If National wins ...

[fungus pudding]

I head into 2013 still confident that things can improve for NZ, but unlike FP I'd like to see more govt involvement in nurturing some of these startups. Merry Christmas to everyone.


NZ is doing exceptionally well compared to the rest of the world, and will continue to do so, so I share your confidence.
The problem with 'govt. involvement' is the only way for the govt. to help Paul is by robbing Peter. And that's to the detriment of everyone including Paul - not just Peter.
Merry Christmas to you too, Elz. Been an interesting battle or two throughout the year. I'm sure neither of us has managed to influence the other, but there's always 2013 coming up........:t_up:

[iceman]

Just been shopping in the centre of Hamilton, PTC. It's relatively quiet in there. Outer malls are busier. But any inland town retailer geared up for Christmas and not busy right now, must be in trouble later on.
FP, Belgarion, PTC, Iceman, Craic, MVT et al, I appreciate your thoughtful posts - there are always two sides to every story. Merry Christmas to everyone.

Over here in Argentina EZ, the malls and shops are far from quiet. In fact they are very very busy. At last count over 300 of them have been looted, 2 people killed and dozens injured. All by poor-er people that are starting to rise up against government policies.
That despite (or maybe because) a socialist Government running the country for the last few years, "robbing Peter to pay Paul" as FP puts is (Peter being businesses and Paul being Government's selected friends), using heavy import restrictions as PTC is reminiscing about, very strict foreign currency control meaning foreign currency basically unavailable and FX rates controlled by stealth and with no connection to reality (haven't we heard calls for fx interventions in NZ lately!).
The result is that this country that is so rich of natural resources is on the brink of yet another economic meltdown and I fear some serious political and social upheaval.

Can't wait to get back home to clean, green and wonderful NZ which is chugging through the global recession far better than most

Thanks for the Xmas wishes EZ and I wish the same back to you and all of our other fellow "sharetraders"

[fungus pudding]

This demonstrates the attitude that has dominated Hillside for decades. It played no small part in the workshops' demise.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/240366/no-hamper-national-supporter

[Major von Tempsky]

Well posted FP! Some people still can't get out of the 1949 Waterfront strike.
A brilliant example of entitlement philosophy. People who succeed are somehow cheating (inspiration, hard work, initiative are cheating) and therefore all the left wing layabouts are allowed to confiscate their assets and earnings.

[elZorro]

Another way of looking at it, FP and MVT, is that the cards are stacked well in favour of of the rich already. They are the ones who have lobbyists at the Beehive. NZ is following the path of corporate America, where entitlements of the working middle class are severely eroded over time. Over a period of about 30 years, the USA has become hollowed out, pensions taken, taxes for the rich greatly reduced, lower wages being paid to workers, and hugely bigger benefits for those at the top. Outsourcing has increased corporate profits and created major unemployment in the US. On top of this, virtually all the major corporates pay very little income by utilising tax havens. Funds in the order of trillions of dollars are held offshore, and the corporates will only bring it back to the US, they say, if no tax is applied. From this point, they'll simply start the cycle of sending money offshore again. Those at the top are determined to pay minimal tax, the opposite of what was the situation just after WWII, when the economy boomed. Even IT jobs in the US are under risk, outsourcing of a huge number of jobs is on the cards.

Is this the future of NZ? Empty buildings that once housed proud manufacturers and their staff, a promise of decreasing real incomes, and no direction from govt save "let the market show the way". Yes they'll do that all right, and only a very few will receive the benefits.

[Major von Tempsky]

Vastly exaggerated old man. Well, actually, worse than that - plain wrong.
"Lower wages being paid to workers" what evidence do you have for that?

"Major unemployment in the US". Um, unemployment rate in the US is 9.35%, in Spain and Greece 25%. If you worked in Michigan in a sunset industry and refuse to move - then you are probably unemployed. If your grandparents, g grandparents or whatever migrated from Europe to Michigan then why are you refusing to migrate from Michigan to Texas? A somewhat easier move.

If you kept up with Economist etc you would see that jobs are now returning to the US incl manufacturing jobs as the process of manufacturing by 3D printing spreads.

If you are convinced that socialism is the answer have a look at the mess that Argentina and Venezuela are increasingly making of their economies....

[elZorro]

Vastly exaggerated old man. Well, actually, worse than that - plain wrong.
"Lower wages being paid to workers" what evidence do you have for that?

"Major unemployment in the US". Um, unemployment rate in the US is 9.35%, in Spain and Greece 25%. If you worked in Michigan in a sunset industry and refuse to move - then you are probably unemployed. If your grandparents, g grandparents or whatever migrated from Europe to Michigan then why are you refusing to migrate from Michigan to Texas? A somewhat easier move.

If you kept up with Economist etc you would see that jobs are now returning to the US incl manufacturing jobs as the process of manufacturing by 3D printing spreads.

If you are convinced that socialism is the answer have a look at the mess that Argentina and Venezuela are increasingly making of their economies....

There's no denying that things are tougher for the middle class of America than they were. Of course socialism is not the whole answer, but neither is using pure market forces. That is just a recipe for greed from the top.

3D printing has a long way to go to replace proper manufacturing. It's a design tool, the parts are weak and are fit for looking at only, in general.

Some highly skilled Americans, in IT and engineering even, are being let go due to outsourcing, and are having trouble finding any sort of work. When they do so, it is on lower pay. If they cannot find a job their health insurance and mortgage payments are unpaid, so then they are in a very difficult place.

When even this group has to pay more taxes, it'll only get worse. The USA is displaying a delayed version of the ruling class greed and no-tax arrogance evident in places like Greece.

[fungus pudding]

Another way of looking at it, FP and MVT, is that the cards are stacked well in favour of of the rich already. They are the ones who have lobbyists at the Beehive. NZ is following the path of corporate America, where entitlements of the working middle class are severely eroded over time. Over a period of about 30 years, the USA has become hollowed out, pensions taken, taxes for the rich greatly reduced, lower wages being paid to workers, and hugely bigger benefits for those at the top. Outsourcing has increased corporate profits and created major unemployment in the US. On top of this, virtually all the major corporates pay very little income by utilising tax havens. Funds in the order of trillions of dollars are held offshore, and the corporates will only bring it back to the US, they say, if no tax is applied. From this point, they'll simply start the cycle of sending money offshore again. Those at the top are determined to pay minimal tax, the opposite of what was the situation just after WWII, when the economy boomed. Even IT jobs in the US are under risk, outsourcing of a huge number of jobs is on the cards.

Is this the future of NZ? Empty buildings that once housed proud manufacturers and their staff, a promise of decreasing real incomes, and no direction from govt save "let the market show the way". Yes they'll do that all right, and only a very few will receive the benefits.

If outsourcing means fewer people are employed, then it simply means the old way was inefficient. Anyway, don't distract me. I'm busy reading Alan Gibbs' brilliant book. 'Serious fun'. You should borrow a copy. It may pain you too much to buy one. Happy new year.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D: :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Major von Tempsky]

Here watch this El Z and you'll see you don't have nuthin to worry bout in littl ole NZ!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTCRwi71_ns

[elZorro]

If outsourcing means fewer people are employed, then it simply means the old way was inefficient. Anyway, don't distract me. I'm busy reading Alan Gibbs' brilliant book. 'Serious fun'. You should borrow a copy. It may pain you too much to buy one. Happy new year.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D: :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

As a matter of fact FP, I've just read a borrowed book, this one is also a 2012 release; "The Betrayal of the American Dream" by Bartlett and Steele.

It is an eyeopener too, maybe not such a fun read, but it lines up with an indepth look into most publicly traded companies. Shareholders are there to provide funding at crucial times, but the real cash can often be made by those at the top. The book doesn't cover this aspect so much, but does show that a 30 year trend has resulted in a big widening of incomes in America. Such a lot looked familiar to anyone in Western Countries. We are copying their flawed model. What was apparent with lobbying and press articles, think tanks: these are driven by those with funds, and the aims are to increase the share of the pie for those already doing well. Often no matter what the name of the think tank or the supposed good intentions.

In the Herald today: John Singleton, of Gutenberg Investments: wanted to buy Fairfax's radio assets, but the board turned them down. Instead he's now a substantial shareholder, and is allying himself with longtime friend Gina Rinehart, also no friend of the board but she has a big shareholding. Why would they bother with an ailing media company? For its lobbying power of course. This is the long game.


Singleton: "It was clear to me from the start that there was a mutual interest in working together, " he said. "However it is important to state that both Gina and I believe that the lifeblood of Fairfax is the integrity and accuracy of its journalism. This in no way would be compromised if Hancock Prospecting and Gutenberg Investments had a significant say in the future of Fairfax. I think the current board has struggled to come to terms with the new environment, which is there for all to see in the share price and the lack of direction at the company"

Read: Journos had better be polite about the mining sector if they want to stay employed at Fairfax. And the market is always perfect, so vote accordingly. Putting right-wing governments in power is also a favoured outcome for big business. Fairfax still has an awful lot of our newspapers too.

[iceman]

I know you don't agree we should be chasing these rip off artists EZ but look at the numbers involved. We are not talking small change here are we ? Resulting largely from one of Clark's/Cullen's maddest of many mad moments when they bribed students (and gullible parents) with interest free loans on the eve of an election that polls were showing they might lose :t_down:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10858246

[elZorro]

I know you don't agree we should be chasing these rip off artists EZ but look at the numbers involved. We are not talking small change here are we ? Resulting largely from one of Clark's/Cullen's maddest of many mad moments when they bribed students (and gullible parents) with interest free loans on the eve of an election that polls were showing they might lose :t_down:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10858246

Fair enough Iceman, I read the article the other day and thought it needed some more data.

Already, the govt pays out 34% of the cost of tertiary education in advance as loans, and then writes off nearly 50% of it as expected bad debts, and the cost of use of money etc (http://ips.ac.nz/publications/files/4295b3c417c.pdf), so that effectively students are expected to pay only 16% of the total annual cost, which is about $4.46 billion in total. This means that after all these years, the outstanding poor payers are overdue only 9.4% of the actual course costs each year, and the overdue amount is only 3.2% of all the monies lent to students that is still to be collected.

This means that the vast majority of students are paying their loans back as and when required. There is also a niggling issue that students who racked up big interest bills on their loans in the 1990s, before the govt changed the policy to interest free in most cases (2005, changed again in 2006), have been hit harder than most. I feel for them (considering the govt paid nearly all my fees a few years back) and maybe some of these ex-students have been less keen to pay interest.

The fact remains, the outstanding amounts, when put into context, are not a big part of the govt's annual costs, and ongoing education has other positive effects on the economy. I think we're seeing all this news because some lobbying by National is being carried out to soften the voting public towards a harder stand on tertiary students. If they can reduce the education spend by whatever means, they'll be trying it. They're simply trying to reduce the bad debt writeoffs that are already lodged in the books, and after that maybe introduce loan interest again.

This is part of the vicious circle: the tax take is down because the market is not being prodded by govt to take on more staff. The market knows that quick and easy profits (or a reduction in losses) are achieved by reducing staff.

[fungus pudding]

This is part of the vicious circle: the tax take is down because the market is not being prodded by govt to take on more staff. The market knows that quick and easy profits (or a reduction in losses) are achieved by reducing staff.

Businesws entrepeneurs don't need prodding. Govt's role is to ensure there are no barriers and remove any that exist.

[elZorro]

Business entrepeneurs don't need prodding. Govt's role is to ensure there are no barriers and remove any that exist.

Greetings for 2013, FP. Your view above assumes many things, including that in a right-thinking world:

-There are many entrepreneurs ready to risk all of their existing assets, if only govt would reduce the red tape.
-That these people will all then get past the first five years of their business cycle without needing any assistance, and none will fail miserably, taking out their own savings and some of those around them
-That these people will naturally be good employers and will be keen to take on and train staff, for the betterment of NZ
-That once the operation is profitable they will seek to build on this in NZ, rather than sell out to an overseas investor, risking at best a flight of profits and exchange earnings
-That all NZ entrepeneurs are fully trained in running a business and will need no govt assistance
-That these investors are acutely aware of every opportunity that NZ has, and will not need this to be pointed out
-That the new businesses will need no guidance from the govt in choosing commercial activities that are in line with normal govt policy for improving the income gap in NZ, and other such stated aims.

On the other hand, your comment about "barriers" refers much more to the costs and rules that existing businesses face. In many cases these are there to protect other NZers. For example, you can't put in a new bore for irrigation on your farm without paying a hefty fee to get the whole situation checked out. At the same time you'll need to pay a bit over the top, as councils derive some of their income from those who are moving their businesses into higher earnings, rather than staying static. This is not a "barrier" , it's common sense.

[POSSUM THE CAT]

The big problem is the lack of customers with money to spend (they are In the most being screwed by the govt to give big tax cuts to the high income people.

[elZorro]

The big problem is the lack of customers with money to spend (they are In the most being screwed by the govt to give big tax cuts to the high income people.

And those with the big money aren't keen on paying tax. National a bit quiet on this area.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8173134/Doors-closing-for-tax-dodge-schemes

Biased or not, I think Rod Oram is being astute about the govt's issues this year.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/8163698/Oram-John-Keys-big-economic-challenges


Rod Oram, Fairfax.

Some common themes emerge from these six areas of economic development policy: The Government has taken far too long to get even this far with them; it co-ordinates, sells and executes these policies badly; there are merits in many of the policies but they are not bold enough to shift the economy to a higher growth track; and public resistance to many of the policies is rising. If the Government thought the global financial crisis was hard, it will find its self-induced domestic stagnation crisis even worse.

[fungus pudding]

And those with the big money aren't keen on paying tax. National a bit quiet on this area.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8173134/Doors-closing-for-tax-dodge-schemes

I am suprised there has been so little reaction to National disallowing depreciation on buildings. The damn things depreciate faster than moany other physical assetts.. It has left a couple of previously high income earners I know with no income at all or worse. It certainly increased my tax bill by a huge amount. That was a real kick in the guts for plenty of those with 'the big money' whatever that means.

[Major von Tempsky]

Rod Oram is a card carrying member of the NZ Labour Party and that should be disclosed on all his columns although it very quickly becomes evident if you have the misfortune to accidentally start reading one. The SST should offer equal space to the NZ National Party.

[elZorro]

I am suprised there has been so little reaction to National disallowing depreciation on buildings. The damn things depreciate faster than moany other physical assetts.. It has left a couple of previously high income earners I know with no income at all or worse. It certainly increased my tax bill by a huge amount. That was a real kick in the guts for plenty of those with 'the big money' whatever that means.

The 'big money' I was referring to was those with several million of freehold assets. But I'm surprised that the lack of a depreciation writeoff scuttled the income of some property owners. It means the underlying profit was fairly small anyway. Tax has a way of cycling so that it's high one year, and lower the next. I've read one book that showed (among many other tips) how to laboriously separate the parts of a rented out building off into asset sections with different depreciation rates, so as to get the most tax drop out of it. Maybe the bach rental rules have also affected some. Sorry but I have no sympathy for this result, if people have extra assets and property, they should be prepared for all the costs, and not expect there to be tax writeoffs for everything. An ordinary employee gets none of these perks.

MVT: $300 a year to the Labour Party entitles you to also be a card carrying member should you wish. It doesn't mean that all sensible discussion of issues affecting NZ is forgone. I think Rod has looked long and hard at many issues in NZ, and after all his talking with various people and over time, he has formed well-researched opinions. I'm keen on knowing what they are. There is always plenty of other fodder from govt offices in the press.

[fungus pudding]

The 'big money' I was referring to was those with several million of freehold assets. But I'm surprised that the lack of a depreciation writeoff scuttled the income of some property owners. It means the underlying profit was fairly small anyway. Tax has a way of cycling so that it's high one year, and lower the next. I've read one book that showed (among many other tips) how to laboriously separate the parts of a rented out building off into asset sections with different depreciation rates, so as to get the most tax drop out of it. Maybe the bach rental rules have also affected some. Sorry but I have no sypathy for this, if people have extra assets and property, they should be prepared for all the costs, and not expect there to be tax writeoffs for everything. An ordinary employee gets none of these perks.



An ordinary employee has none ofr the costs - costs are not perks. It's illogical that businesses can depreciate computers, vehicles etc, but not buildings. It means all property investors had their tax increased, even with no increase in income - not just some. Even you eZ. In many cases it has caused real hardship, but there's been little reaction.It was a silly move which acheives little.

[elZorro]

An ordinary employee has none ofr the costs - costs are not perks. It's illogical that businesses can depreciate computers, vehicles etc, but not buildings. It means all property investors had their tax increased, even with no increase in income - not just some. Even you eZ. In many cases it has caused real hardship, but there's been little reaction.It was a silly move which acheives little.

An employee generally is taxed on all income, and has little chance to claim back anything. Property owners were taxed on the net income minus other old-standing defrayments like depreciation on the building fittings. Over time (in theory) the appreciation in value due to inflation of the land (and perhaps the building) pays off the original loan, while the rents are increased. What I suspect the market will do is to try to ensure future 'repairs' are incremental so that they can all be claimed as costs in the year of the work, and not treated as an increase to the asset.

Property owners who do not keep up the appearance of their buildings, and now cannot even claim depreciation in a bid to produce a tax-paid return from lower average rentals achieved, may have cooked their own goose. Many retail and trade premises outside malls and high streets are showing evidence of a lack of investment, but this has occurred over many years.

[janner]

Just take on board my previous remarks about geting rid of Income Tax..

Tax spending only..

All spending..

[fungus pudding]

An employee generally is taxed on all income, and has little chance to claim back anything. Property owners were taxed on the net income minus other old-standing defrayments like depreciation on the building fittings. Over time (in theory) the appreciation in value due to inflation of the land (and perhaps the building) pays off the original loan, while the rents are increased. What I suspect the market will do is to try to ensure future 'repairs' are incremental so that they can all be claimed as costs in the year of the work, and not treated as an increase to the asset.

Property owners who do not keep up the appearance of their buildings, and now cannot even claim depreciation in a bid to produce a tax-paid return from lower average rentals achieved, may have cooked their own goose. Many retail and trade premises outside malls and high streets are showing evidence of a lack of investment, but this has occurred over many years.

Businesses are taxed on all profits. Employees are taxed on income. There is no difference. Surely you don't think businesses should be taxed on turnover! Property owners have always claimed repairs in year they were undertaken. Capital expenses are not repairs and the IRD are strict about that. Your last paragraph is just woffle. Of course some commercail properties, like some houses, some businesses, some schools etc are not well maintained. Anyway, the appearance of commercial property, particularly retail, is most often the lessees' responsibility - not the lessors'.

[elZorro]

Businesses are taxed on all profits. Employees are taxed on income. There is no difference. Surely you don't think businesses should be taxed on turnover! Property owners have always claimed repairs in year they were undertaken. Capital expenses are not repairs and the IRD are strict about that. Your last paragraph is just woffle. Of course some commercail properties, like some houses, some businesses, some schools etc are not well maintained. Anyway, the appearance of commercial property, particularly retail, is most often the lessees' responsibility - not the lessors'.

There is a world of difference in the tax treatments, it's one of the reasons many can hang in when a business is not performing too well on the face of it. A writeup in the paper today illustrated how equity funders load up their operations in higher tax countries with debt, so there is little tax to pay. The profits are thus relocated to a low-tax operation in another country. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8176838/Muzzle-on-IRD-over-firms-tax-affairs-may-go)That is a particularly nasty example, but business owners have some control over what tax they pay in a given year, considering they can hire and fire employees, can choose to buy more stock, or buy more equipment. Employees just have the tax taken out each week, and have no real opportunity to reclaim their costs of getting to work for example. These days fuel and parking can be quite significant.

I think you're being obtuse about the difference between repairs and increasing a building asset's value. A paint job with a small amount of building upgrade involved would sneak under the radar. The landlord agreements I've seen were very scant about the chances of the outside of the building being repainted regularly, all the landlord needed to do was ensure it didn't leak, that services were connected properly. In my case I've had to attempt roof repairs on adjacent leased premises at my own cost, and the facade is falling apart.

If the building owner doesn't think keeping the outside of their structure tidy is important, why should the lessee spend too much of their cashflow on the inside of the building? Their customers will be looking at the whole structure.

