By Chris Trotter*
If you believe Talbot Mills' “internal polling” for the Labour Party, the probability of a one-term National Government is rising. Made available to Sunday Star-Times journalist Henry Cooke, the Talbot Mills data reportedly shows the “Left Bloc” positioned just two percentage points behind the “Right Bloc”.
To which supporters of the National-Act-NZ First coalition government will doubtless (and quite justifiably) respond with a curt “Yeah, right.” Poll data should not be taken seriously before all of it is released – not just the numbers guaranteed to grab a headline.
Even so, it is telling that this carefully staged release of information was permitted to form the basis of a news story. When it comes to assessing the mood of the electorate, most political journalists place considerable store upon what their “gut” is telling them. That a seasoned journalist was prepared to run with Labour’s self-serving, but strictly limited, release of confidential polling-data suggests strongly there’s a “feeling” that the coalition is in trouble, and it’s spreading. Now would not be a good time to dismiss the whispers of journalistic intuition out-of-hand.
The outpouring of anger in Dunedin, where 35,000 citizens, a number approximating a quarter of the city’s entire population, marched down George Street on Saturday afternoon, will do nothing to still this journalistic apprehension of impending electoral doom.
It is doubtful that Dunedin has ever witnessed a protest march so large. In the absence of a government reversal, such public fury must surely portend a serious drop in National’s Party Vote. Not just in Dunedin (which has always been a staunchly Labour city) but in electorates all the way from Waitaki to Invercargill. Two whole provinces rely upon the services of Dunedin Hospital. If National refuses to bend on this issue, then Otago and Southland voters may feel compelled to break it.
Even more sobering, is the news that the Coalition’s retrenchment in Dunedin may only be the beginning of a savage government cost-cutting programme. According to the Deputy-Secretary of the Treasury, Dominick Stephens, reining-in the Government’s projected deficit is likely to require cuts on a scale “unprecedented in recent history”. In response to Stephen’s comments, Richard Harman, the editor of the Politik website, is predicting that Finance Minister Nicola Willis will soon be tasked with pulling together a second “Mother of All Budgets”.
Harman’s reference to the then National Party finance minister, Ruth Richardson’s, devastating first budget, delivered on 30 July 1991, is telling. Because, the electoral consequences of the Jim Bolger-led National Government’s austerity measures were dire.
The year before the Mother of All Budgets, National had crushed its incumbent Labour rival by a popular vote margin of 13 percentage points. Two years later, in 1993, National’s vote would crash from 48.7 percent to just 35.05 percent.
Between them, the parties openly opposing National in 1993: Labour, the Alliance, NZ First; secured 61.28 percent of the popular vote. Only because the opposition vote was split three ways was National able to secure a second term. Bolger, himself, avoided going down in history as the leader of National’s first one-term government largely on account of the distortions of New Zealand’s First-Past-the-Post electoral system. Interestingly, 1993 was also the year that FPP fell to MMP. The new, proportional, system of representation emerged triumphant from the referendum held concurrently with the General Election.
If the Treasury’s Deputy-Secretary is right, and the ever-widening government deficit inspires two years of agonising cost-cutting, then the present recession-like conditions can only worsen. More businesses will shut their doors, unemployment will rise, consumer-spending will shrink, and the tax-take will fall – necessitating even harsher cuts in government spending. By that point, the fate of Dunedin Hospital will have been repeated many times over.
It is worth noting that if Auckland’s public health services were forced to undergo cutbacks of the same severity as Dunedin’s, and if the city’s Mayor and its daily newspaper were able to call the same percentage of its citizens onto the streets, then the ensuing demonstrations would number in excess of 400,000 protesters. No New Zealand government has ever survived such levels of public distress and anger.
In such circumstances it would be most unwise to present the voters of 2026 with a referendum offering them the option of extending the term of a New Zealand Parliament from three years to four. The great Kiwi maxim regarding the parliamentary term – already confirmed emphatically in two previous referenda, one in 1967, the other in 1990 – states that “Three years is too short for a good government, but too long for a bad one.” And a National-led government seen to be imposing measures more extreme that Ruth Richardson’s Mother of All Budgets would likely be branded a very bad government indeed.
New Zealand history buffs might even be called upon to remind their fellow citizens of the infamous “stolen year”. Had New Zealand’s usual three-year election cycle been in operation in 1934, then November of that year would have featured a general election. That it did not was on account of the conservative coalition government of the day being unwilling to put its handling of the Great Depression to the electoral test. Indeed, after the nationwide riots that convulsed New Zealand’s major cities in 1932, the country’s farmers’-and-businessmen’s government was in mortal fear of what the scheduled election might produce.
