The Labour Party will restore the entry date of agriculture into the Emissions Trading Scheme to 2013 in order to boost Research and Development tax credit spending and enhance New Zealand's 'clean, green brand,' leader Phil Goff says.
Prime Minister John Key attacked the move, saying it would raise the price of domestic dairy and meat products, an argument which Goff rejected on Monday. Goff said he and Labour finance spokesman David Cunliffe met with Fonterra on Monday morning, with the dairy co-op's executives telling the Labour leader that domestic milk prices were set on international markets.
Goff made the announcement in a speech to the Labour Party's congress in Wellington on Sunday, where he moved to attack the National-led government's handling of the economy.
Goff also announced Labour would raise the minimum wage from NZ$13 currently to NZ$15 in its first year in office if Labour were re-elected on November 26.
ETS changes to pay for tax credits
The government's decision to delay agriculture's entry into the ETS would have cost NZ$800 million over five years, Goff said. Including agriculture by 2013 would free up that money to put toward a research and development tax credit rate of 12.5%, he said.
National had pushed out Labour's original date of 2013 for inclusion of agriculture under the ETS, to 2015.
"Yesterday on this stage, New Zealander of the Year Paul Callaghan outlined 10 New Zealand companies which are leading the world but we need 100 more like them. Labour brought in an R&D tax credit to promote this. We recognised that having R&D a third of the level of comparable countries wasn’t good enough," Goff told the congress
"Our third largest sector in the economy is hi-tech industries which produce NZ$6.5 billion worth of earnings each year – 78% from exports," he said.
"But National, against the advice of Treasury, killed Labour’s scheme. No wonder our economy isn’t delivering. I want to formally announce today that Labour will introduce a research and development tax credit."
Labour would look to focus on clean-technology, which, together with including agriculture emissions under the ETS at an earlier date, would enhance New Zealand's clean, green brand, Goff said.
"In Clean Tech, there is enormous potential from companies like Lanzatech, Aquaflow, Flotech and Windflow. PriceWaterhouseCoopers predict that this area could add NZ$7-22 billion more a year in value for New Zealand economy. This is the vision that Labour will have in its Budget," Goff said.
"But R&D is not cheap."
"We will introduce a R&D tax credit initially at 12.5%. That will cost an average of NZ$160 million a year - NZ$800 million over five years. This confirms Labour’s commitment to a smart economy. But it is a lot of money. It has to be paid for and the deficit means no new money is available," Goff said.
"So we have to find savings. Today I am announcing how we will pay for it."
'Tax the farmers earlier'
"In another example of poor economic choices, National left every New Zealander having to pay for their transport and electricity emissions, but exempted farming from paying for their agricultural emissions. That is not fair. Having the taxpayer meet the cost simply means that the pollution goes on for longer," Goff said.
"The exemption removes the incentive to agriculture to move more quickly to reduce global warming gasses which account for 48% of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions," he said.
"Labour is proposing to restore the entry date of 2013 for agriculture to come into the Emissions Trading Scheme. This means farmers will pay for just 10% of their 2005 agricultural emissions, plus any growth since then."
Labour did not believe this was asking too much.
'Need to enhance clean, green brand'
"Agriculture is important but all sectors need to pay their fair share. National’s delay costs around NZ$800 million over 5 years. We, as taxpayers, are paying for this. By reversing the delay, we can transfer this money to pay for the R+D tax credit," Goff said.
"Boosting R+D can help our farming sector to be at the leading edge of work to reduce agricultural emissions. More R+D will mean more jobs, higher incomes and more revenue," he said.
"Both the R&D investment and bringing agriculture into the ETS in 2013 will enhance New Zealand’s clean green brand."
Key: consumers will pay more
Prime Minister John Key attacked Labour's announcements, saying New Zealand consumers would pick up the tab for imposing higher costs on farmers.
"Ultimately New Zealanders will pay more for milk, butter, cheese, meat and all the staples of a New Zealand diet. How that can be good for the New Zealand consumer is beyond me," Key said.
Goff rejected Key's claim on Monday, saying he and finance spokesman David Cunliffe met with Fonterra executives who told them the price of milk in New Zealand was set by what it attracted on international markets.
In a media conference on Monday afternoon, Goff said he did not ask Fonterra whether it thought its farmers could handle earlier ETS costs, but said he thought they were able to.
