle down economics is thoroughly debunked bollocks.
Given that's the vast majority of working Kiwis they do it day in and day out.
National Party, Act and NZF leaders - on the other hand - love doing daytime sit downs with non-working Kiwis, e.g. retirees, while skipping unemployed Kiwis altogether (unless you count retirees as unemployed too).
Trotter's "managerial professional class" know Luxon is coming for them. They will fight back. Look at the media.
But it's action New Zealand needs. More workers, fewer controllers telling them they can't do stuff as they create complexity to embed their own position.
Any forward momentum will be a long time coming.
They've repealed themselves into an environment of confusion where many government departments simply have no idea what they're supposed to be working towards. Many senior employee are running around asking questions from government but getting no answers.
While Trotter's piece is worthy and males admirable humanitarian points, he does idealise the beneficiaries. I know some and they have a sophisticated knowledge of gaming the system and a dedication to this that would put the productivity of the humble wage earner to shame.
At the very least there needs to be a look at the use of the Winz 'green card' for 'treats'. i don't begrudge anyone a treat, but wow, i think even beneficiaries would agree it has got out of hand.
Needs to be some education around the limitations of funding lifestyles off the public purse, just in terms of finite resources, the country's survival etc. While having a nuanced approach that does not turn Winz workers into heartless jobs-worths and avoiding a process that demeans applicants.
I think you might be referring to Special Needs Grants?
Do you see these types of needs as 'treats'? Just unsure what you mean by 'treats'.
I think of 'treats' as movie tickets, meals out, holiday travel, etc.
kate, good that you challenge me, but by treats this is what i am given to understand:
i mean going to a big box retailer where winz have allocated you a sum on a green card for some emergency purchase they have authorised, and managing to squeeze in surplus purchases that take your fancy on to it. (eg new clothing, chocks, kids toys) under the cost of the authorised item. Word gets around which sales staff will turn a blind eye or are complicit in some way. Given how grim life can be as a beneficiary, who can blame people for doing this. But of course there is a bigger picture.
What? You're saying that invoices/receipts provided to WINZ are being falsified by retail staff?
How does a retail staffer 'turn a blind eye' in the non-metaphorical sense?
Sounds more like theft - i.e., two items taken by the purchaser and only one charged/paid for through the till?
Very serious allegation if that is what you are alluding to.
Should the same disregard not also be given to the "wealthy" who have a sophisticated knowledge and dedication to gaming "the system", at a higher cost to society IMO? They are highly idealised.
Gaming the system is the name of the game, is it not? The majority are trying to do it one way or another. Many might be doing it out of need, but most would be doing it out of greed.
Their best policy is they aren't labour. I see tough love starting to be applied. Criminals exported instead of imported, interest rates allowed to progress towards equilibrium instead of supporting unproductive debt, some shackles lifted from small businesses, the turnaround in attitudes of what counts as producivity. Attitudes are what needed to change, and that takes time, sometimes a very long time.
Tough love - should be in the form of forcing the banks to lend a high percentage of their book to business / innovation rather than to the housing economy - to me this is where we have gone wrong. NZ inc should be producing / manufacturing - not just flicking houses.
before the banks were deregulated in the 70s or 80s we were one of the most productive countries in the world. this was in an era when the Government actively managed the amount of money in circulation. That responsibility has been abrogated to the private banks. Clearly that needs to change.
Good point Murray
As much as I hate socialism I believe many of our problems have occurred due to privatisation of too many institutions.
these institutions are now totally focussed on profit as the number one priority
There are are a number of businesses that should still be owned by the public, power , roading etc
You just have to look at IAG results ,after the storms we have had and now they turn out those results, it is obscene.
Talking to a friend the other day ,her son owns a roading repair business, she said they are making a fortune, two holiday houses ,launch and so on.