Accordingly, the Government first equipped itself with the Public Safety Conservation Act, which empowered the Governor-General, upon the advice of the Cabinet, to declare a State of Emergency under which the government might be given extraordinary powers to keep the populace under control. Just how extensive those powers could be was revealed in 1951, when the National Party’s first Prime Minister, Sid Holland, made use of the Act to crush the Watersiders’ Union. The conservative Coalition Government’s second step was to use its parliamentary majority to extend its own life by a year.
It was not a popular decision. As New Zealand historian, Tony Simpson, notes in his book The Sugarbag Years:
“When the election loomed up in 1934, the government postponed it for a year, hoping that things would be better by 1935. If anything, the ‘stolen year’, as it was called, made matters worse for them. People resented it, and the Labour promises of widespread social change made an irresistible appeal to the electorate. The stage was set, the fuse was lit, and on that fateful night in 1935, it all went off with a bang that was heard around the world.”
Economic recession, made more intense and socially destructive by a cost-cutting government, cannot help giving rise to the notion that the government in question’s lease on life may not be a long one. When the burden of that cost-cutting is widely perceived to be unfair, and public anger intensifies, it is hardly surprising that political journalists begin feeling in their gut all those familiar twinges that presage the defeat of the cost-cutters and the victory of the street-marchers.
Perhaps Christopher Luxon should put aside his biographies of businessmen, and pick up Tony Simpson’s The Sugarbag Years. Who knows, he just might experience a few intuitions of his own?
*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.
142 Comments
Can you substantiate that? In 2015 the RBNZ reported the overall rebuild cost to be $40b. By September 2015, $26b had been paid out by insurers. That leaves $14b, but insurers hadn't finished processing claims. Miles away from $50b.
The Reserve Bank currently estimates the total construction cost of the rebuild to be about $40 billion (in 2015 dollars), comprised of slightly more than $16 billion each for residential and commercial construction and around $7 billion for infrastructure
As at 30 September 2015, insurers had paid out $26 billion, with the median insurer having paid out around 80 percent of estimated final payout (figure 4).
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/project/sites/rbnz/files/publications/…
Well they spend a bunch on infra, we know that because Cullen didn't fund it. He paid down huge amounts of debt instead of giving Auckland things like a connected motorway network or electric trains.
They also built a fibre network, which Labour campaigned against as being 'excessive' (from memory they only wanted FTTN instead of FTTH).
So yea, you can go apeshit about National borrowing from a low base, or your can maybe open your other eye and check out the government that blew core Crown revenues out by about 70%, got SFA done and still racked up huge amounts of debt in the process.
I haven't gone "apeshit" on anything. Yes they got some things done. The Fibre Rollout was a public-private partnership and the Government put in $1.5b.
I don't want to get into a highly emotive partisan driven "whataboutism" debate, would prefer to look at the facts. Can you provide some actual numbers that back up the $50b that National racked up? We can all agree Labour has nothing to show for their wasteful spending.
I said I don't want to get into highly emotive partisan driven whataboutism debate, which is something you always seem to derail the discussion into.
Let's have a reasoned conversation about what "$50b" of Government debt actually means with some meritable numbers, rather than name dropping a couple of "big sounding" projects that had nothing to do with obtaining that debt figure.
Making the problem a "Labour only" issue does nothing to address the core problem, if that $50b of Sovereign Debt really is that big of a problem.
I'm not derailing anything. I just love the smell of irony in the morning.
I really don't have an answer. I only know a substantial number of square-ups were done on things that were delayed and unfunded from the Cullen era, namely those things I mentioned. I have no idea how the balance of their debt shakes out once you account for Chch and Kaikoura.
I feel the aggrevating factor with Labour is the debt came about at the same time as Crown revenues also went massively through the roof. Looking at the debt in isolation undersells how much we spent to acheive very little, especially when spending had been deliberately lifted to 20% of GDP.
The depressing thing is ready through the list of funded projects from the 2008-2011 period is how cheap they were. Even Waterview seems like a steal. What a shame we don't seem to be able to find cheap wins like this today without them blowing out into unaffordable megaprojects.