(Updates with Goff rejecting Key's price claim, Key comment, link to text of full speech)
66 Comments
Labours solution more tax, how original. People already contributing 80% of personal tax are going to be asked to contribute more. At least they can have a price decrease on their truffles when GST is removed on fresh food & veges I guess.
Farmers will then pass on their costs to NZ public and will not be able to raise overseas supply prices as they are in a competitive situation.
Min wage increase an un affodable bribe, more on the dole que as employers cut work force and do with fewer staff who will be asked to be more productive. Anyone on $22-25 or less will be after a rise as well to compensate for higher skills relative to min wage.
Clean & Green under Clark was a myth as well as a knowledge economy, how will Goof change this with his weak style of leadership? Especially when he will need to placate the Greens as part of the coalition agreement he will need. I bet they will be asking a lot more of farmers as a position and like Australia have a price on Carbon as the Greens have hoisted on Labor Australia, which they are selling really well that weven the Unions are against it as they can see this will lead to job losses. Vote Phil, get the Loopy Greens, should be an easy sell for National & Act.
Yes clean green under Clarke was a farce... however her attempt at 'knowledge economy' was a whimsical political joke! Economy is a truely viable sustainable way foward.
Goffs way foward ain't his own idea he stole it from someone who knows better... someone who is living proof that it is a viable option for us as a country.
I suggest you view this presentation by Sir Paul Callaghan it blows away typical myths that lock us as a country into being the poor cousin!! Checkout the slide at 10:25 which looks at Govt. and Private investment in R&D. We're way off the pace.... Goff's big idea I suggest is stolen from here... however as Sir Paul points out more R&D in the industry's we specialise in return a BIG FAT ZERO! What a joke.
However this point is given credibility by the fact that Israel who rate at the top of investment in R&D in real 'knowledge economy' have huge returns on their investment!
START-UP NATION addresses the trillion dollar question: How is it that Israel - a country of 7.1 million, only 60 years old, surrounded by enemies, in a constant state of war since its founding, with no natural resources— produces more start-up companies than large, peaceful, and stable nations like Japan, China, India, Korea, Canada, and the UK? How is it that Israel has, per person, attracted over twice as much venture capital investment as the US and thirty times more than Europe? Israel has more companies on the tech-oriented NASDAQ stock exchange than any country outside the US – more than all of Europe, India, and China combined. Nor is Israeli innovation limited to computers, security, and communications; the Jewish state leads the world in medical device patents, and is a strong global player in cleantech and biotech.
Unless a youth wage is brought in youth unemployment will skyrocket. On the plus side it will be easier for people like my friends who work for lifes wants not needs.
As to the ag ets, I'm currently in negotiation with DoC for a conservation covenant. Will have to seriously consider ripping the natives out and plant pines. I will get me some carbon credits that way. :-)
Have updated with attachment and link to full speech. I've included the new bits of Labour policy above in the article.
Goff also talked about taking the full 15% GST off fruit and veg, making the rich pay more tax, clamping down on tax dodgers, and creation of a more skilled workforce.
Good at last to see some actual policy from Labour, (regardless of whether you/I agree with it or not)
Cheers
Alex
I am sure the low and middle income New Zealanders will welcome these changes.
And as usual the high income earners, property spruikers and tax avoiders will thrash the proposed Labour policy and threaten that they would move to Oz.
Would love to see a Land tax proposal included in their policy
What will increasing the minimum wage do for the low/middle income workers, except make the price of all things domestically produced, more expensive, as the wages component goes up? I suppose it will bring more tax into the Government coffers, as tax creep effects all the wage band higher up. But it's self defeating to increase any wages, without a productivity increase. More money to be spent on more expensive everyday things, achieves nothing. We need to increase out export competativeness, and that's not done by increasing wages. Quite the opposite, actually.
Same thing?, although I don't know enough about Australian labour outputs to know what level its productivity is at. If labour is more productive, employers will happily pay more for it, and more of it . But to just give out pay rises out because they are mandated ...well, I can't see how that further motivates either employees or employers. In fact, a floor to wages encourages lower productivity, as those so inclined, know that no matter what pace they work at, a minimum is guaranteed.
Ah I was reading the end opf your post where you said "We need to increase out export competativeness, and that's not done by increasing wages. Quite the opposite, actually." and thought that meant you were arguing we need a low wage economy to compete. But such an approach is a guaranteed loser as we would be competing with even lower wages.