[fungus pudding]

There is a world of difference in the tax treatments, it's one of the reasons many can hang in when a business is not performing too well on the face of it. A writeup in the paper today illustrated how equity funders load up their operations in higher tax countries with debt, so there is little tax to pay. The profits are thus relocated to a low-tax operation in another country. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8176838/Muzzle-on-IRD-over-firms-tax-affairs-may-go)That is a particularly nasty example, but business owners have some control over what tax they pay in a given year, considering they can hire and fire employees, can choose to buy more stock, or buy more equipment. Employees just have the tax taken out each week, and have no real opportunity to reclaim their costs of getting to work for example. These days fuel and parking can be quite significant.

I think you're being obtuse about the difference between repairs and increasing a building asset's value. A paint job with a small amount of building upgrade involved would sneak under the radar. The landlord agreements I've seen were very scant about the chances of the outside of the building being repainted regularly, all the landlord needed to do was ensure it didn't leak, that services were connected properly. In my case I've had to attempt roof repairs on adjacent leased premises at my own cost, and the facade is falling apart.

If the building owner doesn't think keeping the outside of their structure tidy is important, why should the lessee spend too much of their cashflow on the inside of the building? Their customers will be looking at the whole structure.

What on earth has more stock got to do with anything? It doesn't alter tax. Reducing/increasing employees is about running a business and nobody takes on more staff with the sole purpose of reducing tax. Same applies to plant. You're away on some tangent about maintenance. It's up to the landlord and tenant. What 'sneaks under the radar' as you put it depends largely on the time the current owner has been in place. e.g. a reroof two years after purchase is capital but after 20 years is maintanance, and IRD will assess these claims, sometimes allowing a percentage split. Transport - neither employer or employee is treated any differently with cost of getting to work etc, as you well know. And just to be my normal pedantic self - lessees or lessors do not spend cashflow on repairs. They spend cash.

[elZorro]

What on earth has more stock got to do with anything? It doesn't alter tax. Reducing/increasing employees is about running a business and nobody takes on more staff with the sole purpose of reducing tax. Same applies to plant. You're away on some tangent about maintenance. It's up to the landlord and tenant. What 'sneaks under the radar' as you put it depends largely on the time the current owner has been in place. e.g. a reroof two years after purchase is capital but after 20 years is maintanance, and IRD will assess these claims, sometimes allowing a percentage split. Transport - neither employer or employee is treated any differently with cost of getting to work etc, as you well know. And just to be my normal pedantic self - lessees or lessors do not spend cashflow on repairs. They spend cash.

Last I heard, closing stock affected the gross profit, and hence net profit for a given year. Similarly a lot of assets purchased in a given year will have some immediate depreciation applied, and will follow through into several future years. Farmers have been timing their tractor and large plant purchases for decades. I didn't start the tangent about maintenance, but in many cases tax treatment will depend on a few words in the cashbook entry, under control of the business owner. Employers will usually put their vehicle costs into the business. If IRD want to check that out in the face of the huge corporate tax crime we're all seeing, let them try.

I apologise for the use of the word cashflow (takes into account the fact that it might be more overdraft, rather than cash) when cash would have sufficed.

[fungus pudding]

Last I heard, closing stock affected the gross profit, and hence net profit for a given year. Similarly a lot of assets purchased in a given year will have some immediate depreciation applied, and will follow through into several future years. Farmers have been timing their tractor and large plant purchases for decades. I didn't start the tangent about maintenance, but in many cases tax treatment will depend on a few words in the cashbook entry, under control of the business owner. Employers will usually put their vehicle costs into the business. If IRD want to check that out in the face of the huge corporate tax crime we're all seeing, let them try.

I apologise for the use of the word cashflow (takes into account the fact that it might be more overdraft, rather than cash) when cash would have sufficed.


I haven't been involved with stock of any sort for years, but I doubt that it's treated any differently than cash. It certainly didn't used to be, and I csan't imagine it would be now. Yes - there may be a slight advantage in purchasing plant in the year before necessary, but it's trivial. I've heard all the nonsense about farmers buying tractors to lessen tax - and those stories are nonsense. Nobody spends twenty grand to save a grand in tax. Anyway, have no fear. The NZ IRD are pretty efficient, and while there is no doubt some false business reporting, there is also plenty of under the counter work carried out by people who are normally employees, beneficiary fraud is often undetected for years - or permanently. In short - dishonesty in taxation is not simply the domain of business owners. But at least you realise that tax does have an effect on business decisions, and the higher the tax rate - the more wasted energy goes into legal avoidance.

[Major von Tempsky]

Clark repeats her performance as PM.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/8180500/Report-slams-Clarks-UN-programme

[slimwin]

I guess she's finding out the politicain approach of throwing money with little regard to impact ,doesn't work in the real world.

[elZorro]

Clark repeats her performance as PM.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/8180500/Report-slams-Clarks-UN-programme

But NZ did change for the better while Helen Clark was PM. If you couldn't see that, then you must have had big blinkers on.

I read the article you refer to, not the proper report. But in an effort to help 1.3 billion very poor people, the UN section Helen Clark is in, spent US$1.06 billion a year for eight years, or about $1 a person per year. How much should they have been able to achieve? Don't forget NZ's govt receives $60bill in taxes from 4.5 million people. The report was ordered and put in place before Helen Clark got there, and those at the coal face are unhappy with the tenor of it. She appears to have received a good mention, but the culture there must be quite bureaucratic and hard to change. I have no doubt she'll be trying her best.

Back to NZ: look at this ugly policy from National.

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/ird-under-fire-hiring-international-firm-5318475

By setting impossible and unreasonable standards from IT suppliers here, NZ will be spending well over a billion on external software for IRD's new system. Who is talking about this as if it matters? the Greens and Labour. National are determined to earn some brownie points with overseas suppliers. Must be some good trips involved. It's a shocker.

[craic]

Maybe they should also source Govt. Dept. cars from NZ manufacturers also and support that industry? Airnz might also get its planes locally? How much of the hardware and software that you are using on this forum is not sourced from overseas? We can't produce more than a smidgen of good television her and import most of our stuff from places with large populations who can produce stuff we can use and sell it to us at afraction of what itwould cost to produce here. Labour are still trying to work out which way is up and the Greens answer to transport problems is to issue everyone with a skateboard.

[POSSUM THE CAT]

El Zorro it will be another Nova Pay debacle

[elZorro]

Maybe they should also source Govt. Dept. cars from NZ manufacturers also and support that industry? Airnz might also get its planes locally? How much of the hardware and software that you are using on this forum is not sourced from overseas? We can't produce more than a smidgen of good television her and import most of our stuff from places with large populations who can produce stuff we can use and sell it to us at afraction of what itwould cost to produce here. Labour are still trying to work out which way is up and the Greens answer to transport problems is to issue everyone with a skateboard.

But Craic, we do have a lot of IT staff and experience here. It's the area we are supposed to be improving on, because the outputs are easy to export. If you go back through years of Computerworld (http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/21m-gone-but-ird-says-system-revamp-achievable)you'll see endless expensive software projects, most of them from overseas providers, that were scuttled after millions being spent, or went way over budget, or in the case of Novapay, are just plain hopeless (as PTC says).

Deliberate policy by National to screen out any local tenders using existing business size, that's what I can't understand. Just like they asked KiwiRail to look at price only for their carriages. It's local content sabotage.

The IRD project is huge, (http://www.ird.govt.nz/aboutir/reports/briefing/briefing-2011/bim-11/bim-2011-administration.html) it would be enough work for several NZ IT firms working co-operatively. That's how Peter Jackson did his projects. National was happy enough sorting that out, why not a big IT job?

Unisys and Hewlett Packard are involved in keeping FIRST alive, while the new consultants are looking at using some Oracle software as a tech patch. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/7874684/IRD-to-continue-using-ageing-tech-despite-risk)Oracle has some kind of a tax system already built, but apparently no country has yet implemented it.

FIRST was written in COBOL for about $200mill in 1991-1992. It really is old. (http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/ird-seeks-mainframe-support)


Legacy:
COBOL programs are in use globally in governmental and military agencies and in commercial enterprises, and are running on operating systems such as IBM's z/OS (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Z/OS) and z/VSE (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Z/VSE), the POSIX (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/POSIX) families (Unix (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Unix)/Linux (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Linux) etc.), and Microsoft's Windows (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Microsoft_Windows) as well as ICL (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/International_Computers_Limited)'s VME (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/ICL_VME) operating system and Unisys (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Unisys)' OS 2200 (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Unisys_OS_2200_operating_system). In 1997, the Gartner Group (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Gartner_Group) reported that 80% of the world's business ran on COBOL with over 200 billion lines of code in existence and with an estimated 5 billion lines of new code annually.[6] (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/#cite_note-6)
Near the end of the twentieth century the year 2000 problem (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Year_2000_problem) was the focus of significant COBOL programming effort, sometimes by the same programmers who had designed the systems decades before. The particular level of effort required for COBOL code has been attributed both to the large amount of business-oriented COBOL, as COBOL is by design a business language and business applications use dates heavily, and to constructs of the COBOL language such as the PICTURE clause, which can be used to define fixed-length numeric fields, including two-digit fields for years.[citation needed (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] Because of the clean-up effort put into these COBOL programs for Y2K, many of them have been kept in use for years since then.[citation needed (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] It should be noted however that while much of the Y2K focus was on COBOL, the fault was not in the design of the language itself, but the design of the applications that were written in COBOL.

[elZorro]

Here's an article about Coke/Amatil NZ (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10859615). It touches on the tall poppy syndrome over here. The firm does seem to be quite profitable, NP at over 10% of turnover. I trust they pay all their tax locally. (http://www.intellasia.net/coca-cola-vietnam-protests-tax-evasion-accusation-253440) Coke of course does not add greatly to the calorie intake of NZers. But most of its output is loaded with sugar, and there's not much to commend it. It's a brand, not much else.

Our local dairy is one huge advert for Coca-cola. Signs on the roof, signs on all the windows, product in the fridge facings, banners stapled to the ceiling beams. How they manage to take over the valuable advertising space of smaller retailers for so little cost is beyond me. I tried it with my bigger reseller customers, they told me to get lost.

So I can't understand Mr Adam's attitude to the business entrepreneurs of NZ. We'll need a few generations to build a brand like Coca-cola, and we don't have a huge American market to build it with.

Perhaps part of the story, NZers see an opportunity.

http://www.theinvestigators.co.nz/results/coca-cola/

Editorial, yes I agree with that. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10860097

[elZorro]

Chris Trotter continues to write interesting articles in 2013. He is of course, well disposed to the left.

FP and others are amused that David Shearer bumbles his way through TV appearances. Why would a party put forward someone who couldn't cope with perhaps the most important task of the job? Trotter has another view on why that is so.


Thursday, January 10, 2013Behind The Mask: Who's Backing David Shearer - And Why? (http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/behind-mask-whos-backing-david-shearer.html)


http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Don-Shearer.jpg (http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Don-Shearer.jpg)
What Lies Beneath? The most plausible explanation for David Shearer's incoherence as a political leader is that he is masking his true - neoliberal - beliefs. The right-wing character of his political and media support only reinforces this disturbing conclusion.

READ A FEW PARAGRAPHS of David Shearer’s Foreign Affairs article “Outsourcing War” aloud, then ask yourself this question: “How could the man who currently leads the New Zealand Labour Party possibly have written that?”

I’d only been reading the article for a few minutes when I felt the hairs on the back of my neck rise in alarm. I put the journal down and took a deep breath. Could the article’s author really be the same man I’d shared a few beers with in a Kingsland pub earlier in the year? Whoever had written that article possessed a flair for clear and compelling language and a solid grasp of world history. Most of all, the author of “Outsourcing War” was a skilled advocate who could, and was, making a strong case for the use of private armies.

The man I’d been drinking with in that Kingsland pub did not appear to possess any of those talents. He came across as a typical, inarticulate Kiwi bloke for whom clear and compelling English would always be a second language. His grasp of the history of his own party (let alone the wider world) was weak; his powers of persuasion negligible.

Most of us will readily identify the man in the Kingsland pub as David Shearer. The questions only begin to pile up when we try to match New Zealand’s inarticulate and essentially unpersuasive Leader of the Opposition with the writer who’d successfully tackled what was, in 1998, one of the most controversial propositions in international relations: That private security contractors had a better chance of ending low intensity conflicts than the regular military forces of nation states.

Now it is true that some people can write a great deal more persuasively than they can speak. The late Bruce Jesson was a poor orator but an outstanding writer. No matter how badly he mumbled it from the lectern his political analysis was formidable. What, then, prevents Shearer’s speeches (even his well-rehearsed and teleprompted address to the Labour Party Conference) achieving the power of“Outsourcing War”?

What has become of the audacity and passion of the international aid administrator who penned that extraordinary article? The person who wrote “Outsourcing War” was a policy innovator; a seeker after radical solutions; an iconoclast willing to take a sledgehammer to prevailing orthodoxies. More than this, he was someone who meticulously marshalled his evidence and then buttressed it with rigorous political and economic analysis.

But very little of this radicalism and even less of the rigorous analysis has been evident in David Shearer’s parliamentary career. Indeed, it is hard to recall a more docile back-bencher. As Leader of the Opposition, however, Shearer has not been able to avoid giving the New Zealand public at least an introductory glimpse of the sort of politics he admires. Hence the Esko Aho speech of 15 March 2012, in which he drew New Zealanders attention to the controversial career of the former Finnish prime minister.

The former Finnish Prime Minister, Esko Aho, largely untested, came into office in 1991. He was almost immediately faced with a banking crisis. Jobs were disappearing. Its stock market was tanking. Its future was hugely doubtful. Aho’s message to the Finnish people was blunt and honest: They had big problems. No-one else was going to fix them.

For New Zealanders, meeting big challenges with big solutions is a familiar political meme. And those of us who lived through it tend to have pretty strong views on what political journalist, Colin James, described as the “Big Change” of David Lange’s fourth Labour government. Shearer, however, has maintained a dogged silence on the economic transformations of the mid-1980s. His admiration of Aho suggests that this reticence regarding Rogernomics is because, back in the 80s, David Shearer was a fan of Roger Douglas – not a foe.

His celebration of the Finnish PMs career is, in this context, highly significant. Aho, like Douglas, conforms in nearly every respect to what the political scientist, Geoffrey Debnam, calls a “policy aggressor”.


http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/34938-atl.jpg (http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/34938-atl.jpg)
Policy Aggressor Par Excellance: Roger Douglas realised that the risks of introducing radical change had, by the mid-1980s, become less than those associated with attempting to maintain a failing system.

Well-placed within the ranks of a disciplined party, the policy aggressor is “prepared to act decisively and is strategically located to have a significant impact on public policy.” In Aho’s case the opportunity for an aggressive restructuring of the Finnish economy came with the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union – Finland’s largest trading partner. At the cost of severe domestic dislocation, and against the wishes of his own party and its rural support-base, Aho led Finland into the European Union.

As Shearer, himself, noted in his speech:

Aho made bold decisions. He was, I need to say, voted out at the next election. He thought it was more important to make a difference than to get re-elected. Though our prescription might differ, we could all take a lesson from that.

According to Debnam, “only those least likely to be rewarded under normal party conditions will risk the possibility of party collapse. It is, thus, extremists who are given a tactical advantage because these are the people who are least likely to pay the cost of conflict.” This is a pretty accurate description of Douglas who was only prevented from abandoning the Labour Party by Lange’s promise to make him Finance Minister.

In his 1990 paper “Adversary Politics in New Zealand: Climate of Stress and Policy Aggressors” published in The Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics (Vol. XXVIII, No. 1, March 1990) Debnam sets forth the preconditions for successful policy aggression.

The process begins when a lengthy period of economic buoyancy comes to a close in conditions of significant economic dislocation, initiating what the pioneering political scientist, Samuel Finer, dubbed a “climate of stress”. Initially, political parties respond to the developing crisis by applying traditional formulae. But, as recourse to tried and true methods of restoring economic stability bring ever-diminishing returns, the electorate increasingly moves towards new and untried ideologies and/or parties. The resulting political instability only intensifies the crisis.

“Eventually”,writes Debnam, “one party will decide that the risks associated with advocating radical change are less than those in maintaining a failing system. A distinctive image will be pursued via ideological or visionary appeals. If that is successful, a new stability may be achieved around a new set of values that will form the basis of a new consensus.”

Debnam was, of course, describing the sequence of political events which led up to the unleashing of “Rogernomics” in the mid-1980s. It is, however, possible to discern in the 2008-09 collapse of global prosperity amidst multiple and linked financial crises the initiation of a new climate of stress leading inevitably to yet another period of radical political, economic and social change.

David Shearer clearly sees himself as New Zealand’s next big policy aggressor: the“anti-politician” who considers it more important to make a difference than to get re-elected. In this respect, at least, the current Labour leader and the author of “Outsourcing War” evince an unmistakeable congruence of character.

Why then is Shearer so woefully tongue-tied when it comes to making the necessary “ideological or visionary appeal”. Why don’t his speeches resonate with the boldness and iconoclasm of “Outsourcing War”?

The only sensible answer is: “Because his ‘solutions’ to the crisis are merely crude reiterations of the same tried and true methods which, in the hands of the incumbent government, have already demonstrably failed to bring the crisis to an end.”

Introducing the efficiencies of the marketplace to the business of international peace-making undoubtedly had a radical ring to it in the mid-1990s, but in 2013 it just sounds like more of the same old market madness. There is, moreover, a world of difference between penning articles for the International Institute for Strategic Studies and drafting a party manifesto. Were Shearer to openly declare his intention of becoming a “hands on” neoliberal policy aggressor, eager to deploy all the powers of the state to bulldoze new pathways for advancing market power, the Labour Party membership would rise up in angry revolt. Small wonder, then, that Shearer stumbles and mumbles: all of his mental energy is devoted to masking rather than revealing his true intentions.

Ideological mummery is also the key distinguishing feature of Shearer’s principal backers in the Labour Caucus. Phil Goff, Annette King and Trevor Mallard all dipped their paper cups into the neoliberal Kool-Aid in the 80s and none of them have ever publicly recanted (let alone repented) their supporting roles in Roger Douglas’s Economic Salvation Show. They no longer defend (at least not publicly) Rogernomics’ legacy, but behind their hands they dismiss its critics as “paleosocialists” who simply don’t understand how the world works.

What all of them fail to grasp, however, is that the current climate of stress is being generated by the failureof neoliberal ideology (just as the climate of stress of the late-1970s and early-80s was caused by the failure of Keynesianism). To talk about a neoliberal policy aggressor in 2013 is, therefore, oxymoronic. The next genuinepolicy aggressor will be a politician possessing both the courage and the imagination to go beyond the maintenance of a discredited orthodoxy – someone willing to forge a new political, economic and social consensus.


http://static.stuff.co.nz/1353699715/512/7992512.jpg (http://static.stuff.co.nz/1353699715/512/7992512.jpg)
Policy Aggression From The Left: David Cunliffe is seen by many people inside and outside of the Labour Party as the politican best placed to forge a new political, economic and social consensus.

That David Cunliffe is seen by many both inside and outside the Labour Party as the politician most capable of forging such a consensus largely explains the extreme viciousness of his recent treatment. That left-wing policy aggressors are greeted with much more hostility than their right-wing counterparts is, however, to be expected. The latter’s intention is to shore up the defences of capitalism, while the former hopes to rescue and empower its victims. The arbiters of political acceptability in the business community, the state bureaucracy and the corporate news media will thus move decisively to forestall even the slightest hint of policy aggression from the Left.

Hence the near unanimous hatred directed at Cunliffe by the mouthpieces of the neoliberal establishment. Fran O’Sullivan, Jane Clifton and Matthew Hooton have gone to extraordinary lengths to besmirch Cunliffe’s character and ridicule his ideas. In a pincer movement with Shearer’s caucus allies they have attempted to cast the Member for New Lynn as a sly, egomaniacal (if ultimately inept) Cassius, plotting constantly to bring down Labour’s sensible Caesar.

At least the motives of these Shearer supporters are clear. Should the National Party be voted out of office, they are now reasonably confident that his replacement will not only leave the neoliberal settlement intact, but that he may also, with Esko Aho’s example set firmly before him, seek to extend it into the spheres of welfare, health, housing and education. It will not have escaped their attention that Labour’s “Affordable Housing Plan”is really just a glorified PPP on behalf of the professional middle-class.

Much harder to fathom is the self-defeating hostility of Labour MPs who were, until last year’s party conference, considered to be on the left of the caucus. One might have thought that Phil Twyford, Clare Curran, Jacinda Ardern and Andrew Little would have welcomed the opportunity to travel in the slip-stream of an ambitious left-wing policy aggressor. After all, the best chance a left-wing Labour MP has of “making a difference” is surely when the massive tensions built up under a climate of stress are suddenly released in a torrent of radical reform.