Regarding Chch earthquake, see my earlier comment on the RBNZ report in 2015. By that stage nearly 70% of all estimated costs (including infrastructure) had been paid out by insurers which effectively left about $14b to go. The median insurer had paid out 80% of estimated final at that stage, so at 100% you'd be looking at a $5b to $7b shortfall?
All I'm saying is if people are going to throw around big Govt debt numbers, instead of waving Red/Blue flags let's substantiate the numbers. It's a financial news website if I'm not mistaken? If National's $50b is better than Labours $50b (which was the initial figure quoted, I'm sure Labour borrowed more than that) then it should be easy to back it up with irrefutable numbers.
The "we're broke" line would all line up better if the government wasn't turning around and spending unprecedented amounts on (net economically negative) roading projects or tax cuts.
In reality this is about reallocating. From healthcare and infrastructure in politically irrelevant regions like the south island, to relevant ones around Wellington and Auckland. From poorer regions to richer ones. Grant Robertson isn't really relevant to that program.
Why don’t you look them up if you are so concerned instead of just shouting into the void for likes? Dunedin’s hospital construction is from an earlier appropriation… maybe new planes for Air Force replacing orions and Hercules etc etc? Sorry I am on the road so have a look it is all public
CT mentions Bolger a few times, but omits to mention that after he retired from political life, Bolger has identified that under pressure they created a model of MMP they knew was flawed, and because of that they believed there was no way the public would accept it and choose to keep the existing FPP system. He admitted that the politicians had so misread the public's disenchantment with the political establishment that they chose a bad system over the existing one. Perhaps that is grounds alone for another review of the system?
But I am dubious as to any poll this early. Yes the current government is not making many if any friends, but there is a long way to go to the next election and the NZ voting public has long proven they have short and fickle memories. Often it is more about the alternatives offered rather than the credibility of existing incumbents.
Me too. But it's not implying that at all. It is simply reflecting the politicians view of the time. They were trying to preserve their position, power and privilege. It back fired on them, and their power got diluted. But we got stuck with a system that could have been much beter and mre representative than it is.
Basically most NZers expectations around the standard of living they think they "deserve" is way out of whack with reality.
And the expectation is that that standard of living needs improving.
Lotta people are going to be pretty sad finding out the inverse is more likely.
you can blame every politician for peoples expectations.
Many interviewed on this repeat that they "deserve / must have / have a right ..." to first class medical care in their city ..... etc ... with all the bells and whistles
Why?
What law of physics says thats a given?
Its a lazy expectation based on past consumptive (unsustainable) living on credit way beyond our means
Grant was just the one that made sure the credit card was tanked, building .... wait for it .... absolutely NOTHING !!
This feels a little partisan. Remember the current government is racking up debt on that card faster than Grant ever did and has also delivered absolutely nothing. In fact, you could argue they've delivered negative in that they cancelled things that were already half way done, turning what was a little bit of waste into an astronomical amount of waste. But at least it allows them to claim the previous government didn't deliver anything.
No the oldies are not the worst. Far from it.
The worst in the first instance is the politicians with their snouts in the trough irrespective of how the country is doing. Next in line are the younger generations who blame the older generations, but are not smart enough to realise it was the politicians who have screwed us all.
Here's the question; there are no boomer MPs any more so ALL the politicians are younger generations, but nothing is changing. Why?
Boomers haven't been a dominant voting block for a number of elections now, and still nothing changes. Why?
Try to stop blaming older generations and keep asking the 'why' questions. You might learn something.
Well i never mentioned Boomers but ...
"Boomers haven't been a dominant voting block for a number of elections now"
Say what?
Pretty sure the boomers are called Boomers because theres a lot more of them.
"Try to stop blaming older generations and keep asking the 'why' questions. You might learn something"
Hmmm, Why are the boomers so blind to the predicament we are now in?
Why are they so hell bent on priotorising their needs over the youth?
Yes, so much to learn
Nope. The boomer are called that be cause they are a product of the "Baby Boom" period immediately after WW2.
Boomers aren't blind to it. They are well aware and as frustrated by it as the other generations.
They are no different than any other generation. They don't prioritise their needs any more or less than other generations. Youth don't appear to understand the degree of work, and commitment that it has taken the older generations to get to where they are now. But make no mistake there are a lot of older generations including boomers who are struggling and even homeless too.
Again keep asking why. Stop trying to force your misplaced perceptions on others and keep asking why. When you get deep enough the same core answer comes up - the politicians.