Oh yes, so it looks like Labour is all set to reintroduce its 'Catching the Knowledge Puddle' - oops, I mean catching the knowledge wave policy again. You’ve got to hand it to the left, they are good at coming up with those catchy little political slogans and politics’ speak which are as empty as your average Nigerian’s million dollar bank account.
Chucking money at R&D by itself is not going to achieve anything. It's the commercialisation of R&D (assuming that what’s been researched is any good) that is the most important thing, and which NZ in particular does so spectacularly poorly at.
We're not short of ideas in NZ. What we are short of are the people who know how to turn those ideas into money, and the deep capital markets that can support them.
So nothing's changed then. The left's answer to our problems, more tax and spend! I'll take your money and spend it on the things that I think are important because I know how to spend your rich prick’s money better than you do!
Labour Party, shameful, shameful, shameful.
Your right, this from Paul Callaghan's 'Wool to Weta'
HOW DO WE GENERATE MORE?
I don't think that it is sufficient for us merely to create a macro-economic enviroment conducive to business, and especially export business, and then hope that seed nuclei will form. My interest is in expanding the seeding process and helping companies take the first steps to market.
This seems to be where the help is needed. Build it and they will come!
"It's the commercialisation of R&D (assuming that what’s been researched is any good) that is the most important thing". I'm a bit surprised you say that. As far as I'm aware there is a big difference between the R part of R&D and the D part of it.
I've been working in it for 14 years, essentially in the D part of it, and it's all about commercialising ideas that have been researched and bringing new products to market. If not I wouldn't have had silly deadlines and customer demands to meet for all that time! Unless you mean we need more sales & marketing people?? (I doubt that; I think we are short on people who are able to develop ideas into products).
Forget about juggling with numbers – going around the circle.
Creating jobs in the real economy - manufacturing, research - knowledge economy.
A government allocating high tech infrastructure orders to NZcompanies, the NZworkforce in stead of importing in the billions, would open the door for more, better NZjob opportunities, and automatically increase wages, skill and knowledge of the wider NZpopulation. It would guaranties full employment, entrepreneurship and the reduction of crime, the massive account deficit, brain drain and dangers level of youth unemployment.
Note: Most nations, which maintained manufacturing are doing well, despite the crisis.
The introduction of "NZ100% pure" and urgent and vigorous practical implementation of the brand standard, setting a model for the world, would create billions in revenue for the nation coming from various economic sectors.
Walter, I was speaking to a friend in stainless steel fabrication. They export but the majority of orders are domestic. They said they are as busy as they have ever been. Their problem - they cannot get enough steel fabricators. They just aren't around. He said they have an apprentice but the young don't want to go in to the trade. This is the reality in NZ.
Germany is a successful manufacturing country, but look at it's schooling system. Tradecraft in NZ is considered to be for 'dummies'in this country. We need a paradigm shift in attitude to trades in NZ.
Likewise, Casual Observer. I have a good friend who is in the rag trade ( sadly in Christschurch), and he's always getting 'fashion designers' our of PolyTech who want to work for him. They don't ( can't?) do the actual 'work' - that's for someone else, and that someone isn't a home grown New Zealander. Pre e/q he was keen on actual getting more workers, but they aren't trained to do 'the work' at our schools, just the fancy bits!
I totally agree CO, but would go much further.
Paul Callagham for instance loses credibility and my attention as soon as he states - as does repeatedly - that our education system is fine. Our education system is not fine - it is a fundamental part of the problem.
If someone wants to argue Paul's corner, I am up for it.
There is no other way
Manufacturing/ real production is not a major part of our culture – consumerism is. The private sector alone cannot deal with this problem properly, when the government itself import infrastructure needs in the billions. Especially now in difficult times, the government can (should) be the biggest and best provider, supporting the private sector to be successful. Export oriented businesses, agriculture etc, would profit massively from such developments and the burden of taxpayers would be reduced, as described above.
We do need fundamental changes in our culture, so sufficent and decent job opportunities are offered to the wider population..
Manufacturing industry affects the economy in a way that if manufacturing industry works in a flow then it will create jobs for the people in society.
……manufacturer is one of the most important entity for the wholesalers and for the wholesale supply chain.
Manufacturing industry is also considered to be the wealth producing sector of the economy. When a country exports more products than it imports-this condition is referred to trade surplus-which will generates more money for the country and the spending of country will be lessened then the earnings, which ultimately results in greater wealth.
http://www.informationontopic.com/economic-importance-of-manufacturing-for-a-country/
Colin Riden - challenge accepted.