We might have hated the Ministry of Works but we at least got good roads built and we didn’t have a million orange cones spread around the country ,when they did outsource they had experienced people on site every day making sure the work was done to a high standard, not like the crap roads we are getting now
Kiwis all want all the modern facilities but if there is a mention of tax increases we throw up our hands in horror
A visit to Denmark a while ago was an eye opener, They seem very happy ,they pay very high tax but as they say they can get top class medical treatment when they want it, good education , great infrastructure and a good pension when they retire.
We need to decide to decide what we want and are we prepared to pay for it.
Those are misleading statistic.
The overall population density is not really relevant, it's the urban area population density.
Same with the elevation stats, it's the urban elevations that are relevant. Also convenient that you don't mention the fact that people cycle in snow and rain and cold temperatures there which is another false mythical barrier to cycling in New Zealand.
It's pretty simple why people cycle in Denmark and they don't here. It's because the roads and streets in Denmark are planned, designed and built to enable cycling. In NZ we're still 20 years behind most of Europe.
Did Chrisofnofame mention that Kiwis aren't the brightest?
Yes. I've got a container load of cargo bikes on their way from Denmark. All older non battery electric models. Dead easy to maintain and fun to ride. Rated at 180kg load capacity (including rider) so an up to 100 kg grocery run is no problem for larger family. These are all 8 speed internal hubs so not the best in hilly Auckland, or Wellington suburbs but for flatter areas - great. Mine is used in a provincial Waikato town as my only transport. For longer distances I put a std bike on the bus
Lots of rose tinted nostalgia there, Harry. My memory of the "golden" days of the Ministry of Works is quite different. Feather bedding, bureaucracy, and powerful unionism more likely. I also remember the high proportion of main roads still unsealed.
The "red cone" phenomena, I might agree with you, but that is more to do with our more recent run of "nanny states" and excessive regulation. At least we have a government that is talking about productivity and a general need for the public to "get real" about NZ's parlous financial situation.
I reserve judgement about whether the talk will translate to action.
It's not socialism Harry. It's about the role of government. In a large country like the US, privatisation of some functions may work better, but in a small country like NZ I suggest it is just setting us up to be ripped off by the capitalists. Out infrastructure is all shonky now because it has been done on the cheap for the last 30 years because the private companies who were contracted to deliver it all needed to make a profit. We got what we paid for.
My belief is that we do need to resurrect a 21st century version of the Ministry of Works and rebuild the skills and expertise across the board for all the areas.
Have a deep think about what socialism really is. It is not what CT is suggesting. Nor is what I call for when a call for more democracy.
Marx had decent socialist ideas that were derided because some tyrannical dictators tried implementing them incorrectly.
Adam Smith had his corresponding Theory of Moral Sentiments to balance his Wealth of Nations theory.
Fact is we don't seem willing to try new theories.
Fact is capitalism as we know it was and is only ever an extension of slavery and feudalism. It and economic theory has no humanitarian values. These values can only come from healthy humans, not institutions and not corporations. The last time we were even close to having values in politics may have been during the time of Michael Savage.
They must have been listening…
https://www.interest.co.nz/business/126420/commerce-consumer-affairs-mi…
No mention of government spending on propping up the housing market? What about superannuation? Straight for the jugular of beneficiaries... But not the landlord and retiree beneficiaries. Just the parents who should be working instead of raising children. Love how we've closed every door we've strolled through here in NZ.
This is not a country to raise children. This is a country to pay rent.
https://figure.nz/chart/2eIStXKBWssxMIze
SOTN: It ain't great.
What are we gonna do? Uhh, dunno. Cut Labours policies for one, then uhh, no more money except for landlords and retirees.
I'll need to brush up on my history, but wasn't Roosevelts depression plan an austerity measure, and it was Keynes who proposed getting the ball rolling with (surprise) public spending, which lead to the golden age of capitalism?
A key action of Roosevelt's of course was to nationalise all privately held gold.
Given our housing crisis, this government could choose to nationalise all non-owner occupied homes. Roosevelt's nationalisation of gold compensated owners for their holdings, but at a far lesser rate than they could have sold that gold for into the market at the time.