But the scope for far-reaching change in a government dominated by Shearer and his neoliberal allies will only be extended to the Right. That being the case, the prognosis for those who entered Parliament with honest left-wing intentions is grim. Promotion to Cabinet will depend not only on making ritual obeisance to Shearer and his clique, but also, following the tragic precedent of the Rogernomics Era, on abandoning their former social-democratic ideals. Such self-inflicted injuries to the soul do not heal quickly.

That so many people who consider themselves left-wingers cannot see where a Shearer-led Labour Party will take New Zealand is baffling. “Outsourcing War”, alone, should warn them just how far to the right Shearer is content to position himself when his behaviour is not constrained by the role of Labour’s leader. His hero-worship of Esko Aho; the quips about beneficiaries and teachers; his rejection of the Left/Right political divide; the half-hearted support he offered to the Maritime Union during the Ports of Auckland dispute: all of these signs point in one direction only. And yet, even the trade unions continue to back what they obviously (and cynically?) believe to be the winning team. It is only after the votes have been counted, and David Shearer’s performance-hindering disguises are triumphantly cast aside, that they will realise, exactly, what they have “won”.

To paraphrase Murray Ball’s superb quip about the backers of the old FPP electoral system: If you want a good reason for opposing David Shearer – just take a look at the people supporting him.

This posting is exclusive to the Bowalley Roadblogsite.

[fungus pudding]

Chris Trotter continues to write interesting articles in 2013. He is of course, well disposed to the left.

FP and others are amused that David Shearer bumbles his way through TV appearances. Why would a party put forward someone who couldn't cope with perhaps the most important task of the job? Trotter has another view on why that is so.

I'm not sure why you think I'm amused by Shearer's bumbling. It isn't amusing.

[elZorro]

I'm not sure why you think I'm amused by Shearer's bumbling. It isn't amusing.

Perhaps "amused" is the wrong word. Bemused? Shocked?

Anyway I have just read the article about mercenaries by DS. It was quite short, well researched and written, but not outstanding. I wasn't too disturbed reading it. Someone could have helped with it. Maybe the Trotter article is more about helping along the fortunes of David Cunliffe.

[fungus pudding]

Perhaps "amused" is the wrong word. Bemused? Shocked?

Anyway I have just read the article about mercenaries by DS. It was quite short, well researched and written, but not outstanding. I wasn't too disturbed reading it. Someone could have helped with it. Maybe the Trotter article is more about helping along the fortunes of David Cunliffe.

I'm not amused, bemused or shocked. I most certainly would rather Shearer than Cunliffe any day, and that's little to do with Shearer's beliefs, Cunliffe's beliefs, or mine. Shearer seems like a reasonable fella' while Cunliffe is just plain horrible.

[elZorro]

I'm not amused, bemused or shocked. I most certainly would rather Shearer than Cunliffe any day, and that's little to do with Shearer's beliefs, Cunliffe's beliefs, or mine. Shearer seems like a reasonable fella' while Cunliffe is just plain horrible.

I wouldn't know FP, I've never met him. This all gets too confusing -(which Labour MP would be the best to lead after the next election)? Did Chris Trotter flog an old article from Whaleoil?
(http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/02/is-david-shearer-labours-don-brash/)
Maybe another question should be answered first - do we need a change? Chris Trotter has another opinion article out today.
(http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/chris-trotter/8191309/Employer-elite-fuels-exodus-to-Australia)
This I feel is more on the mark. As a businessperson I'd like to pay really good wages and salaries. Enough to make sure that staff are not lured across the Tasman. Having nice living conditions is not always enough. To do this, our outputs have to be great quality, good is not going to cut it.

As Chris so succinctly puts it, we need the courage to build again, 'a nation worth loving and not leaving'.

[elZorro]

Here we go again, more softening up on the student loans zero interest issue. I can spot where the salient facts have been missed out.

However I'd like to see National announce reinstating some interest as one of their policies for after the next election. It won't cost them any votes...:)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8197323/Bitter-pill-should-be-swallowed

[elZorro]

The World Bank has paid for a couple of people to knock out a report that states the biggest exporters in every country are the real export superstars. Brilliant, I guess that's why they're the biggest.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/84797-1154354760266/2807421-1353437734027/8946451-1353437747424/Export_Superstars.pdf

The SST has a light article about that on the front page, then another page, and another, so eventually you can find the whole item. What incensed me more was to hear from Phil O'Reilly, CEO of Business NZ, that the report is broadly right.

Phil states he doesn't like the idea of Labour's R&D tax credits. You remember, these were the ones designed to allow multiple SMEs to move into exporting. Phil has to be a National supporter, so that's where this opinion comes from. More talk about trickle down theory and how big businesses are large employers. Yes, they are for a while, and once they get organised enough, they'll move the IP, manufacturing and jobs offshore to cheaper places. Often they'll be overseas owned by then, and studiously avoiding paying taxes to the NZ govt, while moving profits offshore. It's all about the 1% again.

The real story for NZ is that all of our SMEs employ the vast majority of workers, and are more flexible than bigger companies. They can grow quickly, and often they just need a small push in the right direction. I was happier to read an article on the worth of SMEs by Tenby Powell, someone I've never met, but would like to.

[iceman]

A good discussion on how the lunatic policy of interest free student loans makes no sense whatsoever but too many voters benefiting from it for a Government of any persuasion wanting to touch it. Another one of Clark's great legacies !


http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8197323/Bitter-pill-should-be-swallowed

[elZorro]

A good discussion on how the lunatic policy of interest free student loans makes no sense whatsoever but too many voters benefiting from it for a Government of any persuasion wanting to touch it. Another one of Clark's great legacies !


http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8197323/Bitter-pill-should-be-swallowed

It's a legacy of which many would be proud, Iceman.

That article missed out the fact that the govt pays a big chunk of tertiary education costs anyway, and used to pay all of it. Those students that do take up the loans have to think twice about it, getting them to pay interest as well is a double standard considering many older taxpayers got their education all for free. There is only a very small percentage that rort the system, and as soon as that type of language is used, I know it comes from the Liberal Right. There are more checks and balances on students each year to control all that.

Most of the tertiary graduates stay in NZ, and so improve our economy. What is the price we are prepared to pay for that?

I might have been a bit incorrect about how SMEs employ the most staff. If defined as 5 staff or under, not so. Some big employers will be state owned however. Fascinating data from the stats dept here. Note that since National got in, the enterprises have been flat-lining or dipping as far as numbers employed, and while Labour was in they were steadily rising. Go figure.


http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/businesses/business_characteristics/BusinessDemographyStatistics_HOTPFeb12.aspx

[fungus pudding]

It's a legacy of which many would be proud, Iceman.

That article missed out the fact that the govt pays a big chunk of tertiary education costs anyway, and used to pay all of it. Those students that do take up the loans have to think twice about it, getting them to pay interest as well is a double standard considering many older taxpayers got their education all for free.

Well they got it free of charge; but let's be a little realistic. When I left school, a few decades ago, university was available to a very smell percentage of school leavers. Very few of these older taxpayers received free tertiary education.

[elZorro]

Well they got it free of charge; but let's be a little realistic. When I left school, a few decades ago, university was available to a very small percentage of school leavers. Very few of these older taxpayers received free tertiary education.

By tertiary I mean anything above college education (http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/InternationalEducation/ForInternationalStudentsAndParents/NZEdOverview/Tertiary_Education.aspx), which includes polytechs etc. FP, anyone who received an apprenticeship would have some tertiary qualifications. Often these are more practical and immediately useful in NZ, whereas university education arguably teaches students how to think, or to learn how to problem solve (and not much more). But I might be in deep water here, so I'll come to my other point.

That Stats NZ link has a 24 page report on business stats as at Feb 2012. Guess where the biggest number of enterprises is? In the section "Rental Hiring and Real Estate Services" with nearly 100,000 enterprises. The biggest by far (21% of the total). This group must include all those special company structures set up to rent out houses and commercial buildings. Another salient fact about this sector, they are also the poorest employers based on number per enterprise. 95% of these enterprises are not in fact employers at all. 69% of all enterprises, on average, are not employers either. These would be one-man bands, small retailers, tradespersons, etc.

By comparison, manufacturing had 20,580 enterprises, employing 224,200 staff, an average of nearly 11 staff per enterprise.

So here is my suggestion to you, FP. The fact that you reply to these posts means that you are thinking a bit harder than average about the state our country is in.

Could you see your way clear to employ someone, maybe part time, pay their holiday pay, any sick days, stat holidays and something a bit above the minimum wage, to help look after your assets? If all of the property gurus did this, about 95,000 people would be off the dole. All of NZ's rental properties would be tidied up within a year or two, and by then maybe some other career prospects would eventuate. Or Labour will get back in. Just an idea.

[fungus pudding]

By tertiary I mean anything above college education (http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/InternationalEducation/ForInternationalStudentsAndParents/NZEdOverview/Tertiary_Education.aspx), which includes polytechs etc. FP, anyone who received an apprenticeship would have some tertiary qualifications. Often these are more practical and immediately useful in NZ, whereas university education arguably teaches students how to think, or to learn how to problem solve (and not much more). But I might be in deep water here, so I'll come to my other point.

That Stats NZ link has a 24 page report on business stats as at Feb 2012. Guess where the biggest number of enterprises is? In the section "Rental Hiring and Real Estate Services" with nearly 100,000 enterprises. The biggest by far (21% of the total). This group must include all those special company structures set up to rent out houses and commercial buildings. Another salient fact about this sector, they are also the poorest employers based on number per enterprise. 95% of these enterprises are not in fact employers at all. 69% of all enterprises, on average, are not employers either. These would be one-man bands, small retailers, tradespersons, etc.

By comparison, manufacturing had 20,580 enterprises, employing 224,200 staff, an average of nearly 11 staff per enterprise.

So here is my suggestion to you, FP. The fact that you reply to these posts means that you are thinking a bit harder than average about the state our country is in.

Could you see your way clear to employ someone, maybe part time, pay their holiday pay, any sick days, stat holidays and something a bit above the minimum wage, to help look after your assets? If all of the property gurus did this, about 95,000 people would be off the dole. All of NZ's rental properties would be tidied up within a year or two, and by then maybe some other career prospects would eventuate. Or Labour will get back in. Just an idea.



No thanks. I have less trhan an hour's work a month - and I can handle thast all by myself. The very nature of whayt I do lends itself to one man band operations.

[elZorro]

No thanks. I have less than an hour's work a month - and I can handle that all by myself. The very nature of what I do lends itself to one man band operations.

If it's that easy, what do you do with all your spare time?

More data from Stats NZ:

469,120 enterprises in NZ, only 146,230 are employers, 91% of these have less than 20 staff. This is the definition of an SME in NZ, so we have 455,910 SMEs (have less than 20 employees). If you work in a firm with 20 or more employees, it's one of only 13,210 in NZ.

However, the 2,150 firms with more than 100 staff have 48% of all employees, 924,768 people, 430 per enterprise on average.

Scary for FP :ohmy:: births and deaths of enterprises: Only one in four of the non-employing enterprises that started in 2002 survived the full 10 years to 2012. The death rate for such enterprises is 14% per year. In contrast, employing enterprises had a much lower death rate of 3%.

[iceman]

It's a legacy of which many would be proud, Iceman.

That article missed out the fact that the govt pays a big chunk of tertiary education costs anyway, and used to pay all of it. Those students that do take up the loans have to think twice about it, getting them to pay interest as well is a double standard considering many older taxpayers got their education all for free. There is only a very small percentage that rort the system, and as soon as that type of language is used, I know it comes from the Liberal Right. There are more checks and balances on students each year to control all that.

Most of the tertiary graduates stay in NZ, and so improve our economy. What is the price we are prepared to pay for that?

I might have been a bit incorrect about how SMEs employ the most staff. If defined as 5 staff or under, not so. Some big employers will be state owned however. Fascinating data from the stats dept here. Note that since National got in, the enterprises have been flat-lining or dipping as far as numbers employed, and while Labour was in they were steadily rising. Go figure.


http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/businesses/business_characteristics/BusinessDemographyStatistics_HOTPFeb12.aspx

Unfortunately we do not have the necessary checks and balances you talk about. Giving free money to anyone to study whatever they want and whether they will contribute to society with those qualifications or not, is not how I want to see my tax dollars wasted. Did you see the reaction from the Liberal Left when Steven Joyce suggested a month or so ago that our tertiary institutions needed to offer more engineering courses, qualifications this country is crying out for. They basically told him to bugger off and people should be able to continue studying basket weaving and cultural cohesion if they wanted to. And of course using their interest free student loan to pay for courses and living expenses. Of course I am all for University or Tertiary education and push my children hard towards it, but this is not the way to achieve a better educated and more productive society. It is an utter waste of limited Government resources

[fungus pudding]

If it's that easy, what do you do with all your spare time?

More data from Stats NZ:

469,120 enterprises in NZ, only 146,230 are employers, 91% of these have less than 20 staff. This is the definition of an SME in NZ, so we have 455,910 SMEs (have less than 20 employees). If you work in a firm with 20 or more employees, it's one of only 13,210 in NZ.

However, the 2,150 firms with more than 100 staff have 48% of all employees, 924,768 people, 430 per enterprise on average.

Scary for FP :ohmy:: births and deaths of enterprises: Only one in four of the non-employing enterprises that started in 2002 survived the full 10 years to 2012. The death rate for such enterprises is 14% per year. In contrast, employing enterprises had a much lower death rate of 3%.


I am an investor - I do not run any enterprise. Property investing is not a business according to the IRD. I have plenty to do to fill in my time thanks. Most people would have, except for the fact they wait till age 65 to chuck in a 40 houre job. By that time they have developed a routine that comes to an end. My 'routine' will come to an end as and when I like. Incidentally, I am well past the the 10 year survival mark.

[elZorro]

Unfortunately we do not have the necessary checks and balances you talk about. Giving free money to anyone to study whatever they want and whether they will contribute to society with those qualifications or not, is not how I want to see my tax dollars wasted. Did you see the reaction from the Liberal Left when Steven Joyce suggested a month or so ago that our tertiary institutions needed to offer more engineering courses, qualifications this country is crying out for. They basically told him to bugger off and people should be able to continue studying basket weaving and cultural cohesion if they wanted to. And of course using their interest free student loan to pay for courses and living expenses. Of course I am all for University or Tertiary education and push my children hard towards it, but this is not the way to achieve a better educated and more productive society. It is an utter waste of limited Government resources

Iceman, universities can be slow moving places, but they will move to where the money is. If students want particular courses kept going, that's what will happen. But engineering does seem to be on the increase as a preferred course. The soft options you talk about are fairly rare, and anyway who wants to live in a cultural desert.

[elZorro]

I am an investor - I do not run any enterprise. Property investing is not a business according to the IRD. I have plenty to do to fill in my time thanks. Most people would have, except for the fact they wait till age 65 to chuck in a 40 hour job. By that time they have developed a routine that comes to an end. My 'routine' will come to an end as and when I like. Incidentally, I am well past the the 10 year survival mark.

I was just having a bit of a dig FP, but I think you do have an enterprise of some sort. A fairly smart one.

Now back to which enterprises should get looked after from govt: 13,210 enterprises out of the total 469,000 have over 20 staff each, and they provide work for about 70% of all employees, while the other 455,910 enterprises that are SMEs employ 30% of the 1,926,600 employees. It's possible some people get counted twice, as they might have more than one job.

We can see why National may have come to the conclusion that it would be easier to simply look at the larger enterprises for targeted assistance. For one, the cost to approach far fewer firms would be appealing. But the vast majority of SMEs are not employers at the moment, or have very few staff. Since they are huge in number, surely the potential for them to upscale is also huge.

I know of one firm who were happily in the smaller pile - over two generations of work, a provincial centre had built up a high-flyer company with IP, heavy exports, 150 staff employed and trained. The overseas owners relocated most of it last year to Asia, now they have 30 staff here in NZ. So we might not keep the more relocateable firms, but they will take some time to get noticed, and meanwhile they are good employers over here.

[elZorro]

Colin James on a similar theme about manufacturing. Spot on Colin.


Colin James's column for the Otago Daily Times for 22 January 2013


Manufacturing: out of "crisis" a revolution

Manufacturing is in "crisis". Long live manufacturing.

The "crisis" is in job destruction. But manufacturing is evolving fast, not just in location around the globe but in how it is done and what it includes. Some call this a new industrial revolution.

The policy issue for the government -- and for the Labour party which trumpets the "crisis" -- is what manufacturing can most effectively be done here and how to sell into rapidly changing global markets.

The problem -- common to all "advanced" economies, which ours allegedly is -- is that last century many manufacturing jobs were well paid, needed relatively modest education and skills and financed a broad middle of society into houses and a reasonably comfortable living.

From the 1960s and particularly from the 1980s, as freight costs fell, these jobs migrated from "advanced" economies to "emerging" economies where factory wages were much lower but still lifted their workers out of rural subsistence.

New Zealand began losing jobs in well-paid manufacturing in the late 1970s despite import protection, then in droves when protection was axed from the late 1980s. Except in dairy product processing and some other resource-based industries and more recently in some food processing, those "traditional" jobs continue to disappear -- off to lower-cost economies or consolidated in bigger-market Australia.

The alternative for these displaced workers is mostly lower-wage jobs in the service sector. The middle has been hollowed out.

Add in an overpriced currency which ministers declare they are powerless to tame and last year there was another wave of destruction of well-paid jobs -- not just here but in Australia, where a rash of big layoffs has been reported since November.

In the United States one traditional industry, car making, has been expanding after a massive taxpayer rescue (socialism by another name) but it has halved wages for new workers. Much the same applies across a swathe of other engineering industries there.

Put that together with rising wages in China: according to the Financial Times on January 9, "in 2000 United States wages were almost 22 times higher than China's. By 2015 that multiple will have declined to four."

A McKinsey Global Institute report in November on a "new era in manufacturing" found that manufacturing's share of GDP (total output) peaks between 20 and 35 per cent when an economy reaches "middle-income status". It then falls. Manufacturing's share of jobs (that is, jobs actually making things) fell from 25 per cent in 1950 to 9 per cent in 2008 in the United States, from 35 per cent in 1970 to 18 per cent in 2008 in Germany and from 28 per cent in 1989 to 17 per cent in 2008 in South Korea.

But manufacturing is more than just actually making things. It incorporates research and technology development, "big data" mining, marketing and customer support, which McKinsey says account for a third of advanced-economy manufacturing jobs. It also needs external inputs such as IT and telecommunications, transport and banks which McKinsey reckons at 20-25 per cent of advanced-economy manufacturing output. Many of these jobs are well paid.

Apply this to New Zealand's exported manufactured goods, as the OECD did in a groundbreaking report on global "trade in value-added" last week, and "services (mostly domestic) represent 46 per cent of the value of exports". Much of this was in manufactured goods which "incorporate a large share of value-added from the services sector".

And
note that New Zealand's competitive niche and medium/high- and high-tech manufacturers account for about 10 per cent of goods exports, though down from 12 per cent in 2006. (A side question for the future: is Weta Digital a manufacturer?)

Moreover, manufacturing is changing.

Radical new technologies are at last exploiting the productivity potential of post-1970 information science to transform some manufacturing.

These are canvassed in a new book by Chris Anderson, Wired magazine's editor (Makers: the new industrial revolution). They include a new generation of robots and 3D "printing" of single or multiple objects at the flick of a mouse.

One outcome is that advanced economies' producers can make some products as cheaply as low-wage economies can, adjusted for freight and supply chain complexities. This "insourcing" is now significant in the United States (though it doesn't make many jobs).

A second outcome is the use of internet platforms to bring together consumers, designers, makers and funders/investors in ways that speed up development, get products funded, target them to consumers' predilections and reel in the customers. Of special value to tiny, isolated New Zealand is that tiny producers of micro-niche items that may appeal to only 10,000 people worldwide can find those buyers.

All that is challenge and opportunity -- "crisis" and space to grow -- for makers here, if inventive enough and if policymakers get out of the 2000s and into the 2010s.