I went to school being able to read. We had discussions at meal-times. If I asked Dad a question, he had time to answer it. We went places, explored, investigated. He built our house, kept our cars on the road, knew how to milk a cow. That kind of stimulus is missing in most homes now.
My bettter half - a good, empathetic, committed teacher - gave up teaching after 11 years. Control issues, coupled with increasing - and increasingly pointless - paper-work. I'd say the teachers are as good as ever. But.....
We are a dumbed-down society. My generation read chapter-books, and had the patience to do so. TV has changed that, as have the social media sites. Attention spans are shorter, abilities/willingness to investigate in depth are not there. That's not quite right - it's not there on average, as much as it was in the past.
The morph may be as simple as the fact that entertainment used to have to involve using one's imagination. Putting words into pictures, or building models, or constructive play.
Now, all visual stimuli is supplied. Sit back and soak it up. No self-discipline needed. No skills gotten, no tenacity either. The expectation is that you can be an instant hero/expert.
Callaghan has it right, when he points out that resource-based 'wealth' is not the answer. Where he then misses the bus, is in presuming that somehow there are folk out there who can 'pay' for the high-tech stuff. They, of course, are resource-constrained, and therefore wealth constrained, so their ability to pay is going to be limited.
I suspect he knows this, but that the message would be unpalatable (note the reaction to my comments here!) so he's pushing for the increase we need in tech ability (which we do) but giving a placatory reason. Needs must, so to speak.
All that said, kids are kids. Get 'em enthused, and they can run with things. The problem I see, is that we have to prepare them for a resource and energy constrained world, but make it quite clear the guilt is ours.
Now There's an idea for a national standard.
PDK I think you are agreeing with Colin and so do I. I also strongly agree with your general argument PDK about kids and what goes on at home. But it goes beyond that --I have a neice working of early childhood ed. She says she doubts that alot of little kids would know how to climb a tree , know what it is like to play in mud etc .-- this is where we all started to learn about risks , challenges etc. ( kids have become too protected by both parents and schools)
We met a girl from Germany a few years back who was going back home (after her Gap yr.) to do a pharmacy degree.She is now in her final year --it consists of going to work in a pharmacy ( chemist shop) for six months and then six months for a pharmacy manufacturer. That's what is missing in out teriary sector --the practical bit. Obviously it does not apply to all degrees but it could and should in more of them. ( I know in engineering they do "holiday" practical work but how good is that ?).
The point that is missed by so many is that many of these successful "added value" businesses are setup by people who don't have degrees or alternatively dropped out of university. Yes you need the technically skilled people in the business but you also need the real driver --the person that makes things happen. That later skill is not taught at universities-- it is "nutured" in my view, by a free , challenging, open minded upbringing.
Also I agree with Steven that the trades have been devalued by everyone. But I think some of the smart kids are waking up now and see them as great pathway into a business.
Interesting. I spent half of my fifth & final year of engineering studies in France working for a company. This practical bit is needed to graduate, similar to Germany apparently.
"Yes you need the technically skilled people in the business but you also need the real driver --the person that makes things happen. That later skill is not taught at universities" - You should say "That later skill is not taught at NZ universities".
Btw thankfully, not all of today's kids are raised the way you and PDK describe.
No Elly I meant what I typed. I don't think it is a thing that can be taught in academia. Some universities have courses on entrepreneurship etc --I think it is rubbish to think that you can be taught to be an entrepreneur. Encourage kids to read up how the Bransons , Gates , Jobs , Ted Turner , Gallager , Hamilton , Taits etc etc to see how they achieved what they did to get inspiration, but they will not find a model or rule book to follow.
Various ways have been tried by large companies to encourage innovation but I think it depnds on the industry. 3M is an interesting case study for those interested .
We seem to have entered the phase of leaving school with a degree is seen as "normal" instead of the exception. Given much manufacturing can be done cheaper in places like China its a hard sell to send someone into a trade in a developed nation....lets face it the rewards are not great, in fact pathetic, status pathetic. We have ppl who absolutely look down on anyone who gets their hands dirty as they sit their with their "fine arts degree" sipping lattes....these are the next road sweepers IMHO....As with Peak oil, transporting goods and materials cheaply is now over so bye bye globalisation. So local manufacturing will come back and there will be huge work changes....
regards
Goff is busy isn't he....it's so tricky moving the deckchairs these days when the ship is going down....a bit of pork here taken from them over there and a promise or two that labour will never never ever repeat their 9 years of utterly useless govt that buggered the economy under the great artist...Helen Clark!.