If you look at the reasoning behind that action and the success of it in shoring up the crippling economic Depression in a manner that allowed government expenditure to re-generate employment/growth, there are so many parallels to our 'houses as a speculative store of wealth' problem.
Would be great for someone like Brian Easton to consider the parallels. And of course, all that money paid in compensation would then need to be either deposited and/or invested in productive assets. Overnight our 'thin' capital markets given a major boost/injection.
Depends on the depth and nature of the peril, or to use Luxon's words - just how "fragile" our economy is. He's making out it is really "fragile" - so I assume he knows more about how overseas capital is viewing any further lending to and/or re-insuring New Zealand than I do. Perhaps he also knows more about global energy constraints about to hit hard shortly..
The tenor of his rally-cry more or less implied to me we (the citizens of NZ) have to go on what many would call a "war footing". I noticed how he emphasied the place of philanthropy (e.g., foodbanks, charities,...) being important elements of our social economy going forward.
The state compensates for the taking of private assets all the time for state-use - take for example the Rotorua moteliers (and many other moteliers NZ-wide). Problem is, they tend to over-compensate/over-pay - and so the hamster-wheel of borrow and spend goes on.
I recall just after the CHCH EQ, listing my spare bedrooms on a rent-free registration list TradeMe set up on its website. Think of all the folks up in Tairawhiti who have been housing the displaced families there.
As I say, it all depends on the nature and depth of the peril we find ourselves as a society in - and Luxon sounded a deliberate warning bell.
Unless of course it was all just puffery/smoke-and-mirrors to enrich the monied class at the expense of the rest.
I'm just offering tried and implemented solutions used by FDR when these sorts of crises arose there.
Houses are to many respects 21st century "gold".
They could then with one move set the weekly rental to 25 - 30% of the median take home pay, and do more for child poverty than JA did in her entire term. The effect of that would also drive the price of houses down so many more, especially the young, could realistically expect to own their own home at affordable rates too.
The private banks would squeal though, but then who cares?
I'm all for land tax, but only as an alternate to income tax should such land taxes be applied universally, i.e., to the family/owner-occupied property (which is the most logical, efficient implementation of land tax).
But, if we are thinking about why FDR implemented a mandatory purchase of all privately held gold in the US to re-balance the economy - the best asset/store-of-wealth comparison (I can think of) to today in NZ is non-owner occupied housing - as in many cases it is a speculative hoard/acquisition, not only of residential property, but of bank lending facilities (borrowing to fund capital enrichment) as well.
As has been the case with higher interest rates, non-owner occupiers tend to increase rents in accordance with increases in their outgoings. Hence, outright purchase of the assets and re-renting to existing tenancies without a usury/rentier objective might be a better policy. Not forgetting general taxation is already used to the tune of $2billion+ per annum to fund privately owned/operated tenancies.
But, yes, a radical action/proposal - simply regulating the residential rental market would be far less dramatic and more orthodox.
Looking at the National party's pre-election promises this comment in the article stands out; "How can the nation’s productivity be lifted without a wholesale reduction in the size and influence of the professional-managerial class across both the public and private sectors?"
Many large organisations have multiple layers of management. It is my experience that for those who are third line or more back from the front line of the organisation, that their contribution to the functionality of the organisation is inversely proportional to the size of their salary.
Exactly Murray.
I haven't been reading Chris Trotter's columns recently as they seemed overly obsessed with Maori.
This is a really well written and thought out column. More like this and I'll start reading more.
I wish our politics could be less about point scoring on the opposing party and more about building consensus. Maybe private sector CEOs aren't the best fit for that sort of exercise as by it's very nature, the private sector requires a focus on beating your competitors. Although I suppose this is also an oversimplification.