-- Colin James, Synapsis Ltd, P O Box 9494, Wellington 6141
Ph (64)-4-384 7030, Mobile (64)-21-438 434, Fax (64)-4-384 9175
Webpage http://www.ColinJames.co.nz

(Note 3D printed plastic is not that strong, it's not the whole answer)

Callaghan Innovation (ex CRI) is getting started in Auckland, but a lot of older heads have been rolled it would seem. This is a big conglomeration of interests, a one-stop shop for "high value, high growth business". In other words, Steven Joyce suggests we need to be lucky enough to grow up first, over several years, before we darken that doorway.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10860503

Tax avoidance spelled out in this article, rising protests about it worldwide.

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/ethical-investors-step-up-focus-tax-avoidance-5323359

[elZorro]

I missed the cabinet reshuffle on the early news. But I did find this amusing comment on what happened, by Scott Yorke. Warning to FP, he is a card-carrying Labour supporter according to his blog. Scott- there's someone else I'd like to meet.

http://www.imperatorfish.com/2013/01/john-keys-reshuffle-analysed.html

[elZorro]

Former VC of Waikato University Bryan Gould also spells out the crisis in manufacturing, deploring its handling by govt. He's got a point.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10860765

[Major von Tempsky]

I think you need to make another post El Zorro to break the Sharetrader record of 5 consecutive posts ,,,, ;-)

[elZorro]

I think you need to make another post El Zorro to break the Sharetrader record of 5 consecutive posts ,,,, ;-)

I was going for the record MVT, but you messed it up.

Hey, it's not my fault you guys have no rebuttal left, come on, why not trot out the tired old lines once more..;)

[iceman]

I was going for the record MVT, but you messed it up.

Hey, it's not my fault you guys have no rebuttal left, come on, why not trot out the tired old lines once more..;)

Surely you don't expect us to react to an article from a burnt out troglodyte and ex UK Labour MP like Bryan Gould. Come on EZ, surely you can do better than that !
What about the Greenies taking on your Leader's housing scheme with an equally ludicrous one ? "Our people" meanwhile are head down arse up working on some things that may really reduce cost of housing, such as crazy Resource permit costs, local government costs, land costs and building materials costs. Just wait for Nick Smith to rip into it across all those areas in cooperation with other relevant ministries, an instruction he has obviously been given by the PM. And it will not require billions of dollars of taxpayers money :p

[elZorro]

Surely you don't expect us to react to an article from a burnt out troglodyte and ex UK Labour MP like Bryan Gould. Come on EZ, surely you can do better than that !
What about the Greenies taking on your Leader's housing scheme with an equally ludicrous one ? "Our people" meanwhile are head down arse up working on some things that may really reduce cost of housing, such as crazy Resource permit costs, local government costs, land costs and building materials costs. Just wait for Nick Smith to rip into it across all those areas in cooperation with other relevant ministries, an instruction he has obviously been given by the PM. And it will not require billions of dollars of taxpayers money :p

You've given me far too much to work on there Iceman, but anyway I appreciate that you are following the news.

Our leader's housing scheme would not cost the state billions, the houses are onsold, and it sounds more practical than the Greens (http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/greens-introduce-rent-buy-home-ownership-scheme-bc-134842) one (it has some good ideas though) . What would happen is that it would supply lower cost housing, an area the market doesn't want to cater to. Whoever heard of a developer carving up a few acres for cheap housing and making just a few thousand (or nothing) per sale? (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10811812) The state might do that. They won't even have to throw out those crazy resource permit rules (which were put there to protect other affected parties).

I don't think it's the rules that bother most of those applying for consents, it's the wait and the fact they have to pay something. Of course they should be able to do whatever they want, use up resources that others may need later, put in drains, culverts, put up buildings/sheds, lower lakes, raise lakes, pollute waterways just a bit, build jetties, rip out native bush/trees.. all stuff they're doing anyway, if they can get away with it. But I digress.

There is one major extra affect on housing in Auckland by the sound of it, the cost of land. All other costs are competitive with other areas of NZ. Maybe the new housing will be out of town a small way, or will be a bit more imaginative and use former commercial zones.

Read the comments on Gould's article, he's quite correct on many points. We are losing our dairy profits steadily, and we're losing our edge. There is a lot of disquiet about the Steven Joyce Callaghan Innovation project, its intent seems to be to squash innovation.

I hope the Ratana prophets are right.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10861289

[craic]

Know a man down the road who erected a three-bay implement shed on his property, legally. He then went inside and built three-bedroom accommodation in part of it which he rents out at reasonable rental. I have an extra bedroom, toilet and washouse under the same scheme.Just about all is fifteen or more years old. Glad I don't live in Auckland.

[elZorro]

Know a man down the road who erected a three-bay implement shed on his property, legally. He then went inside and built three-bedroom accommodation in part of it which he rents out at reasonable rental. I have an extra bedroom, toilet and washouse under the same scheme.Just about all is fifteen or more years old. Glad I don't live in Auckland.

Yes Craic, I think we all have a few stories. A local retailing guru got hold of a bulldozer a few years back and made himself a new beach on the Waikato River just outside Hamilton. A jetty was to be added. The story was that concerned maori from Ngaruawahia who had noticed the incredibly dirty river, put their boats in and travelled upstream to have a look. Obviously the unpermitted project was potted.

Sad news on the NZ job front for recent graduates from unis and polytechs.


December job drop hits skilled workers25 January 2013
A report by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment said that online job vacancies decreased further in December following a fall in November.
The latest results show that skilled vacancies decreased by 5.6% in December and all online job vacancies decreased by 6.3% compared to November.
"While there is some variation from month to month in the seasonally adjusted series, the trend in skilled vacancies has been slowly falling since August 2012," according to the Ministry’s acting manager of labour market & business performance, David Paterson.
In December, the biggest fall in skilled vacancies was in information technology (down by 15.5%). Despite the fall in vacancies for most industries, the vacancies in hospitality and tourism grew by 5.7%.
Skilled job vacancies continued to fall in the country’s main centres in December, with the biggest fall in Wellington (down by 11.4%), followed by Canterbury (down by 10.9%) and Auckland (down by 5.4%).
Over the year to December, skilled vacancies decreased by 1.5%, however all vacancies increased by 0.6%.
Over the year, vacancies in Canterbury grew by 4.4 per cent. This was driven by growing demand for skilled workers in the construction and engineering (up by 57.9%) and sales, retail, marketing and advertising (up by 20.2%).
Source: voxy.co.nz

[elZorro]

It would be churlish of me not to make a mention of National's new plan to boost the numbers of apprentices.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10861505

Of course this is a step in the right direction, and in any case we'll need a lot more carpenters, builders etc for the Christchurch rebuild. I'm not sure what the market will do for these people once that is over, but that's normal. A trade always comes in handy.

The amount of funding is just $25mill a year, and 10,000 new apprentices (if it works) will not make up for the much bigger number of apprenticeships lost since the recession. We've just been discussing interest free student loans. For necessary trades, National is suddenly prepared to gift money to employers and new recruits. That would be because the employees will be paying it back as PAYE, GST and levies, and more likely staying in NZ for the next few years. Their employers will also be paying tax on any income they make from their team.

Should Labour have come up with an idea like this first? Probably. It does show that maybe National has decided - the 'market' will not be moving fast enough for them to make it back in 2014, and they might need to intervene a fair bit after all. And just look at the numbers, it won't cost the govt anything.

[elZorro]

Now in danger of exceeding my consecutive posts limit, I provide a link to what I think is the best article in today's SST, by Simon Cunliffe.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/8228464/Cunliffe-NZ-the-land-of-the-long-grey-cloud

Against a backdrop of increasing unemployment in most parts of NZ over the last three months, he also expresses despair over the idea that tertiary students are being guided by the state into those courses that will provide the best financial rewards. Why are they not being left alone to take the courses they are really interested in?


Left and Right are such elastic terms - never been quite the same since the National Government of Robert Muldoon blended obnoxious social policies with big-state economics to produce a God's Own version of a - rotten - banana smoothie.
The snap election in 1984 removed Muldoon and installed Labour's David Lange. Under his voluminous coat-tails lurked a mob of panting neo-liberals. The Rogernomes set about their work with messianic zeal. They sold off every bit of the family silver they could lay their hands on, making a few people, including a cabal of overseas shareholders, very wealthy indeed - while putting large numbers of ordinary New Zealanders out of work.

The Labour Government of that era proved socially reformist, introducing anti-nuclear legislation, advancing biculturalism, promoting cultural self-expression, hauling gender and sexual politics out of Muldoon's shabby, darkened broom closet. Anyone recall the Moyle affair? Never mind - just showing my age.

So those of a conservative mien who wish to insult the writer might more accurately fling at him the soiled epithet of "liberal" - except, of course, as regular readers will appreciate, that would be worn as a badge of pride.

And there is much in the current political and social milieu to set that badge flashing red. For in its pursuit, across the totality of public life, a free-market, managerialist, technocratic, individualist and ultimately unimaginative agenda, mired in short-termist administration, the current Government truly does seem intent on snuffing the life out of what remains of the liberal project.


Here's the challenge for Labour before 2014. Stand up, show us the big picture of what NZ should look like, how many different views will be valued, but always with a common decency, and providing a good living wage for anyone who wants to work. We had an egalitarian culture, it's on the way out unless one or more parties place a stake in the ground.

[slimwin]

They're being guided because 10,000 more philosphers and zooligists is neither good for NZ or themselves. Very few 18 year olds know what they want in life and they end up wasting 3 or 4 years at varsity before doing what they should have in the first place. All three of my siblings went down this route and regret it bitterly twenty years later. Denmark makes you go work a year before attending varsity unless your exceptional.Fantastic idea.

[elZorro]

They're being guided because 10,000 more philosophers and zoologists is neither good for NZ or themselves. Very few 18 year olds know what they want in life and they end up wasting 3 or 4 years at varsity before doing what they should have in the first place. All three of my siblings went down this route and regret it bitterly twenty years later. Denmark makes you go work a year before attending varsity unless you're exceptional. Fantastic idea.

I didn't know that Slimwin, and I agree it's a good idea. Returning tertiary students are often the most focussed, as they already have a picture of the firm they'll be working for, or the work they want to do. Often students figure this out while at varsity or polytechs, that's why the first year should be general studies applicable to a range of employment.

I think the point Simon was making is valid though. It's not up to the state to push some courses being offered, at the expense of others. It's arrogant and an indication of National's vested interests. The universities and techs already compete with each other for students, let them do it if they think it's a good idea. I was once employed by a tertiary institution. Half of their effort was required to be in education. Surprisingly, the other half had to be spent on research, in every school of thought. Maybe some of it goes nowhere. But what about the successes? Who knows where they will lead.

A bit of background about neo-liberalism in NZ, a paper from about 2008. (http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj37/37-neo-liberal-reform-and-attitudes-towards-social-citizenship.html) Research showed NZers like tax cuts, but also want funding for education and health preserved, a bit less sure about welfare spending. They tuned into Labour's 1990's efforts to smooth off the worst aspects of the 1980s Douglas reforms. I think they made other good moves right up until 2008.

[elZorro]

Our leader seems to have made a good job of his State of the Nation speech.. what did you think of it FP?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10861751

[fungus pudding]

Our leader seems to have made a good job of his State of the Nation speech.. what did you think of it FP?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10861751

Frightening really. He just hasn't got whatever it takes to inspire the troops, which must bring joy and a dash of hope to the Cunliffe camp - and that's what frightens me.

[elZorro]

I didn't see the speech at all. Cunliffe is a bit more left-leaning than most in Labour, is that the problem?

[fungus pudding]

I didn't see the speech at all. Cunliffe is a bit more left-leaning than most in Labour, is that the problem?

He's horrible - that's the problem.

[Major von Tempsky]

What left me flabbergasted was Shearer's trite and impractical statement that he would reduce NZ's dangerous dependance on dairy products.
How would he do that? Use an app on his iPad - Menu 1. Dependance on Dairy Products 2. Easy switch to Other Exports.

So, do you reduce dairy exports by harassing the life out of dairy farmers, levying a special tax on them, changing the Resource Management Act to exclude dairying? What do you do about employment, the standard of living, downstream services, with dairying gone? Is he going to take on China and India at manufacturing? Dairying is our comparative advantage, you don't just throw it away. Strikes me he is totally and abysmally ignorant of economics. God help NZ if he wins the next election....

[elZorro]

What left me flabbergasted was Shearer's trite and impractical statement that he would reduce NZ's dangerous dependance on dairy products.
How would he do that? Use an app on his iPad - Menu 1. Dependance on Dairy Products 2. Easy switch to Other Exports.

So, do you reduce dairy exports by harassing the life out of dairy farmers, levying a special tax on them, changing the Resource Management Act to exclude dairying? What do you do about employment, the standard of living, downstream services, with dairying gone? Is he going to take on China and India at manufacturing? Dairying is our comparative advantage, you don't just throw it away. Strikes me he is totally and abysmally ignorant of economics. God help NZ if he wins the next election....

I think dairying income is a dangerous dependance too, or it could be. In an energy-constrained future the idea of lugging lots of (mostly water) around the place in tankers, then drying it with gas or coal to turn it into powder so it can be shipped overseas , starts to get expensive. Already drystock and dairy farmers have sent shipments of our breeding stock over to China and other places so they can become competitors. Many of them are doing very well at it. South America is another area with low wages, and they could be major competitors over time.

Farmers are already buying most of their on-farm inputs with a profit margin for suppliers as low as 4%. They're still not making much for all the effort, and they don't on average, employ many. From the govt's point of view the tax take from dairy farmers, who are using a big portion of the land area in NZ, and a lot of its water resources, is relatively small. You have to wonder if there might be a more profitable use for the land and resources, that could benefit more of NZ.

[slimwin]

Low tax take but they bring billions into the economy.

[elZorro]

Low tax take but they bring billions into the economy.

I guess the dairy factories have spawned other related stainless industries and manufacturing, that's true. But the scary thing is that unless there's a good profit margin in all this, any rising energy input costs will kill the dairy industry off. Dairy farm land owners have usually done well at the end of the cycle (selling the farm), and this feeds back into the economy. But it's a long, slow, relatively unproductive process, and at the end of it another farmer repays another big debt to the bank, with interest.

Gerry Brownlee, Minister of Transport, must be behind the idea of changing most WOF inspections to an annual process. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10795450) Simon Bridges has been fronting it lately. It's been such a part of our lives for so long that changing it seems sacriledge. Apart from that, I think it's a stupid idea.

The MTA (garages) are against it too, they say that up to 2,000 jobs could be lost. That's because cars are now more reliable, and so WOF inspections and followup work are a big part of their business. But how many of us wait for the WOF testing person to tell us that one or more tyres are getting too low, or that the wiper blades need changing? We're too lazy to do that on our own volition, and imagine the idea of passing a car with marginal tyres, yet it'll be 12 months before anyone will officially check the tyres again. The vehicle could be sold and have done huge kms since.

National want to remove red tape and perhaps they see a trade, like garages, as part of that? They'll remove this red tape and put everyone on the road in more peril. Where did National say that the new rules would make cars safer? The opposite side of the argument is that vehicles on our roads will soon be less safe. What's the point of saving a collective $159mill a year, if the road toll goes back up?

[fungus pudding]

Gerry Brownlee, Minister of Transport, must be behind the idea of changing most WOF inspections to an annual process.[/URL] Simon Bridges has been fronting it lately. It's been such a part of our lives for so long that changing it seems sacriledge. Apart from that, I think it's a stupid idea.

The MTA (garages) are against it too, they say that up to 2,000 jobs could be lost. That's because cars are now more reliable, and so WOF inspections and followup work are a big part of their business. But how many of us wait for the WOF testing person to tell us that one or more tyres are getting too low, or that the wiper blades need changing? We're too lazy to do that on our own volition, and imagine the idea of passing a car with marginal tyres, yet it'll be 12 months before anyone will officially check the tyres again. The vehicle could be sold and have done huge kms since.



You're way off beam on this one. Back in the sixties I did my apprenticeship as a motor mechanic. Thereafter I spent 4 years in a Ministry of Transport testing station doing nothing day in - day out, but inspect vehicles. This was back in the days of king pins, steering boxes with drag lings and idlers, wishbone suspension, drum brakes etc, not to mention countless grease nipples that could be ignored. These days hydraulic strut suspension, rack and pinion steering, sealed joints, power assisted disc brakes plus mono-chassis construction have replaced all that. But even back then six monthly inspections were excessive. Nowadays it's ludicrous. I think we should move more in line with world standards which are generally 2 years or longer. Our system dates back to the 1930s - the days of unreliable vehicles and poor roads. Incidentally, there will be 900,000 fewer inspections per year. Allowing a generous one hour average for an inspection that will mean around 400 fewer inspectors. All figures spouted by the MTA on this subject have been scaremongering claptrap. As for pre 2000 vehicles requiring 6 monthly inspections - why? Nothing happens to a vehicle just because it has turned 13 - nothing. So it's a mild imporovement, but it needs to go further. Read the different state requirements in Australia. You'll see
Queensland require inspection only when changing ownership. NSW require annual inspection. The difference in rates where vehicle faults are found to contribute, is nil. Worldwide where vehicle faults ccontribute to accidents it is almost invariably tyres - and they can only ever be as at time of inspection. Finally, there is no valid reason to charge more because inspection is annual. Thaty's just more MTA scaremongering. Move to two yearly, put a small levy on inspection to fund LTSA for road checking tyre tread depth - and we'd be acheiving something.

[craic]

I remember towards the end of WW2 we had a small vehicle that had to work 365 days a year and tires were scarcer than hens teeth. First yo wore them down to the thread which was canvas not wire and then we put a sleeve in side to get a few more miles. In recent years I have used a few thousand old tires for land stabilisation on my property and I get them on a "help yourself" basis from local firms. Whe I asked why perfectly good tyres were being dumped, I ws told that WOF requirements demand replacement of tyres in pairs and that very little retreading is done these days. The waste factor in this area must be huge. I had a puncture in one tyre and used the spare which was brand new. At the Testing Station it was rejected because it did not match the other tyre perfectly and I had to go and replace it with the original which had been repaired. Apart from that, WOF problems are a great rarity in my two vehicles and I will be glad to save the time and money.

[elZorro]

I've worked in a garage too, FP, but I'm not qualified. So I take some of your points on board, but as you've been out of the game for a while, you might not understand that most garages are a bit under the hammer. They won't be spending all of their time doing WOFs, but it's always been a good breadwinner and a feeder for other work. So the net labour that will be taken away from garages could easily be 1000 employees, if they spent 50% of their time on WOFs (we don't all use, or have access to, WOF testing stations) and they're not working for 2,250 hours a year as your maths implies. Each person on the shop floor might pay the wages for a portion of the admin that goes with it.

Are you saying LTSA will pull cars over for random inspections of tyre tread depth, will that be effective? Isn't it just more red tape? Will the same inspections pick up brake linings right on the border of going to the metal? Will they take all the gear necessary for the testing out onto the roadsides? My argument is that as vehicles have become more reliable, we've started neglecting to keep up with normal maintenance for parts that always wear out. Our roads are still not the best or straightest in the world, they're often potholed with chipseal or even unsealed, not hotmix or concrete.

But maybe you're right - only 400 people, and not closer to 2000 people, will be made unemployed by this brilliant initiative. They will have a choice of going on the dole, retraining, emigrating to Aussie, or maybe they'll get into property? Some taxpayers will save a little bit on car running costs, and the state will receive less PAYE and GST income, and pay more out on the dole. The lesson is, don't go into the motor vehicle repair trade, the govt wants you to be a builder, or allied tradesperson.

[craic]

Stuart Nash, the Labour party's Napier candidate, who was dropped off the list at the last occasionis, in my view, an outstanding young politician who deals in issues and not personalities or party rubbish. I believe that he has the potential to take that party up out of the doldrums. I am a National Party Supporter, most of the time but I felt a need to bring this topic back to politics after writing a load of rubbissh about car ty(i)res.

[fungus pudding]

I've worked in a garage too, FP, but I'm not qualified. So I take some of your points on board, but as you've been out of the game for a while, you might not understand that most garages are a bit under the hammer. They won't be spending all of their time doing WOFs, but it's always been a good breadwinner and a feeder for other work. So the net labour that will be taken away from garages could easily be 1000 employees, if they spent 50% of their time on WOFs (we don't all use, or have access to, WOF testing stations) and they're not working for 2,250 hours a year as your maths implies. Each person on the shop floor might pay the wages for a portion of the admin that goes with it.

Are you saying LTSA will pull cars over for random inspections of tyre tread depth, will that be effective? Isn't it just more red tape? Will the same inspections pick up brake linings right on the border of going to the metal? Will they take all the gear necessary for the testing out onto the roadsides? My argument is that as vehicles have become more reliable, we've started neglecting to keep up with normal maintenance for parts that always wear out. Our roads are still not the best or straightest in the world, they're often potholed with chipseal or even unsealed, not hotmix or concrete.