On that score...Goofy is correct...he did promise that didn't he!....anyway Goofy, you can count on Labour never never ever getting another chance to be an idiot govt....and you know why don't you......!
Walter you old Kaikourite...here's a plan
1.A referendum this November to let voters decide whether to have mmp or fpp effective from 2014 majority vote only.
2.Include on the referendum....to cut the number of mps in half...majority vote only effective 2014
3.All senior state sector pay to be adjusted down over 5 years from 2012, to return to the link they had with teacher pay. That includes all mp pay as well.
4.All state pay to be indexed to the rate of debasement of the currency.
5.A law from 2011 locking all council rate adjustments to the same debasement factor...and all council pay to be adjust down to the "teacher" grade.
6. 'Re-invigorate' the citizen-initiated referendum (CIR).
"The Prime Minister, John Key, has said he will work to raise the number of times referendums are used."
Issues (SOE sales, TPP?) could be too important to wrap up into an election campaign, and a short term in government. High risk of damage and eventual need to reverse.
Goofy and his mates will be guaranteed to shag up one of the few of late profitable industries which is farming, should they ever get their hands on power again. As a retired farmer I can tell you that it is a constant battle year after year facing rising costs. If a decent payout is announced you can guarantee all inputs will rise as sure as the sun comes up. The only time most farmers have spare money is when they sell. By then most are getting long in the tooth. What amuses me is people moaning about the cost of dairy and meat products but if you look at most supermarket trollys the trolly is full of rubbish food that people pay for without blinking. Coke, chips etc. Silly buggers even waste money buying bottled water. Cheers
Bobby: Hmmmm.... Most dairy farmers I know have retired by about 45 years old (average). Not so long in the tooth! Usually its lifestyle blocks & bowls after that for a very long time. My observation isn't that dairy farmers are particularly hard off (even if their tax returns indicate it), & their tax-free capital gain is an enviable situation to be in. A tiny bit of a tax imposition on them would hardly be a great imposition, tho it would be a nasty fright to be in the same situation as the poor ole salary earner, with no option but to pay his/her PAYE.
I have always felt a bit sorrier for sheep & beef farmers, it often does seem more of a real struggle for them.
Cheers to all
Bobby: I think Hell would freeze over before farmers paid more than token tax, so won't hold my breath.
re the putting up the prices: I think they are increased by supply & demand, not what suppliers decide they want to charge (ref. Economics 101). Oh, I forgot - not the case with Fonterra products, of course! Silly me!
Kind regards to all
Hello NZ
With having 3 young sons that work hard at school,an do lots off extra work to make money.
They want to make lots of money,so they can have a better life.
Listening to Labours rant on the news we all had great laugh.
My boys all want $15 per hour now,they get paid on what they can do for me.
Trained bus drivers only get $16,an they have to look after a bus load people in peak hour traffic.Plus handle money an balance the till.
Look no employer can afford this amount money in NZ,we are a low wage country.
Employers will not take on extra workers,as they have to make good profits before paying out this sort off money to unskilled people.
Labour has never been any good with money as they never had to make any real money.
News reporters should pull Labour up on these silly comments.
Ppl need to have enough money coming in to survive...so thats either done via,
a) being un-employed and collecting benefits,
b) working at a wage that is so low they claim extra of the Govn anyway,
or
c) raising the minimum wage to a point that they no longer need to claim support...
In the first 2 the tax payer pays, in the last the user who wants the good pays.
In this situation I prefer the latter...
regards
"Ppl need to have enough money coming in to survive...so thats either done via,"
d) Having a job that pays decently enough that you don't ever have to worry if there is a minimum wage and/or what it is. Usually that implies having studied hard enough instead of spending school/university years doing useless degrees and getting drunk every week-end.
PDK, using an isolated case to determine global population growth doesn't mean anything. The fertility rate in NZ in 2010 was 2.1 (according to Wiki). That is just about what is needed to ensure population replacement, nothing more.
So unless you really want NZ to disappear off the map you should probably crusade on birth control in one of the countries at the top of this list (birth rate per 1000 population) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_birth_rate
Now they are causing an unsustainable population growth!
Ah but I didn't say we didn't matter. I said we, as a country, barely manage to replace our population. So again my question is, do you want for NZ to become extinct?