"What is it about National that leads them, inexorably, to the poorest and most vulnerable people in New Zealand society? The beneficiaries to whom they then insist on delivering fatuous speeches about “welfare dependency”......... Ok so RB wants more folk unemployed ...Immigration has bought in over 100,000 workers a high % whom have basic skills...and National wants to hammer the bottom end of society....I think it shows how out of touch (as an above poster infers) with reality some of the speak National is reworking (some saying this was just another cut and paste of pre election waffle, others saying they are acting like they are still the opposition)... Someone in National/ Act/NZFirst needs to break out with some positive action and direction pretty darned quickly . Folk arent interested in 'fragile' speeches and I for one dont see any advantage in holding beneficiaries culpable for the sad state of affairs some of us may find ourselves in. You have won the election...get on with it....
We get it - worst Government ever - split the country, fragile, people at each others throats, carnage on the streets...economy in ruins, sky falling,
Lets stop the boats, stop the bridge's, stop the trains.
You have won the election...now get on with it....
You have won the election...now get on with it....
You have won the election...now get on with it....
Lead us to the promised land .
Yes, this 100%. Just please get on with being useful. Unfortunately for us, they are only doing what they did compaign on so in a sense keeping their word - that being negativity and repealing everything in sight. Does anyone remember anything positive that was promised for the country, to drive it forwards and upwards? Did these promises ever exist? I certainly don't remember any (btw, tax cuts don't count)
National missed a chance with the indexing of benefits to the CPI no the average wage. The RIS-replacement for this move demonstrated that over the next couple of years it would actually increase the amount of money going into the pockets of beneficiaries. It was only after inflation had subsided that they would be worse off compared with average wage inflation.
National let the opposition pummel them with accusations of hammering beneficiaries when actually this makes a meaningful difference compared to the old Labour policy, at least in the short term. They could have said "Labour doesn't care that this will actually help the cost of living for beneficiaries. We as a government are helping people now while building the economy so there are more jobs for those beneficiaries to get into."
But...nada. Check the Hansard- there's nothing like that in there.
Caring yet ineffectual centrist mum has been too soft on us kids, now it's time for right wing corporatist dad to make us clean our rooms, do our homework and cut our hair short.
I find Luxon hilarious, did he not catch himself about this say these things and think "If I say this I'll sound like an idiot."
How was it possible for a nation of barely three million citizens to create and maintain an infrastructure that functioned, schools and universities that turned out well-educated and enterprising students, a health system that kept its people healthy, and a workforce whose members could afford their own home and enjoy the weekend with their families?
I have often wondered this myself. How as a country with a much smaller population could we build a national network of good quality roads, electrical infrastructure, rail, water, bridges, viaducts, housing, telecommunications, schools, hospitals, public buildings etc.
We basically stopped building all of these things around the same time.
Now we have a nation with almost double the population and we cannot even afford to build a single road properly without it costing hundreds of millions if not billions.
Why is this?
Was getting rid of the Ministry of Works?
Was it certain generations that favour tax cuts over building things?
Was it a change in our politics to more short-termism?
What has gone so very wrong in this country that not only stopped us in our tracks from building new stuff, but also stopped the renewal and maintenance of the existing as well?
This transition occurred when neo-liberal economics became mainstream with the basic premise that markets know best and governments should back off directing investment and leave it to the market.
The problem is though - capitalism invests in shorter terms things where the owners of capital can derive a profit for themselves. While governments invest in longer term things where we collectively benefit.
This transition in doctrine explains many issues we have in NZ (and in many other countries where the neo-liberal Koolaid was drunk to excess).
Yes, and neo-liberalism is not liberalism - quite the opposite.
Take for example, the Accommodation Supplement landlord subsidies; the emission-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) subsidies; the non-inclusion of methane gas emission subsidies; economic development industry sector subsidies/grants, etc. .
All these things general taxation pays for that improve the lot of the owners of capital.
Hahaha, what a great article to read on a Monday morning!!
Invoking FDR's New Deal in some sort of futile attempt to rally the coalition to unleash our potential. Unfortunately, Luxon is more David Brent than FDR and NZ would be better off with Gareth Keenan instead of Seymour.