Honestly Murray you cant argue in a straight line. Its round and round until your argument rests of a definition of Boomers ... ! (which I never mentioned)
Victory!
So just to clarify, you are saying the Boomers are called Boomers because of a Baby boom.
Im astounded and blame the politicians
"Youth don't appear to understand the degree of work, and commitment that it has taken the older generations to get to where they are now"
Perhaps you should Stop trying to force your misplaced perceptions on others and keep asking why?
Demographic show Boomers are still very well represented, aka they actually show up and vote. Voters between the age of 18-44 have lower enrolment, and lower turnout. Stats here.
Politicians chase the votes that get counted. Accordingly policy does not favor the "no shows".
It'd be good to have demographic data on the people who make the big political donations. I'm sure it could be worked out, since the names are listed: https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/political-parties-in-new-zealand/p…. I wonder how many ordinary people's votes their political interventions are worth in the development of policy? x1000? More? Less? Definitely >1.
NZ is broke. But the oldies are not the worst. Its the young ones, who have been mentally conditioned to believe that money should just be taken from "other people" so that they can have everything they demand. So they'll vote the Left back in who will raise taxes and then even more taxpayers will flee to Australia, and then the young ones will realise they are the only ones left here, while the country is even more stuffed, but now all the tax burden falls on them. Karma.
The younger generation are now a "I want it all and I want it now" crowd. They look at someone who is enjoying life now in there 50's but don't see what it took to get them there. It's going to be a total shit show as some move into politics with half of them trying to make a living on social media.
Or they just have access to the statistics that show how much harder and unaffordable things like housing and having a family is and aren't prepared to put up with lectures about how they're not working hard enough.
It's going to be a shit-show as people realise their anecdotes and ranting about iphones doesn't trump measurable, observable fact.
A mixture of both in my view. The oldies don't, on average, comprehend the statistical significance of the magnitude it is harder for the young to save for things like a house, but the young have no comprehension of the minimal options for spending that the oldies had at their fingertips in comparison when they were the same age. An interesting paradigm, but when looking at it from a resources perspective, and global perspective, the oldies had it good. Post-war economic calm, more community minded populations, cheaper and more abundant resources affording cheaper houses, and a gradual expansion of global trade bringing with it more and more consumerism and choice by the decade.
Reasoned view. And the result is that young people are dejected: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/30/our-leaders-are-col….
I dont know which young people you rub shoulders with but you need to find new ones. The ones I know through my own kids and friends kids (early 20s), and the mid 30 year olds who work for me (I'm 55), are all good solid people, tradies, nurses, still studying...
There are standout wankers in any given age group. They happen to be loud and visible which tarnishes the mob.
TS - the government isn’t broke. Far from it. This government has decided to cut investments that would increase productivity and grow GDP (better rail-ferry links, Dunedin hospital, public transport, public housing) in order to spend on initiatives that won’t grow GDP (subsidies to tobacco companies, tax relief for landlords, new roads with abysmal BCRs, charter schools, boot camps).
Agree its simplistic to say "broke" ... spending/living beyond our means is more accurate
Growing GDP !.... Thats just an economists wet dream that growing GDP is always good ... when in reality it means more IOU's have been added to the system (therefore obviously you must be able to afford it so all is good !! and the spending/borrowing was an "investment" not just consumptive)
Increase productivity! But our track record on this doesnt stack up. And a Hospital is only ever going to be a money pit ...
Tax relief to landlords is a rort - i agree
The "we're broke" line would all line up better if the government wasn't turning around and spending unprecedented amounts on (net economically negative) roading projects or tax cuts.
There is a lot of truth in that expectations are separated from reality. But the current govt is catering to this dramatically more than any previous one. Reallocating funding, from healthcare and infrastructure in politically irrelevant regions like the south island, to relevant ones around Wellington and Auckland. From poorer regions to richer ones.
Delusional garbage from HDPA there - NZ has one of the lowest government debt-to-GDP in the world, even after National borrowed an extra $12 billion to give away as tax cuts. NZ could borrow $100 Billion more to fund critical infrastructure upgrades over the next 10- years and still be in good financial shape.
Well given they way they work it'll probably be half as many as they actually announce and those that get done (and probably actually completed under Labour) will be 2-3 times the price, delayed many years and they will chicken out on tolling them, thus making general tax payers subsidise them further.
"NZ could borrow $100 Billion more to fund critical infrastructure upgrades over the next 10- years and still be in good financial shape."