But maybe you're right - only 400 people, and not closer to 2000 people, will be made unemployed by this brilliant initiative. They will have a choice of going on the dole, retraining, emigrating to Aussie, or maybe they'll get into property? Some taxpayers will save a little bit on car running costs, and the state will receive less PAYE and GST income, and pay more out on the dole. The lesson is, don't go into the motor vehicle repair trade, the govt wants you to be a builder, or allied tradesperson.

The MTA can easily absorb a few hundred - wait for free saftey checks and other schemes to emerge. But apart from that, it's not for the motorist to provide work for the unemployed. (Economic students will be familiar with such models as the compulsory parrot acquisition scheme - same thing.) Yes - road checks are red tape, but if someone else gets pulled over to stop them running into me - I'm not complaining. It's less of an imposition than getting inspected for no reason every six months. Road safety is important. Pretending six monthly inspections does any good is rubbish. Your point about garages vs testing stations makes no sense. In either case the labour is roughly the same. I allowed 1 hour per inspection, but that's generous. A modern small Jap car can be done in a fraction of that time. Your final point is silly. The motor trade has been streamlined over the years and modern vehicle maintenance means fewer mechanics are required for an ever expanding number of vehicles - not thr govt's role to invent silly ways to retain workers in a dying occupation. You'd no doubt be pleased if blacksmiths' shops still stood on every corner, but they don't. Neither do they still have gangs of painters to repaint telephone boxes red. The world is ever evolving and new industries keep appearing and that won't change. Your ability to evaluate anything at all is governed by a bias. If National think of something it's no good. If Labour come up with something - it's wonderful. Forget the political party and look at policies. Neither have a monopoly on good ideas, or bad ones. This is good policy, but half baked. annual inspection is still over the top.

[elZorro]

Craic's comment about tyres being kept going, that was true of exhaust systems and batteries too. Batteries used to be a week's wages. We used to see cars being push-started off forecourts.

FP: you're a bit tough on the trades aren't you? If the WOF only costs $45 because of competition, most garages will be trying hard to get it done in a lot less than an hour. That's why I go to a testing station, where the strictest test will be made for the same price, and making a time is my choice. Some of those going to their choice of garage will be hoping for a softer test on their vehicles, and now that timeline could be stretched out for 12 months? That can't be good.

I think garages will be around for a long time to come, and it's a much more complex job now, when things go wrong. You probably simply sell your cars when they get to be a few years old, FP, but there will be someone else who'll be picking up the maintenance tabs until they get wrecked for parts or crushed. And when cars get to be 13 years old, lots of parts will be wearing out. CV boots- CVs, brakes, exhausts, transmissions, LHS wheel bearings etc.

I defend my position on policy - National might have some good ideas on the face of it but you can usually see the real (I'm all right Jack) motive behind it, and I don't usually agree with that. Labour aren't always right either, just a lot closer to what I'd like to see.

Are we off topic? Maybe we should have a bet over who gets elected in 2014. Craic, thanks for the mention of Stuart Nash. Looks useful. He had a good position in David Shearer's office, wonder what the story was there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Nash

Background on the change. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/6810936/Lawyer-named-Shearers-chief-of-staff) What's he doing in 2012? (http://www.hawkesbaytoday.co.nz/news/labour-man-seeks-change/1446091/)


PM offers little new policy Last updated 05:00 28/01/2013




Prime Minister John Key "re-energised" his ministerial team last week to tackle his government's programme for welfare reform, law and order, education, the rebuild of Christchurch, improving public services and - at the nub of things - the economy. But he did not re-energise his rhetoric or master plan.

His "state of the nation" speech a few days after he announced the revitalising of his ministerial team did contain a new initiative - to revamp the country's apprenticeship system.

The rest was a reiteration of what we had said before: his Government was going full steam ahead with measures to build a more productive and competitive economy (all prime ministers say something like that).
Mr Key emphasised his priorities included addressing housing market issues and further reforming the Resource Management Act.

We knew that already.

We knew, too, about the three big challenges his Government faces.
One is the global financial crisis, another is the need to rebuild Christchurch after the earthquakes.
But more than four years on from defeating it in 2008, Mr Key still includes the Clark Government among his explanations for any disappointments with the progress made on his watch (he says he inherited an economy that was unbalanced). Yet he said he has told his ministers to step up momentum and build on the work his Government has done over the past four years on the budget deficit, tax reform ("the biggest changes to the tax system in a generation") and welfare reform.

The headline-grabber in Mr Key's speech was his announcement of policies to expand and improve apprenticeship training. An estimated 14,000 new apprentices would start training over the next five years, over and above the number previously forecast, thanks to these measures and the boom in construction and other trades under way in Christchurch. But Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce announced in August the Government was planning changes to the industry training system to boost the number of apprentices.

Rather than be agreeably surprised by Mr Key's announcement, we should be disquieted that - some two years on from the earthquakes - it has taken so long to do what must be done.



- © Fairfax NZ News

[craic]

Stuart Nash is into local politics in Napier/Hastings and gets a great deal of exposure in the local paper.There is suggestion that he might stand for Mayor of Napier. He deals with issues clearly and at present those issues are local body amalgamation and the rebuilding of the Gisborne to Napier rail link. Natinals Tremain is not on side with local opinion on either of those issues. Creates an interesting scenario for the next election.
PS people who like the idea of six-monthly checks to keep them up to scratch will still be able to get their warrants six-monthly or threemonthly if they so wish. It's like the City Mission in Auckland - no one is turned away - even the odd Chinese tourist.

[fungus pudding]

FP: you're a bit tough on the trades aren't you? If the WOF only costs $45 because of competition, most garages will be trying hard to get it done in a lot less than an hour. That's why I go to a testing station, where the strictest test will be made for the same price, and making a time is my choice. Some of those going to their choice of garage will be hoping for a softer test on their vehicles, and now that timeline could be stretched out for 12 months? That can't be good.



I'm not tough on any trade - least of all the motor trade. It wasn't me who replaced white metalling of bearings with shells; stopped rivetting brake shoes, or a zillion other skilled jobs of yesteryear, or did away with a million other specialised activities. Things change, for the better and are more efficient. Don't delude yourself that garages are 'soft' on warrants. Over the years issuing of warrants has become well policed by LTSA and is fairly consistent, largely due to inspections being logged online. No more going to the bloke down the road if you are rejected in the hope he won't realise.Of course garages will be around for a long time, but they'll be different. Do you think we should return to requiring a valve grind every 10,000 kms like some older cars used to? That would make a good work scheme; even better than uneccessary inspections.

[elZorro]

I'm not tough on any trade - least of all the motor trade. It wasn't me who replaced white metalling of bearings with shells; stopped rivetting brake shoes, or a zillion other skilled jobs of yesteryear, or did away with a million other specialised activities. Things change, for the better and are more efficient. Don't delude yourself that garages are 'soft' on warrants. Over the years issuing of warrants has become well policed by LTSA and is fairly consistent, largely due to inspections being logged online. No more going to the bloke down the road if you are rejected in the hope he won't realise.Of course garages will be around for a long time, but they'll be different. Do you think we should return to requiring a valve grind every 10,000 kms like some older cars used to? That would make a good work scheme; even better than uneccessary inspections.

You would make a good politician FP, you've taken the few words I said, forgotten about anything that was correct, and made up some new rubbish that I'm supposed to agree with. I would think it's true that if you had a working relationship with a garage, your first presentation of a vehicle at each WOF time is likely to go better than if you went to a testing station. You might need to buy tyres later, for example, a gentlemen's agreement. Even testing stations will be polite about some things. Under the new 12 month regime, that honesty is being stretched. I like Craic's input, we can still get vehicles tested every 6 months if we remember to.

So I'm unbalanced in my opinions, for that I apologise. At least I understand how important it is that most people who want to work, can in fact find a job, that existing businesses take a while to set up, and govt policies that will have the effect of destroying some business incomes (for no good reason in this case except that MPs don't have to worry about their WOFs so often) are a bad thing.

Craic, will watch to see who gets the nod in Napier.

[elZorro]

Key pushes the competitive economy button

28 January 2013
John Key made it clear through the media on Friday that the Government is pressing ahead with a wide range of measures to build a more productive and competitive economy.
His speech dovetailed with Finance Minister Bill English pointing out that in recent months the Government had been able to hone the deficit.
“New Zealand has to be a magnet for investment,” Key told the North Harbour Club in Auckland.
“That’s investment by individuals and small businesses, as well as big businesses; and it’s investment by people from overseas as well as Kiwis. The more investment we get, the more jobs will be created.”
He said that to ensure future growth is based on investment, exports and savings, the Government has set out a wide-ranging programme of initiatives – including ensuring people have the right skills to contribute to the workforce.
The Prime Minister announced an initiative to expand and improve apprenticeship training.
“As a result of these changes, and stimulated by the boom in construction and other trades that is already underway in Christchurch, we estimate that around 14,000 additional apprentices will start training over the next five years, over and above the number previously forecast,” he said.
“That will mean thousands of New Zealanders get to learn a new trade that will last them a lifetime.”
Addressing issues in the housing market and further reforming the Resource Management Act (RMA) are also among the Government’s priorities.
“With housing, we want to work closely with local councils and I believe our goals in the end are the same. But if councils aren’t able to change their planning processes, then the Government will have to get a lot more proactive because we are very serious about this issue.”
Key said the Government was working on a further stage of comprehensive RMA reforms, which will be released in the next few months.
“I want to see big improvements in this area and it’s going to be a high priority for the Government this year.”
Commenting, the New Zealand Herald said of the apprenticeships initiative that currently modern apprenticeship subsidies have been limited to the Industry Training Organisations with trainees aged between 16 and 21. The subsidy is paid to the ITOs to visit the apprentices.
From 2014 there will be a single rate of subsidy for apprentices and there will be no age restriction.
Subsidies for existing modern apprenticeships will be protected however for four years or until they finish.
As an incentive the Government will give a $1,000 gratis payment to each new apprentice enrolled after April 1 this year for tools and off-job course costs and $2,000 to those in priority construction industries. The same amount will be given to their employers.
Key said claimed that under earlier Labour Governments’ “'wasteful management,” up to 100,000 people a year listed as being in industry training but were in fact “phantom trainees.”
Key said Australia had done so well over the last few years because it had massive investment in its economy.
Investment in Western Australia had seen the lowest unemployment rate and highest population growth of any Australian State.
In New Zealand, Taranaki had attracted significant oil and gas investment. It had a low unemployment rate and incomes had grown faster than anywhere else in the country.
“The key factor is investment and not just in oil and gas. So here in NZ we have to be a magnet for investment."
Key attacked Opposition parties accusing them of opposing most measures the Government proposed to encourage investment, growth and job. They opposed tax changes, major roading projects, free trade with the United States [Labour does not], RMA changes, 90-day work trial, work expectations for beneficiaries, oil and gas exploration, labour market legislation for The Hobbit film, and a national convention centre.
“There is only one type activist government they know - the big spending and big-borrowing kind. It's called 'chequebook activism' and New Zealanders know it well because they have seen it before," he added.
Sources: NZResources.com files and nzherald.co.nz


Huh? that's funny, the economic data from the previous govt's term shows that Labour paid off heaps of old debt, resisted divvying out any spare cashflow as tax reductions although National was bleating for it in paliament for months/years, and increased the tax base for several years running. I wonder what the real story about '100,000 phantom trainees' is. John's probably hoping no-one will bother to research that, and just believe him.

Here's a reference to it from National's website.


Why did the Government review industry training?

In the 10 years to 2010, Government funding for industry training trebled, but value for money has been poor – qualification completions and credit attainment have been very low. In 2008, 96,831 people being funded to participate in industry training did not achieve a single credit. In 2009 the same figure was 100,801.
Audits of ITOs in 2009 and 2010 also revealed that Government had been subsidising a significant number of trainees who were not eligible for funding under the existing funding rules.

In response to these issues, the funding rules were tightened and monitoring was increased. Qualification and credit attainment in industry training has improved as a result.

In 2011, the Government initiated a wider policy review of industry training to assess whether the current model was fit for purpose and providing the best value for money. The review found that although the system was not broken, there was room for significant improvement. One of the main findings of the review was that the current single funding rate for industry training does not appear to adequately support the theory learning required in apprenticeships, as indicated by the high ITO fees for employers of apprentices.

The figures above don't spell out how many other students were involved and who achieved some credits, but it would have been many more than 100,000. Even universities have students who enrol and drop out early, for a number of reasons. The official article above doesn't say all of these students were phantoms, because they wouldn't have been.

Not only that, the numbers were still increasing (or ineligible students were being enrolled) two years into National's first term. So if Labour is being accused of wasting money, then National has been tarred with the same brush. What would complete this item would be an estimation on the value achieved for the ITO training. Surely that would be a more positive way of looking at it.

[slimwin]

Builder at my house is taking on ten apprentices. I live in ChCh though.

[Major von Tempsky]

I'm still awaiting a practical suggestion of what is to replace dairying. You can't just sweep a giant economic howler like that of Shearer blithely under the carpet. Helen Clark had 9 years to reduce "the dangerous dependance on dairying" and she accomplished absolutely nothing in that regard. Over most of New Zealand's economic history dairying has been the only consistently successsful and profitable export and industry.
If there was something the market would have found it by now and it hasn't, just relatively minor successes that are miles away from ever overtaking dairying. Why are you worried about dairying labour costs? There are now 10 dairy farms in Southland alone which use robotic milking, no human intervention.
And the central planning ideas of Bill Sutch, Rod Oram & have achieved absolutely nothing in reducing the "dangerous dependance" on dairying. In fact with further technological progress and more and more irrigation dairying will continue growing more than anything else in sheer weight of exports and contribution to GDP.
As an economist to me Shearer's credibility rests on him coming up with something convincing on this issue - one can see he is an economic ignoramus, maybe he is also a wimp.

[elZorro]

Hi Slimwin, my brother's firm is also taking on 10 new staff soon, then maybe another 10, all for the new building work down there. It'll be great while it lasts. There have been building booms before, of course. This one is a lot bigger than most.


MVT, I'm probably not qualified to answer, but you know me, I'll have a go anyway.

Helen Clark wouldn't have disturbed the status quo on farming, her parents were Waikato farmers. Like the Greens, Labour have been watching new worldwide trends (many shown right here on ST) and they are right to be worried about our dependence on farming for income. I'm not worried about labour costs for farming, I'd like to see it so profitable that more could be employed in the sector. Look at sheep stations: huge area used up, only enough income for about two houses/families and a few contractors on occasion. Millions of dollars of energy from the sun hits each hectare per year, the conversion rate is lower than 0.04% on most farms, as far as the energy in produce going out the farm gate. In NZ we rely on a ruminant to walk about and eat the grass. In general the grass is 2% efficient at energy conversion, the ruminant about the same. Scientists are thinking about cropping grass or other forage, fermenting it in a lab to make milk and even meat, and putting the leftover fibre back into the ground. Take this back a bit, should we stick to one-stage production of human food, i.e. crops for human consumption. At least this skips out the lossy ruminant stage.

I could go on. Irrigation, about 20% of the extra water is actually used by plants, or some low figure like that. Each cow puts out the effluent of many humans. Would you or I feel comfortable having to treat the effluent of a small town on our land, with one or two staff as backup, using some excavated lined ponds and a pump or two? Farmers have that responsibility. Of course the washdown effluent from the shed is only a small part of the total, and there are numerous point sources of untreated effluent coming off most farms into drains and waterways when it rains. It doesn't all disappear into the ground.

So there is one limit on further production from dairying, and already farmers are worried about costs most years. If we could find other income from our large temperate outdoor spaces, that could bring about a steady change, in much the same way that dairying has displaced sheep farming on flat areas.

But I think Labour is much more interested in manufacturing. It's a lot tidier, it's near population centers, it needs a wide range of skills, and it can be smart. It needs to be, to compete with the new global economy. You can't say that National has helped this process along. It's a fatal flaw in their policies, and I hope Labour can make that clear by 2014.

[elZorro]

Colin James's column for the Otago Daily Times for 29 January 2013


For four parties: the year of the pivot


Parliament kicks off today for a year that is pivotal for all parties there except (maybe) one-MP parties and New Zealand First.

The Maori party has to pivot from its high-profile founding leadership to, or towards, one which will struggle to build profile. Tariana Turia said last month she is going at the 2014 election and Pita Sharples should, too, but he wants to stay.

Te Ururoa Flavell and Rahui Katene want their jobs. Behind them are some more promising up-and-comers but they are not yet MPs.

The test of the new leadership will be whether, after the slide in 2011, the party can win the eighth Maori seat likely after the post-census Maori option.

Good news: Labour is not (yet) attracting strong Maori candidates. But to win off Labour weakness is not strength and the Maori party has not looked strong since it broke with Hone Harawira.

That is its pivot: to end the drift and recapture its promise as the "Treaty partner in Parliament".

The Greens' pivot is from specialist minor party to a broad-based third party, to make good its ambition of 14-15 per cent in 2014 to top its 11 per cent in 2011.

This requires more than savvy presentation that won Russel Norman and some other MPs bigger billing in 2012 than Labour counterparts. The policy platform will need to reach more towards the centre. And partnership in a cabinet is a tough, compromising business.

The transition needs highly skilled management to avoid the realist-fundamentalist split that bedevils ideals-based parties (for example, the Alliance in 2001-02).

Labour, meanwhile, aims to stake out a distinct position binding environmental and economic policy to marginalise the Greens and drive their poll support down to 7-10 per cent, which would define it to voters as a very junior partner, on which basis Labour hopes to build a coalition-in-waiting next year, as it did with the Alliance in 1999.

But Labour itself is on a pivot.

One dimension is the leadership. This will be tested again next Monday when David Shearer must seek caucus endorsement, on pain of an election involving party members and unions if 13 MPs demur.

This is not a left-right fight -- November's challenger, David Cunliffe, is not left. The real issue is whether Shearer can overcome his limits of knowledge of New Zealand, Labour and politics and his hesitant media habits enough to undermine John Key.

Shearer's display of fighting spirit in November-December, backed by a strengthened staff and expert help to uncover the inner David to the media and public are a start. But he has a long way to go.

Labour's bigger pivot is from the schism of the 1980s via the Clark-era recentralisation to a restatement of Labour "values" and, on the back of those, policies to fit the 2020s. That is no easy task in the turbulent 2010s (which are not just an extension of the 2000s). This restatement is patchy so far and more putative than path-breaking. Success or failure will influence how long and confidently Labour could lead a government.

Success depends heavily on how bold Shearer's shadow cabinet reshuffle is (in which Grant Robertson has a significant role). Key's (almost cavalier) firing of ministers has been noticed. There is some indication Shearer will be tough on oldies and non-performers and promote newer MPs with promise.

But Key was firing from strength. Shearer doesn't have such strength yet, even if on Monday he sees off the non-endorsers and even if there is no vote.

National's pivots are quite different.

Last year the cabinet aimed to set out markers for action on which to invite judgment in 2014. This year it wants definable progress on those initiatives to counter the charge that it is inactive versus Labour's promise of active, "hands-on" government. And that has to be done amidst continuing fiscal stringency and pressure on officials for innovative management and advice (known as "better public services", recently externally assessed).


For all that to work Key has to lift his political management. Last year there was a litany of messes, including mishandling the Treaty dimension of the asset selldowns and the education muddles.

Key is said to have got that message.

He operates through two superministers who are complementary in personality, political style and management, Bill English and Steven Joyce (with lead ministers of portfolio clusters below them). The thickest line in that Key-English-Joyce triangle is from Key to GDP growth project manager Joyce. But English oversees a range of political vulnerabilities where "results" are needed, from welfare reform to housing.

So the English-Joyce line across the triangle's base has to be solid. If it frayed to dots and dashes Key would have to take charge as executive Prime Minister, not just chair of the board.

The good news for Key is that the line is solid: they consult continually. So National might well pivot far enough from "personable leader" to "results" to get its coveted third term. This year might tell.





-- Colin James, Synapsis Ltd, P O Box 9494, Wellington 6141
Ph (64)-4-384 7030, Mobile (64)-21-438 434, Fax (64)-4-384 9175
Webpage http://www.ColinJames.co.nz


An even-handed article that hits the right notes.

An article on the manufacturing crisis meeting. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10861976) No sign of National. How rude is that?