In fact, let's hope someone is filming behind the scenes, "Keeping up with the Coalition"
The numbers of people on unemployment and the single parents benefit have sky rocketed over the last 6 years, all during a time in which NZ had record low unemployment levels and employers absolutely screaming out for staff. There was a 50% increase in the number of Maori on JobSeeker under Labour! NZ has to import people to clean hotel rooms, look after old people, and wait tables - something even the most unskilled person on the dole could do, but has chosen not to.
And why wouldnt they? A family of 4 earns more on the benefit than HALF of all NZ workers ($63,000 a year). Its money for jam. Combined with Labour's removal of sanctions for not looking for work, and in the case of the single parents benefit, removal of the requirement to work completely, why are we surprised when benefit numbers go through the roof?
These people are choosing to be unemployed. Its not the result of high unemployment, an economy in recession, a mass exodus of employers, or racism, or any other bull**** excuse. Its pure laziness and they are laughing at the Govt for letting them get away with it. Its most definitely time for some "tough love".
Blah blah blah All those hotel rooms in Opotiki, Wairoa, Kaitaia waiting to be cleaned. News flash grand wizard, Maori are overwhelmingly regional/rural based and don't want to do your minimum wage job dregs.
What is your contribution to our tax take KW, probably not enough for the street light bulbs on your road?
So move then. Why should the taxpayer fund their lifestyle simply because they can't be bothered moving to take a job? Tens of thousands of New Zealanders are moving to Australia to work. Hundreds of thousands of people are moving to NZ to work. Its clearly not that difficult to move. I've done it multiple times. Maori just dont want to, and why would they, when the taxpayer pays for everything? They need to change their attitude, because its this benefit reliance that is destroying their culture, not "colonisation".
Many Maori move to Australia, I believe there are in excess of 100k there. They all work, no benefits.
The country is in a mess because of pakeha, not Maori. No Maori on the Fletchers board or management, what's your excuse for them as they have destroyed more value than Maori on benefits?
Deadbeats?
You know nothing about them, their background or their circumstances. Do we want less Maori on benefits, of course however it is not Maori holding back this country, it is not Maori responsible for the decline in it's prosperity. It isn't Maori who created and maintained incentives to distort our real estate market to the point no one can afford a house, it isn't Maori responsible for a supermarket duopoly gouging us, it isn't Maori who see us paying some of the highest prices for building materials anywhere, it wasn't a Maori running SCF costing tax-payers $1.7b. On and on it goes and all paths lead back to pakeha. Our kids are leaving because of pakeha issues, not Maori.
You need to look a bit closer to home KW. NZ is defined by it's Maori culture, it's artists, it's musicians, it's film. Pathetic small-minded people too stupid to understand the problem and too bigoted to be honest with themselves blame Maori.
That's a good way of putting it TK.
My view is that Maori, after being screwed by the colonial governments, are further screwed, along with any in the low socio-economic groups, of the ravages of very poor socio-economic policies that favour wealth and privilege.
"Democracy"in it's modern form and as characterised in NZ (and most other places) is less about the people and more about power and privilege, no matter the platform.
And yet, hundreds of thousands of immigrants arrive in this country from the third world, barely able to speak English, who come with nothing and do all the jobs that nobody else wants to do, and they don't end up as a poor underclass in society. The number of Asians on benefits or in prison is miniscule, yet they make up a significant proportion of the population. How come they can start with absolutely nothing and yet make a success of their lives, and their children's? Yet Maori who have everything handed to them on a plate from birth, cant even get a job?
Those immigrants are coming from countries with no SW net. If they don't work there, they starve and die. NZ always looks better from that perspective. They bring their culture and a work ethic. For many Maori, their culture has to varying degrees been denied them by colonial governments and by some of their own Rangatira (it was after all, their own Rangatira who asked for Te Reo Maori to be banned in schools), and they have been informed by generations of governments that if they cannot support themselves, the tax payer will. Add to that economic policies led to many jobs being exported in the last 30 odd years. So it is harder to get decent jobs with career prospects/security and decent working conditions and pay. Why blame them for the consequences of that?