Are you sure?
You dont think NZ Inc would pay a higher risk premium for this increased indebtedness? Bearing in mind our private debt is astronomical and we are a small island in nowhere with a two trick Milk and houses economy?
Grant was keen to test your theory (albeit, spending most of it on morning teas and covid signage) ... he just ran out of runway
talking sense: "Heather du plessis- allen nailed it this morning. We are broke. "
Heather du plessis- allen is no economist. (A pub-economist would be an honorific for her.)
And to quote her, talking sense, as you do as 'nailing it' suggests you're not either.
NZ issues it own sovereign currency, the NZD. We can't "go broke" until no other country will accept it.
Has that happened? Nope.
Is that likely to happen? Nope.
What would we see before we went broke? Hyper-inflation? NZ Government defaulting on interest payments? The NZD dropping to near zero against the USD?
Can you see any of those events on the horizon?
No? Me neither.
What so many commentators on this site don't seem to understand is that our Government is NOT subject to the same debt rules that people and businesses are.
It makes so many look incredibly foolish!
oh God
i think we have found the Zimbabwe chief economist advisor. Keep spending full steam ahead! Its our own currency!
There is a thing called exchange rates - where you trade your unlimited currency for other stuff - look it up!
And actually, the return of high inflation (even Hyper!) is a real risk in a world economy where debasing currency is the only trick left.
Be careful about your blind spots - they will make you look foolish
What seems to be eluding commentators is that the government seems to be hell bent of giving the message that badly managed, expensively out of control activities and projects are not going to be tolerated.
Unusually, they appear to be unafraid of the sunk costs, reputational damage and scuffed egos of the project champions and organisation leaders that keeps money being pumped in to activities that vastly exceed their budgets and don't meet goals - likely becasue they can point the finger at the previous government.
The Dunedin Hospital changes, like the ferry cancellation, like the public service job losses, are collateral damage in that drive to deliver the message that value for money has to be delivered. In Dunedin's case, we are in exactly the wrong place at the wrong time, and it can't help that the city is a Labour stronghold.
The question is: is there the competence and will to deliver the value for money government wants?
I agree. The protestors and Chris are missing a trick here, this is the citizens of a labour town protesting against a broken labour promise and a failed labour project. The irony is amazing. They are still getting the hospital, but it will be downsized to the original budget or near enough to. National and ACT are cutting back these big failure left right and centre. No pain no gain is what they say.
- design and geotech work
-Demolition of old ferry terminal
-Waiotahi creek resilience work
-a start on railway crossing removal
-exploratory pile driving
All of which is still necessary for whatever comes next , especially at the Picton end, for which there is no alternative.
I guess for Wellington , there could be some waste if an alternative site is used.
There is an alternative... Leave Picton and build a new facility somewhere like Cloudy bay/Clifford Bay
The reduction of damage to the ecosystem of the sounds.
The reduction of trip time enabling several more sailings a day.
The reduction of road traffic from Picton to Blenheim.
All good long term reasons why before spending several billion upgrading the existing infrastructure we could design out a lot of the existing issues.
not much has changed , same root cause.
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2013/11/15/clifford-bay-decision-rai…
OK. Here's a question: What was the total cost?
Under Kiwirail, that number was increasing by $400m in less than 30 days.
But I'm sure if we keep throwing money at them, they'll eventually figure it out.
So put it in the kind of emotionally manipulative terms people love: How many kids with cancer should we cut off from the Pharmac budget so that maybe, just maybe, the people who were meant to cost a project actually get the project cost correct?
The projected total cost was 3 billion, up from an initial budget of 750 million, and the Wellington ferry location was politically compromised becasue of the horse trading between the WCC, harbour board, central government and other parties (Ngauranga or Seaview were preferred for access and ease of build), which added a lot to cost.
To cancel it so clumsily and without a replacement plan was ham-fisted - but it looks like the government were not prepared to stump up 4 times the initial budget any any circumstances. I guess the view was that it was throwing good money after bad, when there wasn't the prospect of a good result.
The ferries themselves we're not expensive. They could have taken delivery then onsold them, maybe at a profit, maybe a slight loss. Still better than cancelling them before you had a plan, and pissing money against the wall for nothing.
It's going to be hugely embarrassing to the current idiots when they turn around and order new boats at twice the price of the cancelled ones.
And perhaps the strangest was sticking to:
Not to mention, the NZ First Regional Infrastructure Fund at $1.2 billion.