If so then your argument might make sense (although it still doesn't justify using one isolated anecdote to draw conclusions as to our impact on world population growth). Otherwise then the focus should be on the countries that are at the roots of the problem.
I guess let's agree to disagree :)
Political tensions among world powers are rising – prospect NZeconomy – NZfinancial situation ??
"Pakistan's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected," he added. China's above positions are consistent and firm, said Wen.
Full article: http://auckland.china-consulate.org/eng/chinanews/t824044.htm
I'm all for the reinstatement of R&D tax credits ... but, why link it to the ETS, in any way, nevermind linking it directly to ag.?
Phil Goff says this:
"The exemption removes the incentive to agriculture to move more quickly to reduce global warming gasses which account for 48% of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions,"
NZ emits 0.16% of the worlds GGs. So if we reduce that to zero say, please, tell me, what difference will it make to world temperatures, assuming that GGs do actually cause global warming?
Why not get real and back right off the ETS? We should be a slow follower, not a fast leader on this one.
As for funding R&D tax credits, why link it directly to anything? When Labour introduced the recent 15% scheme that NACT stupidly stopped, it wasn't linked in this way. Why?
Strange.
Cheers, Les.
While I agree with an ETS, I think trying to stop cows farting is looncy personally....
Arnt we the only one trying to do so? consdering our cows are brought up on grass while much of teh world brings them up on feed its silly.
There are countries that are cherrypicking the figures/stats to justify their position...for instance China is saying per head its a good boy even though they are one of the worst if not the worst emmitters per country.
You are doing the same....NZ is also bad per person....
There is also something known as leadership....NZ was the first but only country to ban nuclear weapons and ships and that cost us dearly standing up to the USA......but I think that has done us great service in that we are seen as fairly neutral this has allowed us to pay a great part in world peace efforts....again I think we are one of the leaders here.
Then there is our clean green image which is frankly tarnished and being dumped on by losers like JK and Brownless, they will damage NZ....
ETS isnt something we can ignore...on many levels.
regards
steven - when NZ led the world to nuclear disarmament it was a country looking to define identity and it could better afford that kind of stance - the same is not true now. You say, "I think that has done us great service in that we are seen as fairly neutral this has allowed us to pay a great part in world peace efforts." Really, how so?
No I'm not cherry-picking stats, that stat is an accurate and important fact and is hardly ever uttered anytime there is a discussion from almost anyone on this topic. I'm keen to bring some balance to the thinking.
I'm not denying we seem to have a global worming problem, my issue is being able to believe some of the compromised science and data that supports the need to tackle it in the way proposed. That said, if I believed the way chosen were correct I'd still want us to be slow followers, as I don't believe we can afford to be fast leaders, at this time in our economic journey.
As for emissions per person, your comparison with China and that we are a "bad person" - why, because we don't shag enough?
Cheers, Les.
I see nothing wrong with re-defineing our identity.....look at the lead Denwark and Sweden are taking....and it fits in with our image of being clean and green, which frankly is becoming greatly tarnished and in danger of being lost.
In terms of affordability, what you are saying is lets leave the bill to our children, grand-children and great-grand-children to pick up....morally I have a huge problem with that.
You are cherry picking stats, NZ is a small polluter as a nation because there are so few of us. Guess what other nations will do the same to us, so take the leadership/moral high ground and look to lead. Give countries like China who claim because tehre are so many of them their polution isnt an issue so when we do lead they have no leg to sant on.....we can do this easily.
Its quite simple, we will have to do it....better small steps now before we are forced to take leaps.
Been thinking, a little. I wonder if they are linking the reintroduction of tax credits to ag. ETS, to leverage any -ve feeling towards dairy farmers after revelations last week about the low tax take from dairy farmers? Maybe? If so it sucks, is divisive and down there with envy and 'get the rich prick' politics that so easily sullies Labour's efforts. What's required is for that issue to resolved properly by effective taxation, not avoided and cynically leveraged in this way. I said before, when Labour introduced the recent 15% scheme that NACT stupidly stopped, it wasn't linked in this way, so why now?
Labour really "bother" me with this sort of rubbish - which is why for the second time in my life I will not be voting for them. The minimum wage election promise is not creative nor imaginative and is nothing more than a cheap promise to get more votes - They have no new ideas!