But there are many more Maori who do get out and work, and work hard too. Not all of them get good qualifications, but work up from comparatively menial positions. So try not to be extremist and racist if you want to be listened to and respected for your views?
Because I'm neither, not remotely close. 99% of the time I am responding to anti-Maori rhetoric which appears to trigger some of the readers here who cannot be honest with themselves. There are many who can like Malamah for example who correctly identify's landlords and superannuitants as by far the largest beneficiaries.
There have been some amazing pakeha who have done great things for Maori over the years.
Perhaps you need to direct your frustration on a different type of person such as the landlord. I’d wager that there would be more opportunity for so many New Zealanders if such a high proportion of them weren’t getting larger and larger percentages of their after tax income sapped by increasing rents and the lack of opportunity to own a home from excessive prices. This effects all, it doesn’t discriminate.
Landlords are just responding to incentives and behaving rationally. We have needed a proper capital gains tax on investment property for the last 40 years, it's been a glaring ommission.
How many $ billions have we forgone on investment property appreciation yet we get the same small-minded morons blaming Maori as welfare bludgers while (predominantly) pakeha have $billions in untaxed revenue from investment property
You should consider doing some research before bleating on about random reckons on the internet.
https://mbienz.shinyapps.io/migration_data_explorer/#
https://figure.nz/chart/2eIStXKBWssxMIze
And besides all of the facts;
- migration is trending down,
- majority of migrants are not on work visas (family, residence etc)
- work visa migrants are trending down,
- Residence accepted and approved is WAY down.
- departures trending up but won't show in the migration statistics for another 18months,
- Two main beneficiaries are landlords and retirees
You have overlooked the simple fact that although it appears this is money for nothing, it creates aggregate demand in the economy. These families aren't saving their benefits. They are spending into the economy.
But yes, let's take our reproduction rate from 1.5 down to 1.1 because why should society support anybody who produces future generations instead of working two full time jobs in order to pay rent. Then when there's nobody to pay rent we'll blame them for not having kids in the first place. Either that or post on FB investor page about "how do I approach winz to collect the tennants rent? pls mr luxton?"
@ Te Kooti. Who says. "......News flash grand wizard, Maori are overwhelmingly regional/rural based and don't want to do your minimum wage job dregs......"
You put that up as the excuse, but actually they just don't want to do it. As you say.
I don't think the nephs on the couch who don't want the entry level jobs, would or could do the upper level jobs anyway. It's not about skill, it's attitude.
As for rural/regional, there are possibly more jobs available than town.
Overall you should do what you can, and there is lots you can.
According to the NACTNZF ideologue apologists' line of reasoning the best productivity hack would be to kill off all the super beneficiaries. Free up housing, reduce the health system burden, unclog the social media 'reckons'.
Let's bring in compulsory smoking for school age kids, it's the only economically sustainable future.
Why would you get a job picking fruit and veg when there is nowhere for it to go? These people by and large live in regions that do not supply urban areas with fresh food or areas where there is no processing factory. TK gave you a list. Look them up or even go there and see the poverty, desperation and lack of a future. Colonial outcomes writ large.
The vast majority of over-65s are also choosing to be unemployed. What, did they forget how to clean a [motel] room when they hit that magical milestone?
And yet they account for 3x the combined benefits paid out to unemployed, working families and landlords combined.
Whilst I agree with you, and believe the retirement age should be raised and means tested, the numbers of superannuitants has absolutely zero to do with the number of unemployed or single parents. In fact, the more people that retire the more jobs there are available for beneficiaries to take. So once again, why are the unemployed not taking up all these jobs?