Not to mention, the $80 million dollar Ministry of Regulation alongside the $230 million dollar Charter Schools establishment costs.
No wonder the deficit is widening and public goods that NZers actually use suffer the cost-cutting.
Charter schools are a way to break up the intellectual orthodoxy in education, and allow some diversity and choice, for two reasons.
- Who has the right to decide how children will be educated: the teacher's organisations who maintain the orthodox line, or the parents who have the best interests of the kids at heart?
- Remember that orthodoxy has bought us things like whole-of-language teaching, which no-one else uses, as literacy standards decline. That feels a pretty good argument for alternative approaches.
Would you want a longer term without greater protections to give some greater control of parliament and the influence of powerful sponsor groups?
I'd be after things like binding citizen's initiated referenda and recall legislation if governments go wildly off the manifesto - and possibly an upper house.
"Three years is too short a term for a good government and too long for a bad one."
Selfish Dunediners? Demo arranged before the report released?
https://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/article/undoctored/next-steps-new-dunedin-ho… 26Sep
"The Rust Review found that ‘the delivery of the NDH project as currently scoped and planned is probably not achievable within the approved budget and that there remains significant uncertainty as to the cost of the Inpatients Building.’
Dr Reti says the uncertainty is due to several factors that not only impact its financial achievability but also go to the heart of whether the new hospital can deliver the health outcomes promised."
****** “The Rust Review makes it clear that, even now, the specifics and
scope of the project are still being debated, ************ Dr Reti says."
A recipe for huge cost blowouts. Was the scope, or bare bones of it, and the lead design and construction consultants issued under Labour's watch?
I'm beginning to get the impression under labours watch they shake a tree and the first person to fall out is made project manager of a project of this magnitude and complexity.
Govt's and specifically Labour ones, although I'm sure there could be some Nat ones that have also had very large infrastructure blowouts, appear incapable of running any project involving the design and construction of large infrastructure. It's possibly better with NZTA where they may have in house competent engineers and project managers.
Well we would have up to date estimates for national's roading program costs but they are all redacted from this MOT release. Link here. One must assume they are very bad. Strange that some projects get big public reviews of costs, but others get shielded form scrutiny.
The protest in Dunedin will force the Government to reconsider the issue. We saw it do so over public push-back on its failure to deliver the cancer drugs that formed part of National's pre-election manifesto.
However, Trotter’s cautionary comments about potential retrenchment of spending are one-sided. As a leftist, he turns a blind eye to the social cost of running deficits. Government spending becomes constrained when more and more of its operating budget is gobbled up by interest costs. That's the dilemma that the current Government faces following Labour’s reckless borrowing. Running deficits isn't sustainable for too long and it either affects services or requires everyone to pay more taxes, which impacts on their household budgets, which people don’t like either.
Here we go again. Left vs Right, blah, blah, blah. On and on, in and out. Doesn’t matter which team is elected, half the country hate them.
Here’s an idea. Even if you didn’t vote for the current rulers have you thought of showing some respect for your Prime Minister and possibly even offering some support. Is that too hard? It is isn’t it. I’ve never voted Labour in my life, but the Jacinda hatred bandwagon was embarrassing for this country. I had friends who jumped on and I had to point out to them they were acting like 14 year old school boys. Didn’t go down too well.
This is the Big Dog Alternative of all alternatives - Abolish Central Government. 4 States.
The 1930s depression led to a rethink of State support.
With mass unemployment, poverty was widely experienced and gained public recognition. Long queues forming outside charitable aid offices and city mission halls were a visible reminder of a failure to adequately support the poor.
Small outbursts of violence suggested that the unemployed would not always quietly accept their fate.
In Dunedin, where the Lady Mayoress wore gloves to distribute charity, her taxi was overturned, and a drawing of gallows posted to the Mayor.
As the 1935 election loomed, the Labour party allied itself with the mood of public discontent, and was swept to power with a substantial majority.
With the country behind it, the Labour government quickly began a process of social and workplace reform. A five-day, 40-hour week was introduced for workers, minimum wages were set for farm labourers, and previous wage cuts were reversed. Pensions were increased and previous restrictions that prohibited Asian residents gaining the pension were removed.
The welfare reform process culminated in the passing of the Social Security Act in 1938 – really the cornerstone of today’s social security system.