[fungus pudding]

This will rock you el Z. The Post office want to reduce mail delivery to 3 days a week. Surely they should keep posties wandering the streets with empty mail sacks for six days a week, just like LTSA should keep inspectors staring at cars every 26 weeks for no reason. Although some of us (me) would say that once a week mail would be more in line with today's requirements.

[elZorro]

This will rock you el Z. The Post office want to reduce mail delivery to 3 days a week. Surely they should keep posties wandering the streets with empty mail sacks for six days a week, just like LTSA should keep inspectors staring at cars every 26 weeks for no reason. Although some of us (me) would say that once a week mail would be more in line with today's requirements.

You've got me frothing at the mouth FP.

Today I had the opportunity to frequent a VINZ station to get my 10yr licence renewal. In the cause of this very thread, I had to ask the person handling my earnest request (for the priviledge of once again driving on state highways), what her view on National's licencing idea was (12 months WOF renewal for half-decent cars). Of course she was not happy. She thought it was brainless. She saw right through it, this is an election gamble. Will more people vote for the idea, than against it? But she agreed with me, this idea will make all vehicles on NZ roads, less safe. She also thought that it makes her position there, tenuous. (OK maybe she didn't say it exactly like that).

NZ Post: I have to admit I've tried to make some cash out of them, but unfortunately they didn't think our idea had a good payback. So now they could be on the bones of their backsides within a few years, they'll have to cut costs somehow. They have already put up the costs of sending parcels to rural deliveries. Now they are looking to cut back on deliveries to all of us. To all those smart people who have been using their computers to pay bills online, I say recant the idea, go back to sending cheques and waiting to see if they get lost in the mail, or waiting for them to be presented.

In a roundabout way I'm saying that this time (and it really might be just the once) you are right FP.

[elZorro]

Here we go..Callaghan Innovation will be doing "nothing of note" for 6 months while it sets up its processes with 400 initial staff. Just $11.6mill targeted spend in 2012-2103. After that there may be some schemes businesses can access, but it looks more like the whole setup is a facilitator rather than a doer. Am I being sceptical - maybe all 400 staff will still be there in 6 months.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10862209

Operational funding for 4 years is already earmarked at $90mill, let's see, how many staff does that pay for, assuming no other major costs? Around about 225 staff. National probably intends to halve the staff from current levels, reading between the lines. This will be very helpful for innovation.

Does 'operational funding' include the grant amounts that would be used to help businesses? This is starting to look very sad. Sir Paul Callaghan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Callaghan)would be withholding the use of his name, if he could.

The long arm of govt removing another 50 jobs and forcing the redundant people to fight for jobs elsewhere.. (http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/kordia-boss-caught-tape-promising-not-outsource-tech-support-ck-135081)

[Major von Tempsky]

Well I see Julia Gillard has taken a leaf out of John Key's book and given a huge amount of advance notice in calling an election this year for Sept 14.
Lets see who collapses from exhaustion and the nervous strain first!

[elZorro]

Well I see Julia Gillard has taken a leaf out of John Key's book and given a huge amount of advance notice in calling an election this year for Sept 14.
Lets see who collapses from exhaustion and the nervous strain first!

It's a pity we're not on the same cycle.

Found another article today, and yes, I know just how he's feeling. Snap!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10862454

Steven Joyce has all the answers though.

(1) Small businesses must have been rorting the R&D tax credits system XX No, it was audited
(2) Callaghan Innovation will be going soon.. XX At half staffing, maybe
(3) No sweat, we can give you a repayable loan instead of a part grant XX No incentive, try to match the grants for big business then?

This all points out that either Steven Joyce is very badly advised, or he's looking after No. 1 and his mates, the top 1%. I suspect the latter.

[elZorro]

Sad to hear about Paul Holmes' passing today. He made the news interesting, looked a bit deeper.

Yesterday Steven "Jabba" Joyce was on TV talking about Novopay. He managed to slip in that Labour signed the original contract in 2008 or so. It's all Labour's fault, see.

In fact the MOU was back in 2005, a fixed figure of $30mill was sorted out, and by 2010 some deadlines weren't being met. This was well into National's term.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/national/8250237/Ministers-knew-of-147-defects-with-Novopay

The software writers started asking for more cash, govt stonewalled, but reading between the lines they'd probably added more bells and whistles to the spec. A small amount was paid over as an extra. And then 2 months before the decision to go live, a list of 147 known errors, large and small, was documented. Advisers were saying dump it, or merge it with Datacom's system. These solutions were unpalatable. So instead, National chose to roll out the system, they made the choice. Now National will have to fork out a few million of taxpayers money to get it sorted anyway.

Paul Holmes would have been all over this.

[Major von Tempsky]

Normally I don't speak ill of the dead EZ and I wasn't going to speak of PH at all but now you've prompted me. And before you start your counter-attack you should do well to remember that he was pro National anyway to the extent that it didn't get in the way of his prima donna performances. He was an annoying little totally egotistical publicity besotted prick. His intellectual level wasn't very high and he was profoundly ignorant. His intent was not to communicate the news and discuss it but to substitute PH for the news. You probably missed that MSN website held an online poll and by a margin of over 3 to 1 voters juudged that he didn't deserve a knighthood.
Here's one anecdote (I stopped watching him at all after this), at the time of the 1st Gulf War PH was interviewing two Professors from the UK. He asked, but isn't there a danger that Iran will intervene and come to the aid of a fellow Moslem country (Iraq?). The two Professors mouths just opened in disbelief that anyone could ask such a totally idiotic question. Iraqis (Arab) and Iranians are two quite different ethnicities with different language, origin, culture, history, Just a year or two ago Iraq had invaded Iran in a very bitter war fought rather like WW1 including the use of poison gas by Saddam Hussein (who of course any wet Western liberal will tell you never had any weapons of mass destruction). Saddam Hussein and his regime was Sunni, Iran is Shia. They absolutely hate each other. Probably only PH would be stupid enough and ignorant enough to ask that question. The look of absolute incredulity on the faces of the Professors that even PH quickly passed onto another point.
A good judge of someone is the opinions of their exs. PH's first ex was not Hinemoa Elder but a young woman in her 20's who worked in TV. PH was then in his 40s. It lasted days. She very rapidly moved out and told the media what a complete prick PH was and why in minute and specific detail. I don't believe PH ever had any children of his own. He ratted on Hinemoa Elder and she was far too good and intelligent to be wasted on him. So, as they said of Stalin, hooray! he's dead! Now let's get on with something which actually has a point to it.

[Fred114]

I happened to come across PH backstage at a concert at western springs that I was involved in. He was in the audience, but came backstage for some reason, probably to meet the star Placido Domingo or use the loo. On his way back I saw cables and cords that he was stepping over. I called to him three times, and when he finally turned around, I said watch out for those cables. He looked at me disgusted that he had even been disturbed by this idea. I felt so stupid for even caring. His arrogance was humiliating. I can't recall what drove me to persist in drawing this to his attention. Perhaps I still recall this incident because arrogance is something that I have had to address in my own character at times.

[elZorro]

Fair enough I suppose, I never met the man, but I had figured out he wasn't right into technical detail. I preferred to watch him over Paul Henry anyway, back in the day.

More on Novopay: some think that you can forget $30mill, it'll cost more like $100mill by the end.

Back in November it was already looking bad.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/talent2-faces-financial-penalties-if-novopay-not-fixed-wednesday-%E2%80%93-key-ck-132169

Wouldn't this money have been better spent in NZ? Some of the comments on the article mention that too.

[craic]

I came here 55 years ago and I am still trying to work out the equation. We have had Labour governments followed by National governments with a few strays every four years thrown in at election time just to give a bit of flavour to the mix. It doesn't seem to make a blind bit of difference to the animal we call NZ. Maybe petrol used in going to a polling booth is wasted?

[elZorro]

I came here 55 years ago and I am still trying to work out the equation. We have had Labour governments followed by National governments with a few strays every four years thrown in at election time just to give a bit of flavour to the mix. It doesn't seem to make a blind bit of difference to the animal we call NZ. Maybe petrol used in going to a polling booth is wasted?

I guess it depends on what outcomes you're looking for. I'm still keen on an egalitarian flavour, and so Labour is generally a lot closer in policy to that idea. Funnily enough, the economy in their last term responded very well to their market directions. The opposite has happened for National.

[777]

You forget a totally different world situation. I am just glad that National is in power over this period.

[elZorro]

You forget a totally different world situation. I am just glad that National is in power over this period.

Because we only have rising unemployment, the worst for 12 years?
Because we've been able to initiate selling some of the family silver?
Because manufacturing has dropped only 40,000 employees and rising?
Because we've reneged on climate change?
Because housing and rental costs have gone up again, but wages haven't as much?
Because the budget deficit isn't as bad as it was, and who knows, we might get back to surplus in 2015?

National is not bringing the rest of the country along with the prized 1% cohort. They never intended to.

Trickle-down economics is alive and well in NZ, especially under National.
We're copying failed American policy, where the money has gone to tax havens. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics)

[Major von Tempsky]

One of the supposed differences in human intelligence is the ability to learn from experience and to remember things.
You show a marked inability to do this EZ.
If you care to look back along this thread you'll see that you have already used the cry that NZ unemployment rates are rising and are terrible.
And I responded to it referring you to the unemployment rates in other countries which apart from one or two minor exceptions are very much worse.
Here's a suggestion for you - buy a copy of the London Economist (reckoned to be the world's best magazine). At the back you'll find a tables section where you will be able to see the unemployment rates of about 25 other Western and major world economies. Compare with NZ.
Also the point made by another poster above - NZ doesn't exist in a vacuum, with so much economic interdependence what happens here is in large extent pre-determined by what has already happened, is happening and is going to happen overseas. You and Shearer are like King Canute thinking you can push the waves back with your bare hands.
"Selling the family silver" is an irrelevant issue, a pinprick its going to do nothing either way re unemployment.

NZ manufaturing going down is good. It shows we are replacing expensive NZ made goods with cheaper better ones from low wage economies and moving people into higher productivity, higher wage sectors of the economy.
Are you really saying that every NZ manufacturing employee whose plant is shut down because it's no longer competitive remains unemployed for the rest of his/her life? Ribald laughter. That it never occurs to them to shift to Christchurch or Auckland?

NZ "has reneged" on climate change? The Kyoto agreement is expiring and nothing replacing it. NZ's contribution to world greenhouse gases is a tiny fraction of 1%. You are like Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

Economics is not a monotonic one-way progression, there are fluctuations.

If NZ didn't make an effort to get its Budget back into balance/surplus we would be in the same boat as Greece, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus....

[elZorro]

MVT, sorry for the slow response to your missive above. Those are all valid points, if you assume Keynesian policy is a bad idea, and that the market is perfect. It very obviously is not perfect.

In a perfect market, each business or enterprise that fails is instantly replaced by a better one, and the fantastic profits are immediately fed back to the growing workforce. Liberal governments need not interfere with the market because its aims are entirely benevolent towards the rest of the country and its general populace. The opportunities for new enterprises are so great and obvious, that a constant effort to import the world's most cost-efficient goods and services cannot harm the country's workforce. Even when looked at from the government's point of view, where a social backup is provided to those without employment or employment prospects, the landed cost of goods and services should be the main criteria, not whether any local businesses could be harmed.

Think tanks formed by the liberal right have arrived at a forgone conclusion that the only good business is big business. There is no point fostering change in smaller businesses, so while they get a mention, they'll get none of the backup they would like. Meanwhile, the heads of major business will be lauded in the press, their lobbyists will be listened to, and it won't be of great concern if their income is directed to tax havens, or if their advertising costs are huge (sponsorships etc) to reduce tax. The quid pro quo is that these firms will get the major taxpayer grants that they so obviously need to keep going, until the business is sold to overseas buyers and dismantled from here.

Maybe something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and New Zealand.

[fungus pudding]

MVT, sorry for the slow response to your missive above. Those are all valid points, if you assume Keynesian policy is a bad idea, and that the market is perfect. It very obviously is not perfect.

In a perfect market, each business or enterprise that fails is instantly replaced by a better one, and the fantastic profits are immediately fed back to the growing workforce. Liberal governments need not interfere with the market because its aims are entirely benevolent towards the rest of the country and its general populace. The opportunities for new enterprises are so great and obvious, that a constant effort to import the world's most cost-efficient goods and services cannot harm the country's workforce. Even when looked at from the government's point of view, where a social backup is provided to those without employment or employment prospects, the landed cost of goods and services should be the main criteria, not whether any local businesses could be harmed.

Think tanks formed by the liberal right have arrived at a forgone conclusion that the only good business is big business. There is no point fostering change in smaller businesses, so while they get a mention, they'll get none of the backup they would like. Meanwhile, the heads of major business will be lauded in the press, their lobbyists will be listened to, and it won't be of great concern if their income is directed to tax havens, or if their advertising costs are huge (sponsorships etc) to reduce tax. The quid pro quo is that these firms will get the major taxpayer grants that they so obviously need to keep going, until the business is sold to overseas buyers and dismantled from here.

Maybe something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and New Zealand.


or maybe you should open your eyes, stop spouting dopey mantras (selling family silver and the others from your list in previous post). Realise that a market doesn't instantly correct itself, but left to its own devices, it must.
And read this

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/hands-economies-are-dying-lf-135200

[elZorro]

or maybe you should open your eyes, stop spouting dopey mantras (selling family silver and the others from your list in previous post). Realise that a market doesn't instantly correct itself, but left to its own devices, it must.
And read this

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/hands-economies-are-dying-lf-135200

FP, thanks for bringing that article from the impartial Matthew Hooten (http://www.exceltium.com/who/index.html)to my attention. He's been reading gospel from Heritage Foundation in America.


Wikipedia: The Heritage Foundation is an American think tank (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Think_tank) based in Washington, D.C. (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Washington,_D.C.) Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/American_conservatism) public policies (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Public_policy) based on the principles of free enterprise (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Capitalism), limited government (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Limited_government), individual freedom (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Individual_freedom), traditional American values (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Traditional_values), and a strong national defense (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Defense_(military))".[2] (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/#cite_note-aboutsite-2)

The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Ronald_Reagan), whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership.[3] (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/#cite_note-Slate-3) Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States.[4] (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/#cite_note-4)


There's a good chance that both you and Matthew are being led down the garden path. The object of the Heritage Foundation is not to preserve the heritage of USA, it's to preserve the status quo and big profits, and they'll do this long-term with funding from businesses and wealthy Americans.

I could post the data from that table into Excel and show that there is at best, a poor correlation of the data. Especially when you think of all the countries that have been left off the table. China for example. A very hands-on economy with terrific growth. They left out a few other interesting countries: Japan, South Korea, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Holland, Denmark. How did Singapore get a freedom rating of 2? Isn't Hong Kong run by China? Why did Germany do so well with a low freedom rating of 26?

National are clever enough to produce the same sort of charts, with important clarifying data missed off to draw an incorrect conclusion.

[elZorro]

Topics in the thread were evident in the SST today: More detail on Novopay, which is certainly looking like being another embarrassing about-turn from the government. Lines of communication appear to be fraught. Yeah well, you get too tight with the purse strings and sooner or later any supplier is going to say "Enough", especially overseas owned firms. Talent2 already put on an extra 30 FTEs to try and dig themselves out of the problem. Another two years to wait for a complete fix - that's not acceptable with an election coming up.

An editorial on house pricing pointed out that the market is not going to produce cheaper houses, and in fact developers like to slowly release sections and developments, so as not to crash prices. Fixing the RMA by castrating it ( a very persistent National theme) won't help, as spreading the house network too far out is only going to make things worse. National is also making feeble noises about checking on building suppliers margins, but their heart is not in it.

Rather, the editor says that government intervention will be required, and the lower-priced houses and flats would preferably be built inside existing boundaries, and those buying them will have to lower their sights from the grandiose homes that some NZers plainly can't afford. All this is much closer to Labour's ideas.

Rob Stock also wrote an article on the proposed WOF changes. Boffins have calculated that between 2 and 7 extra people will die each year on our roads if the policy is implemented. It didn't mention how many extra injuries or panelbeating costs would also be involved, or other material damage. Rob Stock still thinks the idea is OK, as long as each year, the 6 month checking is resumed for cars that have reached 12 years of age. National has forgotten about that one. His other idea is for all drivers to have compulsory insurance.

In a nutshell, commonsense should prevail. In so many areas, National is dropping the ball. Except for Callaghan Innovation - they are being told to juggle the ball, and then figure out how to pull back from a staff ceiling of 400, with the funds to pay less than half that many. I just can't wait for the PR spin that we'll be given over that one.

[craic]

So - after all the garbage from right and left supporters that passes as political discussion we will have one of three results. National returned with the same level of support as they have now - unlikely. Labour to power with a solid level of support - possible but doubtful. A mess of individuals from the bits an pieces of parties big and small who will squabble for months over the bones of the economy in pursuit of their own interests. For goodness sake, let us go to the Swiss system where the politicians are public servants and the country is run according to the will of the people.

[elZorro]

So - after all the garbage from right and left supporters that passes as political discussion we will have one of three results. National returned with the same level of support as they have now - unlikely. Labour to power with a solid level of support - possible but doubtful. A mess of individuals from the bits an pieces of parties big and small who will squabble for months over the bones of the economy in pursuit of their own interests. For goodness sake, let us go to the Swiss system where the politicians are public servants and the country is run according to the will of the people.

Craic, I've done some research and posted it, using real data. Are you saying it's
garbage.. that poses as political discussion -then prove the facts wrong, and I'll agree.

From a quick look at the Swiss system, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland) it's a more direct democracy, sure, but there are left, right, centre parties, just like we have. We can have a bigger influence on our politicians if we refuse to take any crap they might dole out through press releases, and ask for the real story.

In the case of National's performance, journalists over here are investigating the big failures and injustices that are coming home to roost from poor policy and handling. They can't all be left-wing nutters, this is real.

[Major von Tempsky]

But maybe EZ, and here's a radical suggestion for you, instead of just glibly dismissing Matthew Hooten's article as "Heritage Foundation" you should actually address the actual points he makes one by one. Possibly you didn't even read it but just saw Matthew Hooten and/or Heritage and did a kneejerk reaction. You need to actually know your opponents arguments in order to try and rebut them.

Its a very convincing article. The further you go down the Freedom index the worse the economies performance.

[elZorro]

But maybe EZ, and here's a radical suggestion for you, instead of just glibly dismissing Matthew Hooten's article as "Heritage Foundation" you should actually address the actual points he makes one by one. Possibly you didn't even read it but just saw Matthew Hooten and/or Heritage and did a kneejerk reaction. You need to actually know your opponents arguments in order to try and rebut them.

Its a very convincing article. The further you go down the Freedom index the worse the economies performance.

MVT, I read all the comments after the article, for and against, wrote off the "for" side, and used the best of the naysayers, to be blunt. But I thought they made the best points too. Yes I could go back and check the source, for example how did they come up with the freedom index numbers in the first place? Why are a lot of countries missed out, and would they have fitted the pattern? Not likely. But we are talking about a US think tank here, funded by big business, it's been around a long time, and from what I've read about think tanks, you have to be very careful before you take any of their outputs at face value. There are holes in that table you could drive a Mack truck through.

Matthew Hooten is in the business of looking after big business customers. He's hardly likely to start spouting left-wing views, or even balanced views. He's not a journalist then, is he. He's a go-to right-wing commentator. Which is fine, as long as we realise that.

Heritage Foundation on Hong Kong, and why it gets the ranking of one:


The Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong has been part of the People’s Republic of China since 1997 but is self-governing on a day-to-day basis and enjoys a wide range of freedoms under a mini-constitution known as the Basic Law. The local government has promised democratic reforms, but implementation has been delayed. Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, who took office July 1, 2012, was chosen by a 1,200-member Election Committee and then appointed by the government of China. Hong Kong has one of the world’s most prosperous economies, thanks to a commitment to small government, low taxes, and light regulation. Major industries include financial services and shipping; manufacturing has largely migrated to the mainland. Concerns include cronyism in policymaking, state control of land, and restrictions on the free flow of information.


Cheap goods coming out of China through the port, easy to set up business there, and of course, it's well used as a tax haven.