NZ is developing a society based on intergenerational welfare dependence and entitlement, which creates poverty, increased crime, increased mental illness, and a host of other negative outcomes. We can also see that increased benefit dependence is directly correlated to the increase in gang numbers, which have also doubled over the last few years. Are elderly superannuitants lining up around the block to join the Mongrel Mob or the HeadHunters? Don't think so.
The retirees situation is interesting, it's the most obvious one as it regards our social contract and society in general.
I have lived in two countries without any social benefits, and indeed the old do keep working. They also have cultures which bond inter-generational families together in a social contract to ensure the young and the old are cared for.
In our society we do not have that culture (except as imported via immigrants in their niches) and so the social contract is financial. Work in society, contribute and of course pay taxes on that non-benefit work and you shall have a benefit when you reach 65.
Take away that benefit then you have broken the social contract, who will pay in the taxes if they can never retire and no one will take care of them anyway? How would this work?
One way to put a dent in the universal super issue would be to follow Australia's lead and increase the level of the employer contribution, but I suspect Luxon and co. won't consider that as it brings employer obligations in the social contract to a greater degree than they currently are.
Their idea (NACT) is to withdraw from the social contract by way of raising the retirement age, but failing to replace the 'future deficit' of retirees with an alternate means to support their own retirement.
The pension system was introduced at a time when the average life expectancy was 64. Many people didnt live long enough to receive it, and those that did usually died within a few years. The pension was never intended to provide 20+ years of income to everyone. The people who implemented it did not contemplate the increased life expectancy, or the increased health and mobility of older people, or the falling fertility rates that mean the number of workers to superannuitants has declined substantially. The whole system needs to be reimagined.
Nope, it was always 65. And it was means tested.
"The groundbreaking legislation of 1898 was based on the principle that the state had some responsibility for respectable elderly citizens who were no longer able to provide for themselves.
The amount on offer was small. Applicants had to meet strict criteria to qualify for a pension of at most £18 per year (equivalent to about $4100 in 2023). Only those with an annual income of £34 ($7700) or less and property valued at no more than £50 ($11,300) received the full amount.
Proof was required that the applicant was aged at least 65, although magistrates were allowed some latitude in assessing the age of Māori claimants whose births had not been registered. Applicants had to have lived in New Zealand for the previous 25 years."
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/old-age-pensions-act-passes-into-law
Check your facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_in_New_Zealand#:~:text=Rob%20Muld….
Rob Muldoon's Third National government abolished the Labour scheme the following year, and in 1977 set up a universal (not means-tested) scheme called National Superannuation that paid 80% of the average wage to married people over 60.[1][12] National Superannuation was renamed New Zealand Superannuation in 1993. The age of eligibility became 61 in 1992, then gradually increased to 65 between 1993 and 2001.[12][14] Those receiving New Zealand Superannuation can receive some subsidised goods and services through use of the SuperGold Card.[15]
Luxon's comments are absurd, illogical, arrogant, class warfare and beneficiary bashing.
Everything else being equal - Our capitalist society is based on the OCR price of money. For any given interest rate a portion of the population IS REQUIRED to be unemployed.
The unemployed deserve the rest of society's full support, not denigration.
No mention in Luxon's speech of the massive subsidies he and the rich enjoy paying no capital gains taxes, no wealth taxes, and no inheritance taxes.
This is just to get hungry kids out ram raiding to fill the new prisons.
Nah, the A/S is a subsidy of rent for landlords and WFF a subsidy of low wages for employers.
Part of neo-liberalism as explained above.
The reluctance to broaden the tax base (particularly during times of peril) is pure individualist greed by the ptb.
What made the Chris' earlier New Zealand possible was huge government involvement in all areas of our lives.
Not necessarily a bad thing, but we need to be honest about causes, effects, unintended consequences and the moral choices entailed.
Remember stuff like -
- Import licencing to protect local industries to protect employment (but also remember the cost and obsolescent technology of manufactured goods here?)