The Act introduced a range of new benefits, including provisions for sickness, unemployment, orphans and emergency coverage, placing social security on a more systematic footing and establishing a framework that survives to the present day. So what are the basic aspects of our social welfare system?
I noted a few days ago that the govt seemed to be rushing out populous policy.
That tells me their own polling is telling them the same thing.
Hospitals and health are an older person problem , the famous "will always vote brigade". Definitely an area The opposition can make hay in.
No one can replace the sugar rush from capital free gains, sure Nact can help cut waste but we are in from a tough decade while over leveraged housing debt is paid down
The RBNZ know that this cannot be repeated even ANZ is calling for capital gains tax, that and DTI will force capital to look towards other asset classes
it should be easy for government to borrow to fund infrastructure, time to stop cancelling and get building before the term is over and they have achieved nothing
We can't afford infrastructure at any cost.
We aren't a super-rich country, we can't afford to just push through and build horrendously bloated projects because we need something to do.
We didn't need tunnelled metro in Auckland; trams would have been fine and cheaper.
We don't need tunnels under the harbour; another bridge will do the job for a tenth of the cost.
We should absolutely cancel projects we can't afford and build what it takes to get the job done; not what lets business case writers build empires.
Its just another example of the slow slide of NZ from First World country to poor Pacific Island nation. We had 6 years of a Govt that promised the earth, and delivered nothing but announcements to a fawning media . 70% more tax collected, $100 billion borrowed, and still nothing.
The Dunedin hospital was just another Labour announcement. Not funded. Now thanks to the debt bill Labour left, there is no chance of anything being funded, for years. Maybe decades. NZ is now officially Aotearoa. Seek asylum elsewhere.
The Dunedin hospital was just another National, Key era announcement. Not funded. https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/health/hospital-rebuild-assured-pm-s…
And we clearly aren't broke as the government is proposing a $10 billion tunnel through Wellington to get politicians from the airport to the beehive faster.
They're still getting a rebuild. Just not the one Labour promised. And their funding didnt exist, just like for all the other things they promised - school lunches, ferry replacements, social housing .... Simply putting a $ entry into the budget doesnt make the money appear.
"The project, which Labour began and funded, has been downgraded despite silver-tongued promises National made to get into Government."
https://www.labour.org.nz/news-release_dunedin_hospital_d_listed_by_gov…
Bascially sums up the Nats whole approach to the Christchurch Rebuild too.
In 2012 Key, English and Brownlee made all sorts of promises that by 2017 Christchurch would have a completed Stadium, Convention Centre and much much more.
By the time they left government, nothing had been done.
National love a good announcement especially when it's an election promise, but like labour, absolutely shocking on delivery.
If anyone thinks they'll do half of what they have promised with all their recent roading announcements etc- maaaate you're dreaming.
People that are bored often demonstrate to fill the time in.
A classic were the Omega demonstrations in Auckland and Christchurch in 1968. Students jammed Queen St., but most of them didn't have a clue what it even was. My father had a business in Victoria St. West at the time.
One of my school mates dropped in and bragged that he'd been demonstrating, so my father questioned him about Omega. His reply was , "it's not every day you get to walk up Queen St".
Students drink themselves into a stupor in Dunedin, and the next day they'll be demonstrating about the lack of hospital care.
And then there's the anti-nuclear BS. Kiwis demo over anything nuclear, but there's thousands of times more chance they're going to be killed in a car crash. They're such a gullible lot.
"People that are bored often demonstrate to fill the time in."
Looked to be a lot of oldies at the demonstration. National is likely to lose a lot of votes down there over this.
National clearly signaled that they would deliver the hospital before the election. The made the exact same stuff up as the cancer drugs debacle. Promise the world, and then forget to deliver. Well unless your a landlord who needs their dignity restored, or Phillip Morris.
... oh really ! ... the South Island has a tick over 20 % of the total NZ population , but we have almost 25 % of the 65 general electorate seats in parliament ... so , we're generously rewarded politically ...
To see who's so thick that they can't count much good , look closely in the mirror ...
I think the overall message is that we're not in control.
Both parties have followed ideological bents without executing well (well, the current government is executing in a different way, primarily the public service)
We tend to go for aspirational, gold plated solutions as we pride ourselves as being first world. We tend to have a management layer that often hails from overseas with expectations that NZ should be doing what everyone else is doing. Given our low population base and revenue stream that is unwise. Thats not to say we shouldn't learn from overseas experience, more that we need to be realistic on what can be done and smarter about doing to maximise outcomes.