Other rankings not listed in the table Matthew used: (Overall Unemployment recently from table)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate)
9. Denmark 7.7%
17. Netherlands 7.2%
24. Japan 4.2%
27. Qatar 0.5%
28. United Arab Emirates 4.3%
34. South Korea 2.9%
66. Kuwait 1.5%
82. Saudi Arabia 10.8% males
97. The Philippines 7%
100. Brazil 4.7%
108. Indonesia 6.56%
119. India 3.8%
122. Bhutan 4%
130. Papua New Guinea 1.8%
136. China 4.1%
154. Belarus 0.7%
176. Cuba 1.6%

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/German_GDP_in_tax_havens.png

The big seven tax havens include Hong Kong and Singapore.

[elZorro]

http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/labour-mps-retain-david-shearer-leader-5332148

No challenge for David Shearer today, this should be the face of the next PM. I couldn't help but notice Habitat for Humanity and Fletcher Building being interested in the cheap housing scheme recently. Not such a daft idea then.

Let's see who looks the more convincing statesman at Waitangi - Key or Shearer.

[craic]

\LZ, it doesnt matter it's all bull**** and jellybeans. Who ever makes the Treasury benches next time has on or two or three terms to establish his pention and then he's out to pasture to join the last few leaders in the very rich back paddock. Labour or National - it doesn't matter.

[elZorro]

Craic, I don't know about the National side, they most likely start out with a bit more capital on average before getting elected into parliament. I've never thought MP's pay while there was excessive. More Labour people are career politicians, many from academia like Sir Michael Cullen.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cullen_(politician))
There's a guy who should be very proud of what he's achieved (and still achieving) for NZ, and I don't think it made him into a squillionaire. I think he lives comfortably.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10810606

[iceman]

http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/labour-mps-retain-david-shearer-leader-5332148

No challenge for David Shearer today, this should be the face of the next PM. I couldn't help but notice Habitat for Humanity and Fletcher Building being interested in the cheap housing scheme recently. Not such a daft idea then.

Let's see who looks the more convincing statesman at Waitangi - Key or Shearer.

EZ, "statesmen at Waitangi". Are you serious ? I have liked your posts over time but this sort of crap is hard to even enjoy reading. I am an immigrant to NZ, 25 years ago. I come from a country that loves their heritage and very much enjoy their National Day and celebrate it with flags flown all over the place and the population enjoying it each and every year. I also count myself as a Kiwi and love NZ. Waitangi Day is a disgrace to NZ and NZérs where we celebrate NOTHING. Why are you trying to justify it ?

[elZorro]

Iceman, I was trying to bait you guys a bit, sorry about that. That doesn't mean that I have a poor opinion of the reasons for Waitangi Day.

I just hope that David Shearer says something on the marae in keeping with the party's principles of fair play for all. You just have to read (for example) Michael King's "A Penguin History of New Zealand" to understand that our recent history (about 200 years) is littered with very sad and very uplifting events. We have made some progress, but there is a lot more that could be done to redress some of that poor history. It wouldn't all cost much, it's a matter of respect.

In the meantime, a good start would be the preservation and encouragement of manufacturing jobs, the provision of good quality housing at affordable prices near where people work, and a bit more undertsanding shown by the media.

[Major von Tempsky]

I totally agree, Waitangi Day is a complete disgrace to NZ. It should be moved away from Waitangi back to Wellington as it was at one stage. It even reduced that po-faced lesbian Helen Clark to tears one year.
The only thing that could slightly rescue it would be a flying wedge of Ngapuhi heavies keeping Titewhai Harawira off.
Everyone groans in anticipation, Oh no! Not Waitangi again! More scuffles if not rioting, more insults to our P.M. (and maybe violent attacks on him) probably to the point that he can't make a speech, more greedy impossible demands of the taxpayer by various self-appointed Maoris. If Shearer tries to take advantage of this he is just cheap and pathetic.

Shearer's re-election? I couldn't help but think of the 99.9% that Communist leaders used to always score when dissent was stifled.

[craic]

I believe that we should gift Waitangi Day to the Australians. They would sort it out by barring all Maori from the Marae. If John Key enters the Marae or its immediate surrounding and is assaulted/insulted or hassled in any serious way then I expect him to turn around, get back in his vehicle and return to Wellington. Turning the other cheek is not an option. He is the elected leader of the country and, regardless of your politicl persuasion,his office must be respected.

[POSSUM THE CAT]

Send all the politicians to one Waitangi & let all the Maoris go to the one in Northland. There are two Waitangis in NZ & the other one would be very pleased to welcome the politicians. After this the Maoris would probably pull there heads in.

[iceman]

Iceman, I was trying to bait you guys a bit, sorry about that.

Yes you got me EZ. I have family from my old country visiting and am not looking forward to being embarrassed tomorrow to show them our non event and divisive "national day". I know they will be astonished to see the lack of real celebration !

[elZorro]

Yes you got me EZ. I have family from my old country visiting and am not looking forward to being embarrassed tomorrow to show them our non event and divisive "national day". I know they will be astonished to see the lack of real celebration !

Shearer has some ideas to help make Waitangi Day a bit more special for all of us (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/8261565/Lets-be-proud-of-our-legacies), but had some trouble articulating them to the Dom Post. Someone should be proof reading the word choices, it could have been a lot more inspiring.

More editorial on Shearer's performance, you have to agree with it.


(http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/8261563/Editorial-Faltering-leader-versus-government-in-rut)

[slimwin]

Finally I do agree with something you gave posted EZ

[elZorro]

Finally I do agree with something you have posted EZ

That's no good, where's the yin and yang, Slimwin? I'm just hoping Mr Shearer reads the comments and keeps up with the press/interview lessons. He is getting better.

Something to reflect on tomorrow.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/blogs/bull-dust/8264842/Ten-reasons-why-we-re-better-than-Australia

[elZorro]

Many businesses in NZ have good domestic patents on their hardware ideas, and up until now software by itself could not be patented. National is playing with the wording on new patent law, which could open up lots of litigation from the US. Hopefully they won't be allowed to make a mess of this important area.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10863604

Another business helped along by seed funding etc, has been sold before there was any major tax to pay on annual profits. This of course raises the question of when a capital gains tax should be brought in.

Again Sam "I should have paid tax on the Trademe sale" Morgan is involved in another windfall taxfree gain.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/another-nz-tech-company-sold-offshore-ck-135359

Another idea is that any govt grants or part-grants have a repayment shedule to govt if a sale of the business is made any time in the next 10 years say. That should do it too.

These are good reasons for the available grants or tax concessions to be delivered to multiple smaller companies. They have to employ new staff to work on developments, they're a long way off building up to the takeover stage, and they provide excellent training for their employees.

NZ down the list in an innovation index.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10863824

[elZorro]

I can't find the post, but I told anyone who would listen that National getting in at the last election, meant we're on the path of more job destruction in NZ. That's how big business gets an edge. No competitors cutting prices, plenty of cheap labour to choose from.

Mainzeal is just another case providing help to the two bigger operators. At least Mainzeal raced in to fix up leaky buildings.

Latest job stats show a smaller participation in the workforce. (http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/HouseholdLabourForceSurvey_MRDec12qtr.aspx)People retiring early, younger people heading overseas or to tech or uni instead. I get enquiries from good students wanting their first real job, what can I say? We have trouble keeping our own staff occupied sometimes.

I'm holding out hope for Labour returning in 2014. At least they'll not be pulling the wool over our eyes, they really do want to see more people employed, and having satisfying lives. They actually have policies designed to make that happen.

[craic]

And they have always had them - or so they say. But failure to deliver has seen them tossed out, time and again. not because they were the peoples friend or the honest politicians but because of the fact that ther were as many poor and as many unemployed and as many sick people and whatever else on their watch as there were under National. Oh, there may be figures that show slight worsening of this or that in recent times and most governments blame the "mess" left by their predecessors for their inability to deliver but the reality is elsewhere. Their biggest problem last time was a history teacher who fancied himself as an economic guru who sneered at anyone who disagreed with his view of the world. I met him a couple of times and he confirmed that he was a little man. This time I will not be wasting time on going down the road to vote.

[fungus pudding]

And they have always had them - or so they say. But failure to deliver has seen them tossed out, time and again. not because they were the peoples friend or the honest politicians but because of the fact that ther were as many poor and as many unemployed and as many sick people and whatever else on their watch as there were under National. Oh, there may be figures that show slight worsening of this or that in recent times and most governments blame the "mess" left by their predecessors for their inability to deliver but the reality is elsewhere. Their biggest problem last time was a history teacher who fancied himself as an economic guru who sneered at anyone who disagreed with his view of the world. I met him a couple of times and he confirmed that he was a little man. This time I will not be wasting time on going down the road to vote.

That is silly. Surely you dislike one of the major parties' policies more than the other - so vote against them. I have seldom voted for a party as such, but I have voted against some.

[Fred114]

I think it is hard to really break through the thinking behind National's approach that says on one hand, we're happy with non-intervention and on the other any economic hardship is brought on by yourselves. I think we should examine more closely the involvement of Mainzeal in leaky homes as an example of the failure of responsible government.

The issue of weather tightness was a result of industry pressure to relax intervention in the construction market. James Hardie, who have never been held to account, manufactured a product that failed, but was attractive to the market. The possibility that Mainzeal are somehow the victim of a market-led solution is largely held up without criticism, least that expose the need for an alternative.

"Leaky homes crisis" is not a crisis, but that through some different arrangement it need not have happened. The crisis is around delivering certainty from construction again. The position from the sector is to rely on ourselves and not government to deliver that arrangement, such as building products that don't leak, or reliable trades’ people, or even places where we want to live. There is disagreement over the sort of legislative controls necessary for construction. The cry from the Property Council to "Build, baby, build" only clouds the issue, that we have not yet arrived at an understanding for building in New Zealand.

Given that Mainzeal settled out of court with owners of leaky buildings means their involvement in the cases was never tested. Presumably they built them, but beyond this their contribution is off limits to any assessment of the facts. Once again, as with James Hardie, deriving understanding for building comes only from the uncritical embrace of the industry. Much of the evidence for the crisis is unavailable, and experts with genuine insight are unheard of. Instead we are left with the portents of experts, who are not really experts at all, but have some experience in construction. The current head of BRANZ comes to mind.

This is my point, that continuing in an uncritical embrace of the industry, by leaving it over to some arrangement that we can never grasp and that we are structurally prevented from accessing through the courts or wherever, conveniently provides for the continuation of an industry centered solution. We are unable to arrive at an understanding with the industry for the places, homes, buildings, etc that we inhabit. We don’t want to live in these places, but through no fault of my own, I’m prevented from any other arrangement. Spare a thought, if any thoughts are left, for how assaulted homeowners of leaky buildings must feel. Paying closer attention to their predicament, politicians might be moved to stand up to the industry for once.

[Major von Tempsky]

How about local authorities and inspectors who are paid to check out plans and check out buildings but who no longer bother to?
Why don't they rate a mention in the above?
Why not abolish the local government involvement and fees since they are not doing their job?

[elZorro]

Craic, cannot agree there, Labour did very well at delivering jobs in their last three terms. Lowest unemployment figures for ages. They were bringing NZ back into balance. Now with National in power, that good energy is disappearing.

Fred114, yes, it's about time the building sector realised that expert oversight on materials and processes is a good thing (as long as they really are experts). Maybe the idea to remove timber preservatives from some pine framing was bad too. Aren't/weren't some of the James Hardie products filled with wood pulp or something equally as hygroscopic? The building sector liked these products because they allowed walls to go up fast, reducing costs.

Here's a very interesting link about leaky buildings..
(http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2009/11/leaky-homes-part-1-myth-of-deregulated.html)

JUST TO CONCRETISE WHAT I mean, let’s look at two leading players in the drama : untreated dry-frame timber produced and marketed by the likes of Fletcher’s Origin Timber and Carter Holt Harvey, and James Hardie‘s Harditex – a low-density autoclaved board made with wood pulp and cement used to back monolithic claddings. Between them, and for reasons I’ll go into tomorrow, these two products account for more than eighty percent of the problems associated with the 7,571 properties registered with the government’s Weathertight Homes Resolution Service (http://www.dbh.govt.nz/whrs-claims) (WHRS). You know which houses I mean, don’t you: they’re usually the Mediterranean looking things around the place now covered with tarpaulins and scaffolding.

[craic]

As a Forest Service Timber Inspector between 1968 and'73 I also held a warrant as a Timber Preservation Authority Inspector.The TPI was the statutory body that enforced the rules on treatment of timber with preservatives and the uses of that timber. I had to physically test each plant in my area monthly and submit samples to the TPI which was a section within the Forest Research Institute in Rotorua. I also acted as advisor where building inspectors came up against odd practices, not in the rules. Timber framing was never required to be treated to prevent decay. The level of Copper/chrome/arsenate was very low and was simply used to prevent borer attack. Later, boric acid was used for the same purpose. Timber exposed was given a higher amont of chemicals and ground contact timber was the same but it had a minimum penetration depth. Marine use timber had the highest level of treatment. At some stage the "industry" convinced the government that control was not necessary and that they would control themselves. I have since worked in a large moder office block,designed by a top architect and each rainy season, in came the water, allover the desks and the customwood architraves swelled up and wrecked the place. My son bought a new towhhouse in Auckland built with the crappy cladding. He was fortunate in that a collective action against the council/builders resulted in a complete repair job. I have built sheds on this property, some twenty years old now, from planks of Radiata that I milled with a chainsaw mill from my own trees. The wood was treated with creosote, thinned with that unique mixture of petrol and diesel that some people use in their cars. Corrugated iron on the roof and the whole thing clar of the grond on round fence posts. not a sign of wear or decay.








in

[elZorro]

Good points Craic, sounds like commonsense in retrospect. There's probably a good reason James Hardies have got off lightly, they probably had detailed specs and limitations on the use of those products. You just have to wonder at the ethics of a manufacturer, who would have seen the types of building their products were going into, and who knew more than anyone else, what the possible problems were going to be. It didn't stop them selling product to anyone who wanted to buy it. Once the first line of defence was broken, the monolithic cladding or outer surface sealing, it wasn't long until the problems showed up in the framing too.

Example photos. (http://www.bc.org.nz/photos.html)

[elZorro]

John Key sent me an email yesterday. (http://johnkey.co.nz//archives/1593-Helping-our-businesses-grow.html)

A highlight was unemployment dropping, no mention that the real story was labour force participation dropped a lot, even though our population didn't. But I pretended not to notice the omission, because National has my predicament in mind, should I be unemployed. They'll look after me.

Don't worry if you don't have a job, says John, we've bumped up the apprentice scheme. Just make sure you retrain to work in the cut-throat construction industry. What about kickstarting new businesses in other sectors, or prompting employers to take on more staff..sorry, moving on.

Train Purchases "Fine". The independent Auditor General will not be investigating Kiwirail's purchase of rolling stock from China.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/16092162/no-probe-into-kiwirails-chinese-buys/

The auditor general, Lyn Provost, is keeping an eye on the Novopay debacle (http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/auditor-general-joins-novopay-watch-bc-134869)however, but will not step in while Mr Joyce is working on repairs.

Lyn Provost was appointed in October 2009, one year into National's first new term, which started in 2008. She is apparently very frugal with her own department expenses, and no doubt would like to see the same in the SOEs etc. She is effectively head of the Audit Department, and worked there for some years.

[elZorro]

My bull**** detector is being activated whenever I hear the words Callaghan Innnovation.

Backtracking a bit, they've just opened for business in early February, but are taking 6 months off to evaluate their position, partly to figure out how to pay 400 staff, with a budget that plainly will only employ 200.

Sue Suckling is running this baby, seconded from Steven Joyce. According to the NZ Energy and Environment Business Alert,
its birth has been both difficult and somewhat secretive. Classic.

Expanding on this: IRL has not been asked for their opinion, and they're a big part of it. Neither has Sir Peter Gluckman been asked for input. (http://sciblogs.co.nz/stick/tag/callaghan-innovation/)They don't even have a permanent CEO yet. The head office is in the NZTE building in Wellington. Shaun Hendy, NZ Association of Scientists, says the test will be to see if CI increases the number of scientists, and reduces the number of bureaucrats working there.

Here's Sue Suckling's opening speech at the naming ceremony in 2012.

http://www.irl.cri.nz/newsroom/news/sue-sucklings-speech-launch-ati-name

I wonder if there are a few clues in there.


..invention is the product of a creative or curious mind and by itself is not inherently useful. Innovation however, is something that changes the life of the customer in some way, or the world in which the customer experiences things. In his definition an idea or invention is not innovative unless it is commercialised – and if we take the rule of thumb that 90% of the cost of getting a product to market is in the commercialisation process (rather than the R&D / invention process), then we need to spend a lot more time and effort commercialising our inventions and our science, engineering, and technology smarts.

This is precisely where Callaghan Innovation will be operating, as an accelerator in the commercialisation process, both on the side of existing and new businesses, exporters and customers, - i.e. the demand side - and on the science, engineering, and technology front,- i.e. the supply side.

We see a key role for Callaghan Innovation to be bringing many new and varied combinations of people together, both generally to multiply the innovation gene, and specifically in terms of projects that we seek or are appointed to drive.

We will be catalysers, instigators, initiators, head-butters, hand-shakers, networkers, project managers, finders.

Quite often Callaghan Innovation will be in new territory, blue ocean, managing projects and problems that have not been tackled before. Indeed one of our ways of looking at the world will be through the lens of “innovative problems” rather than an “innovative solutions” approach.

There are many instances whereby New Zealand could be billions better off if the right questions were asked and asked hard enough. Creativity is usually found in the service of problem-solving, and we will certainly be looking for big problems that offer the opportunities to make big winning gains and create new industries.

A key observation is that saving money and preventing fiscal drag contributes as much to the economy as creating new lines of revenue.

Callaghan Innovation will also be a place where people will be required to stretch their imaginations. To use a show business maxim that Steve Jobs took to heart, “don’t give people what they want, give them what they never thought was possible.” We want you to expect the unexpected, for Callaghan Innovation to be a place where surprising combinations of people come together to solve problems and make breakthroughs.

In summary, the approach of Callaghan Innovation is that innovation can only be considered to have occurred at the point of commercialisation – and this requires an absolute focus on the needs of markets and communities and individual consumers.


So there we have it. I agree that it's a bit pointless inventing something that has no ready market. Usually, but not always. Sometimes the market finds the product, or marketing surveys get it wrong. But Steven Joyce reckons that marketing and advertising will provide the answers we need to gain billions in earnings. That is his one previous area of expertise I think. He made a few million flicking on a radio advertising company. I'm just not so sure he'll be so keen on the bleeding edge of R&D. There are some big savings to be made here, it's so easy. Yeah, he's well out of his depth, and so is Sue Suckling, who is a high-powered director and helps run a consultancy firm (http://hsrgovernance.com/services.html),which will come in handy no doubt.

Here's background on the new board. (http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/callaghan-innovation-board-announced) Kinda looks impressive. Sue Suckling has been a director of many companies, the majority of which have been struck off, or her directorship has ceased. Some of the other board members are similarly stretched between many companies in diverse areas. How will they be able to put much time into this important role?

Peter Maire is on the board. That's promising I suppose.

[elZorro]

Fair comment, Belgarion. Just bad luck, or is it poor oversight? It's funny how overseas companies were already making noises about buying projects that Mainzeal was involved in, before the firm put out a press release last week. And Jenny Shipley resigning a day before. If the line of credit was guaranteed by Richina, surely the board would have been better informed than they are implying. Similarly, MPs who have been around the traps surely knew what property speculation looked like. Funding it under the guise of finance companies with no history, no pedigree, no other backing, is surely a poor recipe.

[janner]

Dame Jenny Shipley joins a long list of prominent politicians who have joined the boards of troubled or unsuccessful companies.

These include: Wyatt Creech and John Luxton at Blue Chip; Sir Roger Douglas, Fran Wilde and Philip Burdon at Brierley Investments; Don Brash and John Banks at Huljich Wealth Management; Sir Douglas Graham and Bill Jeffries at Lombard; Sir William Birch at Viking Pacific (now Vetilot) and Ruth Richardson at Dairy Brands and Syft Technologies.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10864282

Maybe the "Empty Seat" concept should be applied to Boards or Directors too so that shareholders can express dismay at having to vote between 2 or more the narcisstic sycophants that bullying CEO's, major shareholders and/or apathy have produced ...

When I read your first post on this subject Belg, I nodded in agreement..

With your second post on it I have to express my feelings on this very important questtion..

" We the people ". Are being short changed in the quality of candidates presented for election..

If this is truely a democracy, ( MMP Haa !! ) it is obvious there should be a place on the ballot paper to express your distaste for any of the candidates proffering themselves to represent YOU....