- Hugely oversized government departments that employed people (New Zealand Rail or Post Office that were used to soak up unemployed people in what were essentially taxpayer subsidised jobs - from legend, particularly in election years)
- Huge numbers of minor regulations about how we could conduct our lives that led to things that made quality of life worse and innovation harder (remember how difficult it was to do something as trivial as going to have a quiet beer somewhere on Sunday afternoon, after you'd been in the garden all day? Or if you were making anything here, the paying of ticket-puncher import licence holders, and trying to endlessly explain things to customs officials when you were trying to get hold of imported industrial supplies?)
- A return to a more old-fashioned form of egalitarianism would also mean doing things like returning to the idea of owning a home as a stake in society and a space for personal expression, rather than owning multiple houses as tradeable commodities.
Are we mature enough to be able to do that?
I'd argue not, as no government in power seems to be interested in making moral choices about how money is made. For example: treating property speculation for capital gain differently to someone who takes the risk and starts a business and employs people.
https://www.maxim.org.nz/article/history-welfare-new-zealand/
Where we've come from, where do we go?
Morals vs ethics?
Who and what is the state?
From our ancestral community based living to egalitarian based society to me, me, me. How do we reconcile and integrate a more balanced and harmonious way? Being responsible for oneself and being responsible to others, including future generations, flora and fauna and the Natural world?
It's said that change must come at the level of the individual - be the change you want to see in the world - but for many who desire this, they may also require the support of the community.
Unfortunately much of what gets posted in this forum falls on deaf ears. Everyone is in their individual camp, unaware of their own conditioning, programming and egos. We just seem to be repeating the same stuff over and over. Nothing will filter into the current mob of politicians as they are unwilling to see. There is much duality, polarity and hypocrisy to filter through. The notion of welfare dependency is just one when it exists at all levels from unemployed up through workers, the wealthy, corporations and politicians.
Bryan Bruce, if you read/follow him has some interesting contributions to the topic.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02jUS41NxjbQYjzEapbrxK…
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02atyqLE9JsWHsx7NxX85B…
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0EsXoEqoDFbo4C1F6Fe9qR…
"And action was the key. As Roosevelt declared: “The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
Never a truer word said.....in a world a nation states....sadly we are no longer a world of nation states, we are now an international market and have increasingly been so for some 4 decades.
Do we think we can be a nation state again?
Great comments section. Chris's piece seems to have brought out all the shortly to be laid off consultants and bureaucrat's that can't believe the gravy train has stopped at Reality Check Station. It's going to be a good six years before the next train arrives. Meanwhile polling is at an all time high for the coalition of "chaos". The silent majority is smiling right now.
I don't call able bodied person who could work but chooses not 2 "hard working" no matter their birthday. Most able bodied beneficiaries (greater then than other benefits combined) are over 65yrs who have no need of benefit but they pretend a birthday is greater disability than actual disability.
25% of the population is disabled and stats show more than 50% unable 2 access work, many unable 2 access income support under the age of 65, most unable to access work are on jobseeker. Around 50% of disabled youth are unable to access education, training and work... & Luxon thinks those numbers get smaller with pop increase?
Fun fact getting to WINZ office requires 1: physical ability, 2: physical access, 3: physical transport, 4: physical health, 5: finances for daycare, 6: time 4 medical apts, 7: staff who dont discriminate openly etc. Disabled beneficiaries often don't get 1-4. Many don't get 5-7
Most cant even turn up for appointments every 3-6 months without needing significant carer support. Carer support that is already funded below minimum wage, carers who can also be on jobseeker (and no the 24/7 carer nursing roles don't normally have time for a second job).
With an ageing population we will also see a massive increase in support workers and carers on jobseeker as they are expected to cover the huge under funding of nursing in retirement villages. But it saves the govt money to pay someone under min wage on benefit instead of nurse in MoH
The only ones not deserving of a benefit are those literally still in work with a suitable income... our non means tested benefit pension costs more than all other benefits combined. Protip most beneficiaries r over 65yrs & a bday does not make them disabled and unable to work.
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.