Our governments tend to not take responsibility for managing the implementation of policy. Or the impact of changing policy on existing plans. (row the boat forwards and backwards too much over time and you tend to end up knackered and in the same place)
What worries me most is that the current government is not evidence based. They seem to be undoing decades of what I had thought were middle of the road progressive politics. It's almost like an allergic reaction to anything they deem woke. It's also not transparent. Perhaps due to the coalition they have a false sense of mandate, which the polls are indicating they don't really have.
What worried me about the previous government is that they were too pure ideologically and optimistic that policy settings alone with lots of money would get things done.
There is an urgent need to bring back control, better manage budget overruns, have better conversations.
Bring back Bill. He's a wonk but a good one.
Let's get our priorities right before bickering over which party did what. It all smacks of the ineffectual financial commentariat fiddling while the country burns. What's the use of getting the country's finances in order if the quality of life in the country descends into the pits. For instance.......
Who let this animal into the country? (along with his relatives!)
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crime/mt-roskill-attack-stanley-iese-sent…
And this b**t*rd?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/queens-service-medal-holder-davinder-raha…
So its seems that a 1993 style budget is coming performed by a National finance minister with 1996 levels of popularity. Remember John key on his worst day never won an election this low.
Never seen before is a government started a term so unpopular with no honeymoon. It is not helped by the PM being so disconnected and out of touch with what every day kiwis think and need.
They are currently skating by on Labour being even less popular then them - and this is even before National has actually had had to make any hard decisions.
I bet that willis will find any reason to delay the bad news budget until after the next election. They will roll out their usual - lets pretend everything will be fine and make election promises we never intend to keep (unless you're a landlord) and then bring in the bad news.
Its hard to see National getting regularly into the 40's with polling and there is no guarantee that NZF will make it back or ACT having the same number of MP's. The next election, as it stands today, is definitely not sewn up.
Hey Chris : Who told you that it was 35 000 people marching ... did someone have a clicker & count them all ? ... could you tell at a glance 17500 marchers from 35000 or from 65000 ...
... unless told otherwise , it's a bullshit number you're quoting as if its factual ! ... perhaps our anti Luxon mainstream media dreamed up " 35 000 " as the figure ... or the march organisers dreamt up a nice fat number ... c'mon Trotter : some verifiable facts please !
Labour cannot win the 2026 general election if Chris Hipkins is their leader ... he is the millstone around their neck ...
... voters will not have forgotten the horrors of the Ardern/Hipkins era so quickly ...
The thought of Labour along with the Maori party & Greens being a 3 headed monster running the show will have most Kiwis running for the hills ... JulieAnne Gentler again ... Wild Willie Jackson ... Megan Woods ??? .... OMG , nooooooooooooo..
Yes this is true. Labour are done for the foreseeable future. Even the most vocal supporters I know that supported Labour are now quiet and when something like this, they don't say anything other than this needed to happen. Most sensible people realise the disaster that was left by Ardern and Co, and will not forget. Sure, there are loads of people that like to yell and scream that they want their free stuff and all the fake promises Ardern made to be delivered (by a different government - not quite sure how that works). But anyway. People like Wild Willie are odds on to be in old peoples home before Labour gets back in Government.
Greater Auckland get's stuck into the Simian Brown using the most precious of things: facts!
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2024/09/30/is-this-our-least-worldly…
Worth a read if you want to understand just how much b.s. the simian talks.
(National Party supporters won't read this. Their monkey can do no wrong.)
Even the Australian Labor Party gets it.
Bigger surplus comes from lower spending, not more taxes: Chalmers
The $6 billion better than expected budget outcome for 2023-24 has come from reduced spending rather than higher taxing, Treasurer Jim Chalmers says.
“It’s really important to recognise that this surplus is bigger at the end of the financial year than we anticipated in May, not because taxes are higher, but because spending is lower,” Chalmers said, unveiling the latest final budget outcome.
“Spending was down by almost twice as much as revenue was down, so this bigger surplus is not because we taxed more, it’s because we spent less,” he said.
The treasurer said the improvement was a powerful demonstration of “responsible economic management”.
“These are the first consecutive surpluses in almost two decades.”
Chalmers said the $172 billion turnaround in two years was “the biggest nominal improvement in the budget in a parliamentary term ever”.
He said debt had been reduced by about $150 billion, “which means something like $80 billion less in interest payments on that debt”.
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.