Qu: Who exactly is going to pay for the higher wages?An: The consumer! so once again Labour gives with one hand and takes with the other and come out at the end as the only winner through higher GST take and and Higher PAYE take. . . .and the worst thing is joe blue collar will bite this hook line and sinker! . . . . and who can blame them.
Given the cost of Labour's R&D plan is a mere $ 800 million , spread over 5 years ...... And that the current government takes in and spends about $ 80 billion of the productive economy , it appears that Goofy has no intention of reining in government expenditures . They can't even find a $ 160 million annual saving to pay for this R&D policy , out of their $ 80 000 million budget .
...... OK you rich cow farts , pay up !
the economy is like a test match...long, boring with moments of dynamism. trouble is soon the cheap hydrocarbon base for the game will be gone. the rules are about to change. this doesnt mean we up stumps and stop play (ala greens), but it does mean we gotta set a tight field and bowl to a line. in other words, dump the ets and other such 'nice to haves' and prepare for the coming game changer. there is now an urgent need for nz to use whatever cheap energy is left to prepare for an expensive energy future. i dont see any of the pollies taking this seriously.
If you want to enshrine jobs for adults only , and to permanently keep the youth of NZ out of the job market , just keep ratcheting up that minimum wage .
.... Hey , meebee Labour is going back to Auntie Helen's policy of compulsory schooling until 18 years of age . That'll go down well in the High Schools of the land ...... not !
Les wrote "NZ emits 0.16% of the worlds GGs. So if we reduce that to zero say, please, tell me, what difference will it make to world temperatures, assuming that GGs do actually cause global warming?"
The same argument would apply to any group of 4m people. New Zealanders are relatively high emitters per capita and have been for some time, so the argument is that (amongst all groups of 4m people) we have a relatively high obligation to cut our emissions.
"Why not get real and back right off the ETS? We should be a slow follower, not a fast leader on this one."
Bringing agriculture comes into the ETS in 2 years time instead of 4 years time will not make us into a fast leader. The National government's goal it to reduce emissions by 20% over 1990 levels by 2020. Currently we are 20% UP on 1990 levels and forecasts (including the present ETS) are that we will be at +25% by 2020.
New Zealand has a competitive advantageous in most areas of renewable energy, especially wind and geothermal which are two of the cheapest. Emissions from transport and from electricity generation have roughly doubled since 1990. We spend $18 billion a year on energy, energy that we use relatively inefficiently... The whole energy situation is a scandal.
"The same argument would apply to any group of 4m people." Indeed, and many of those groups can better afford to be at the forefront more than ourselves. Or they are in countries where lax to non-existent environmental standards mean the benefit of systematic change there would be far greater than any tinkering we might engage in here.
2, years 4 years, no, I'm saying hold off and engage at a time befitting our economic reality - we are a poor nation and pushing us into such schemes too early will make us poorer than we need be.
Energy efficiency, no arguement, get on with it, "we are a poor nation".
that's a big part of it CO. Training and trades. It was a disaster to weaken the apprenticeship system in the 90's. Unfortunately changes like that tak a while to make themselves evident but it's definitely cost us.
I heard a suggestion from an elderly educator that they could change the intermediate/high school so kids go to primary, then middle school intill 4th form, then go to either academic high or a trade high. I'm not an educator but that seems sound to me. For example here in auckland a couple of these west akl high schools could partner up with boat builders....welly schools could do film trades.....
being "business friendly" takes many guises....its not just about red tape or pollution etc.....
Minimum wage... there are a lot of arguments on both sides. I was surprised to read on wikipedia that NZ was the first country in the world to introduce a minimum wage, in 1894. A higher wage may encourage more people to enter the workforce, or to move into self employment (where there is no minimum, of course). Against the downside of possibly higher unemployment (although wikipedia claims this prediction is based on a simplistic economic model), this has to be weighed against the benefits: a lot of people on or near the minimum would earn more; society benefits as lower waged people spend more of their income, and the income structure would flatten a bit as NZ incomes have become very unequal in the last 20 years.
Probably Labour adopted this policy because (i) it is traditional Labour policy, and (ii) they thought it would win votes - ie not because of any economic modelling. On the other hand it could just as easily bacfire against them.
I decided to do a little comparison with Australia, as John Key has an "aspirational" goal of closing the income gap with Australia.
Australia: A$15, I make that 55% of the Australian GDP per capita. An independent tribunal may raise this in June.
NZ: NZ$13, also 55% of NZ GDP per capita.
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.