I am unable to remember the last time I voted.. In fact I am unable to remember when I was last on the register..

Thank you Belg for raising the subject. I fear that it will not stir up much.

[elZorro]

Janner and Belgarion, I think you both are being lazy about your politics. It's not going to happen, writing off seats with no confidence votes. You know it, everyone knows it.

What would be more useful is to challenge MPs on their hidden agendas, from whatever party. Challenge the press and commentators too. I think if you look hard, the Labour policies are a lot more straight-up than National's. Surely most MPs are going to be there for the right reasons, at least for the first few years. Who are those good MPs - who are the bad apples - once we know this we can vote accordingly.

Everyone who can vote, should vote.

[janner]

Janner and Belgarion, I think you both are being lazy about your politics. It's not going to happen, writing off seats with no confidence votes. You know it, everyone knows it.

What would be more useful is to challenge MPs on their hidden agendas, from whatever party. Challenge the press and commentators too. I think if you look hard, the Labour policies are a lot more straight-up than National's. Surely most MPs are going to be there for the right reasons, at least for the first few years. Who are those good MPs - who are the bad apples - once we know this we can vote accordingly.

Everyone who can vote, should vote.

elZorro.. How old are you ??.. How long have you had the vote ??. How many times have you voted ??.. How much time have you given to understand the PERSON.. You are voting for ??..

Are you saying that because they are PARTY people that they have to be voted for ??

Are you saying that there are not TOTALLY USELESS members of parliament voted in ?? On all sides..

Are you saying that .. ALL IS WELL ..??..

FFS...

[janner]

elZorro Says..

" It's not going to happen, writing off seats with no confidence votes. You know it, everyone knows it. "..

Ha!!.. Give the people the chance and see what happens !!..

Bring that up as an option at your next socialist meeting !!..

[elZorro]

Janner, I've voted at least 12 times. A few of those I voted National, but I've changed my opinion over the years. I don't go to socialist meetings, I avoid that, and waving placards. Every main party has a wide choice of candidates, so they can't be totally useless. But if it's a bell-shaped curve, we want the MPs in the top 1/3 of the curve. But how would you grade them? I think honesty of presentation is a big criteria. We might not agree with their ideas as they put them forward, but as long as they really mean that, we know where we stand. If they say one thing and mean another, they should be eternally damned.

[janner]

Janner, I've voted at least 12 times. A few of those I voted National, but I've changed my opinion over the years. I don't go to socialist meetings, I avoid that, and waving placards. Every main party has a wide choice of candidates, so they can't be totally useless. But if it's a bell-shaped curve, we want the MPs in the top 1/3 of the curve. But how would you grade them? I think honesty of presentation is a big criteria. We might not agree with their ideas as they put them forward, but as long as they really mean that, we know where we stand. If they say one thing and mean another, they should be eternally damned.

My point exactly elZorro.. You voted for a " Party "..

A mish mash of people... Many of them ( if not most ) LIARS.. And we know it !!..

A choice of not electing any of the above would help..

[elZorro]

My point exactly elZorro.. You voted for a " Party "..

A mish mash of people... Many of them ( if not most ) LIARS.. And we know it !!..

A choice of not electing any of the above would help..

Wait a minute Janner. One party's core philosophy is to look after the top 1% or so, and apply the trickle-down theory to look after the hoi polloi. Using this artifice, they'll try to appeal to the masses. Since it's easy to find out that the trickle-down theory doesn't work, and has never worked, that means each press release has to spin a fair amount of BS. Look into them, you'll see what I mean.

You might not like the sound of socialism, I'm not that keen on it either. But I do think everyone deserves a fair go. Everyone. So that means it's more likely Labour's press releases are on the level when they're directed at average voters. Think back, you cannot deny that things were fair humming along when Labour was in for three terms last time. Our biggest problem was figuring out if the government should refund some taxes. Now everything's so screwed down, half of what National promised us, can't be delivered. Unless you are in the top 1%, then of course you'll be fine.

[janner]

All the more reason to vote for the man.. Not the " PARTY "..

If not happy with the candidates put up..

A place on the paper to register one's DISAGREEMENT of them..

As for your three terms of Liabour.. Employment increased due to expansion in Government jobs.. Who pays for these non jobs ??..

The NZ economy could not and should not rely on borrowing as a normal way of life..

The top 1% !!..

Yes there will always be some one above and below..

Let us just concentrate on making them all pay exactly the same percentage of tax..

" You might not like the sound of socialism, I'm not that keen on it either ".

Good to hear/read.. Why do you defend it so much ??

[elZorro]

All the more reason to vote for the man.. Not the " PARTY "..

If not happy with the candidates put up..

A place on the paper to register one's DISAGREEMENT of them..

As for your three terms of Liabour.. Employment increased due to expansion in Government jobs.. Who pays for these non jobs ??..

The NZ economy could not and should not rely on borrowing as a normal way of life..

The top 1% !!..

Yes there will always be some one above and below..

Let us just concentrate on making them all pay exactly the same percentage of tax..

" You might not like the sound of socialism, I'm not that keen on it either ".

Good to hear/read.. Why do you defend it so much ??

Socialism is a big topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism), and in fact Labour is often only a bit left of centre. I quite like the idea of getting ahead some day, but I'd like to see everyone getting ahead at the same time. We shouldn't have to step on other people's toes to get there.

MMP lets everyone vote for a candidate and a party, that can be useful.

Janner, are you saying that every new job that occurred during Labour's terms was only a new government worker? The public sector is actually quite small as a portion of the workforce. There are a few more in public health and education etc, but that's not a bad thing, right? The trend was much bigger than that, and new productive jobs helped out the service sector, it all built up into the lowest unemployment rate for many years, a high tax take, old govt loans being paid off, and if borrowing did increase it was private borrowing.

Now if National was really keen on seeing that everyone paid the same percentage of tax, they'd introduce a capital gains tax, they'd be horrified by access to tax havens and they'd do something about it, they'd discourage big businesses from accepting govt grants and then putting themselves up for sale within a short time. It must be a lot of fun working the system when you get up to that level.

[janner]

Socialism is a big topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism), and in fact Labour is often only a bit left of centre. I quite like the idea of getting ahead some day, but I'd like to see everyone getting ahead at the same time. We shouldn't have to step on other people's toes to get there.

MMP lets everyone vote for a candidate and a party, that can be useful.

Janner, are you saying that every new job that occurred during Labour's terms was only a new government worker? The public sector is actually quite small as a portion of the workforce. There are a few more in public health and education etc, but that's not a bad thing, right? The trend was much bigger than that, and new productive jobs helped out the service sector, it all built up into the lowest unemployment rate for many years, a high tax take, old govt loans being paid off, and if borrowing did increase it was private borrowing.

Now if National was really keen on seeing that everyone paid the same percentage of tax, they'd introduce a capital gains tax, they'd be horrified by access to tax havens and they'd do something about it, they'd discourage big businesses from accepting govt grants and then putting themselves up for sale within a short time. It must be a lot of fun working the system when you get up to that level.

FFS man.. How does one answer your dribble..

i.e. Now if National was really keen on seeing that everyone paid the same percentage of tax, they'd introduce a capital gains tax..

That would only be paid by people selling .. On a capital gain of what they are selling ..

You really have no idea what you are talking about..

Discussion closed as far as I am concerned..

[elZorro]

FFS man.. How does one answer your dribble..

i.e. Now if National was really keen on seeing that everyone paid the same percentage of tax, they'd introduce a capital gains tax..

That would only be paid by people selling .. On a capital gain of what they are selling ..

You really have no idea what you are talking about..

Discussion closed as far as I am concerned..

Dribble, or facts? You're onto it, though, a capital gains tax would affect mostly those people who have a lot of capital, as it might be set up to exclude the home you live in. Crucially, it would affect those who make capital gains on infrequent property speculation. Equally it would see the state getting a small cut of large one-off business sales like Trademe.

Let's be clear though. In Trademe's case (at the time of sale to Fairfax), that business was quickly coming into profit, and would soon have to be paying a lot of tax to the govt. They pumped it up, Fairfax bought it, no-one paid tax on the windfall gain, and Fairfax probably had losses that swamped out any income from Trademe (it's overseas owned anyway).

That's how the system can be rorted, and it's not illegal. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3599148/Trade-Me-founder-says-tax-burden-falls-on-workers) It might be immoral though.

If a capital gains tax was in place, maybe we'd still have many of these good startups trading under local ownership.

[iceman]

"I quite like the idea of getting ahead some day, but I'd like to see everyone getting ahead at the same time. We shouldn't have to step on other people's toes to get there."

EZ what on earth do you mean by this comment ? How is EVERYONE going to get ahead at the same time ? Do you not see how unrealistic this comment of yours is ?

"Now if National was really keen on seeing that everyone paid the same percentage of tax, they'd introduce a capital gains tax,"
As Janner points out, CGT is not a sole solution. National has indeed moved to even tax rates by lowering all income tax rates and increasing the GST rate, which everyone pays.

Your earlier comments about things humming along very nicely under 3 terms of Labour compared to the one and a bit terms of current National are just plain silly without some comparison and acknowledgment of what is happening in the World around us. As much as you may not like it, we are still part of the World economy and are affected by events offshore that our Governments have no say in.

I think there is little doubt that we would be in a much better position today had Clark & Cullen not wasted so much on the silly and very expensive policies that have already been canvassed on this thread, during the boom years in NZ and around the World.
But no doubt all will be saved by Labour introducing a CGT and building 100,000 houses that will cost "only" $300,000, or was it $500,000. Their last lot of social housing building was so successful, most of them the wrong size in the wrong areas.
The price of this latest project depends on which time one listens to your Dear Leader, who as you know, has struggled somewhat to give us a reliable number and detail on this policy. No doubt his Finance Minister in waiting, Russel Norman, will be working it all out for him !!

[POSSUM THE CAT]

Janner you say vote for the person not the party. Give us a sample of how you came to the decision as to who you voted for in your electorate. As for my electorate I ruled the biggest idiot (IMHO) out first & proceeded through the list until only the lessor Idiot (IMHO) was left. The party vote went to a party not standing a candidate. So could not judge there candidate. But the party policies were the best of a bad bunch.

[elZorro]

I don't think Janner votes, so PTC, your question is not going to hit a home run..
:)

Iceman, I am sort of repeating the mantra of Labour, that we can all prosper if we bring everyone with us. (A bit like the sharemarket then). NZers can gather a bigger piece of the world's trade if we smarten up our act. We'll have to add value, hit the niche areas, and if we can do that with manufacturing and primary industries, we have plenty of people who would like a sensible-paying job in those areas.

Particularly in manufacturing, sited close to all the new state-built properties - which you declined to point out, won't be staying on the govt books like the first lot.

Everyone pays GST huh? Yes they do, sort of. Did Sam Morgan pay 15% GST on the Trademe sale? No. Once that money was banked or reinvested, he only needs to pay GST on the relatively small amount of end-user goods he purchases in NZ. Hundreds of millions of one-off income, no tax to pay. You and I, a lot less income each year, will pay around 25-35% on every net dollar we earn.

Sam and many others are repeating this process with other startups. On one hand it's great to have capital being used like this, but a cynic might say that it's one of the few areas where you can use that amount of capital, and yet not have to pay any tax on the profits. As long as the companies are sold off, or you sell your shareholding at some point, before taxes on net profit are due.

Maybe Labour did have a lucky break with the world economy in their last term, but they largely used the income to pay off old public debt, and I remember National extolling them to keep borrowing instead, and to pay the surplus back as a tax refund. No-one runs a business operation like that. Even Russell Norman would do better.

[elZorro]

Will no-one point out my flawed logic? I must be wrong somewhere..

Joshua Drummond is a commentator for the Waikato Times. He's getting to be very polished.
Have a look at this.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/opinion/columnists/joshua-drummond/8286498/Good-evening-NZ-this-is-not-todays-6-o-clock-news

[Major von Tempsky]

A very weak attempt at left wing "satire".
No doubt there's a good job for him in Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Syria, Russia, China....

His school report must have read "Needs to do more preparatory research, think more deeply, read more widely and reread before bursting into print."

Probably a devotee of Anthony Trollope who used to write 3,000 words a day with the result that his muse, if ever there, had long since fled and his prose was very tired, uninspired and threadbare....

(Memo to self: Avoid pieces from Joshua Drummond like the plague unless having difficulty getting off to sleep...).

[elZorro]

Au contraire MVT, I really liked his work. He has been out there 'doing it' in various jobs too, just like the rest of us. For those into comic books, he's not a bad artist either, as you can see on his website.

http://www.cakeburger.com/

Anyway, instead of saying that 'left-wingers' don't know what they're talking about, how about proving it?

[fungus pudding]

I don't think Janner votes, so PTC, your question is not going to hit a home run..
:)

Iceman, I am sort of repeating the mantra of Labour, that we can all prosper if we bring everyone with us. (A bit like the sharemarket then). NZers can gather a bigger piece of the world's trade if we smarten up our act. We'll have to add value, hit the niche areas, and if we can do that with manufacturing and primary industries, we have plenty of people who would like a sensible-paying job in those areas.

Particularly in manufacturing, sited close to all the new state-built properties - which you declined to point out, won't be staying on the govt books like the first lot.

Everyone pays GST huh? Yes they do, sort of. Did Sam Morgan pay 15% GST on the Trademe sale? No. Once that money was banked or reinvested, he only needs to pay GST on the relatively small amount of end-user goods he purchases in NZ. Hundreds of millions of one-off income, no tax to pay. You and I, a lot less income each year, will pay around 25-35% on every net dollar we earn.

Sam and many others are repeating this process with other startups. On one hand it's great to have capital being used like this, but a cynic might say that it's one of the few areas where you can use that amount of capital, and yet not have to pay any tax on the profits. As long as the companies are sold off, or you sell your shareholding at some point, before taxes on net profit are due.

Maybe Labour did have a lucky break with the world economy in their last term, but they largely used the income to pay off old public debt, and I remember National extolling them to keep borrowing instead, and to pay the surplus back as a tax refund. No-one runs a business operation like that. Even Russell Norman would do better.

If Sam Morgan makes a habit of flicking off businesses he will certainly pay tax on sale profits, as I'm sure you know.

[POSSUM THE CAT]

Fungus Pudding How many can he flick before his sale profits become Taxable 10 or more. It is very hard to prove intent

[fungus pudding]

Fungus Pudding How many can he flick before his sale profits become Taxable 10 or more. It is very hard to prove intent


I can't understand what you mean. Is trhat a question?

[elZorro]

If Sam Morgan makes a habit of flicking off businesses he will certainly pay tax on sale profits, as I'm sure you know.

Maybe, but lawyers would advise about that, and it's more often applied to land and buildings, than businesses or shares in businesses.

Some aspects..http://www.thomas.co.nz/co3/articles/tax_consequences.jsp

[iceman]

From Westpac commentary :
"With the New Zealand economy the best of a bad bunch, we may see the currency strengthen further through 2013," Westpac said.

The dollar would push up against the Australian currency to the mid-A80 cents range, Westpac said, with the expectation that the New Zealand economy would grow faster than Australia's for the first time in many years."

Lucky we have a good and economically astute and responsible Government EZ :D

[fungus pudding]

Maybe, but lawyers would advise about that, and it's more often applied to land and buildings, than businesses or shares in businesses.

Some aspects..http://www.thomas.co.nz/co3/articles/tax_consequences.jsp

Rubbish eZ. It certainly applies to business owners and shares and the IRD police that vigorously.

[elZorro]

Rubbish eZ. It certainly applies to business owners and shares and the IRD police that vigorously.

My humble apologies for leading you astray FP. What I meant is that it might take 6 months to tidy up a building and flick it on, a lot longer for a business, and so the latter is more likely to be under the radar, or fitting within capital gain rules, even if several businesses or ventures are being worked on at once. But we don't know what the rules are yet, because no-one is telling us. All I know is, Trademe was within the current rules.

[elZorro]

From Westpac commentary :
"With the New Zealand economy the best of a bad bunch, we may see the currency strengthen further through 2013," Westpac said.

The dollar would push up against the Australian currency to the mid-A80 cents range, Westpac said, with the expectation that the New Zealand economy would grow faster than Australia's for the first time in many years."

Lucky we have a good and economically astute and responsible Government EZ :D

Ha bl...y Ha, Iceman, you got me there. One all? I will try and rebut your post.

Firstly: Westpac used to be my bank, and I would never go there again. They do not have the customer's interests at heart. They only got my custom by buying out Trustbank Waikato, that was a real bank.

More recently, they have been setting themselves up with Federated Farmers so they could sell farmers more SWAP loans, for huge profits. http://straightfurrow.farmonline.co.nz/news/nationalrural/agribusiness/general-news/deals-veiled-in-secrecy/2644804.aspx?storypage=6

So this navel gazing from Westpac might not be correct, but they'll be saying what they want someone important to hear.

The next part of your post takes this (on the face of it) good news, and makes a wild extrapolation that somehow National's reign has produced that result. Well we've moved from the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD to average unemployment, from strengthening tax take to a lower tax take, people giving up on applying for meagre jobs and retraining or leaving instead, and the government trying to sell off parts of state assets, just to get back into the fiscal surplus that Labour had achieved for years on end.

Labour encouraged jobs, and that resulted in a surplus. National is discouraging jobs by removing them from the public sector wherever it can, and that doesn't help the rest of us. Waged money cycles around, so whatever figures National might produce on savings, aren't that good at all. It's the loss of recycled cashflow that causes the problems.

[fungus pudding]

My humble apologies for leading you astray FP. What I meant is that it might take 6 months to tidy up a building and flick it on, a lot longer for a business, and so the latter is more likely to be under the radar, or fitting within capital gain rules, even if several businesses or ventures are being worked on at once. But we don't know what the rules are yet, because no-one is telling us. All I know is, Trademe was within the current rules.


Ofr course we knoiw the rules, and even if you don't, the IRD sure do.

[iceman]

Ha bl...y Ha, Iceman, you got me there. One all? I will try and rebut your post.

Firstly: Westpac used to be my bank, and I would never go there again. They do not have the customer's interests at heart. They only got my custom by buying out Trustbank Waikato, that was a real bank.

More recently, they have been setting themselves up with Federated Farmers so they could sell farmers more SWAP loans, for huge profits. http://straightfurrow.farmonline.co.nz/news/nationalrural/agribusiness/general-news/deals-veiled-in-secrecy/2644804.aspx?storypage=6

So this navel gazing from Westpac might not be correct, but they'll be saying what they want someone important to hear.

The next part of your post takes this (on the face of it) good news, and makes a wild extrapolation that somehow National's reign has produced that result. Well we've moved from the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD to average unemployment, from strengthening tax take to a lower tax take, people giving up on applying for meagre jobs and retraining or leaving instead, and the government trying to sell off parts of state assets, just to get back into the fiscal surplus that Labour had achieved for years on end.

Labour encouraged jobs, and that resulted in a surplus. National is discouraging jobs by removing them from the public sector wherever it can, and that doesn't help the rest of us. Waged money cycles around, so whatever figures National might produce on savings, aren't that good at all. It's the loss of recycled cashflow that causes the problems.

I don;t much like Westpac either but this time they are spot on about our good Government who rightly has been culling some of the more unproductive public sector jobs in which Clark installed her mates.:0
1 all indeed.

[elZorro]

I don;t much like Westpac either but this time they are spot on about our good Government who rightly has been culling some of the more unproductive public sector jobs in which Clark installed her mates.:0
1 all indeed.

Iceman, can you provide details of the public sector jobs that were surplus, details on the improved public service that resulted from the culls, and more importantly the names of the people that Ms Clark improperly installed into office. Because I bet you can't. Helen Clark was too politically savvy to be that reckless. That sort of behaviour is more like a National trait.

And I bet that if you added up the minuscule savings that National might have achieved in their wages bill, and then subtracted debacles like Novopay, more dole payments, reduced tax takes, etc, there would be no savings. Just a lot of unhappy people looking for jobs and the rest of us getting a poorer public service outcome.

National's mantra I heard on the radio today: Rural police stations have only one on duty after National raids staff for South Auckland, but there will be more on the front line as a result of new iPods and iPads rollout. Magical.

Contact Energy to drop 100 staff. (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/128006/contact-energy-to-cut-jobs-across-the-board)Flat power consumption for the first time in decades, because National stands by and watches manufacturing and employment options decay in NZ.

[BIRMANBOY]

EZ if you would stop posting every 10 minutes, your resulting freed up, and now productive time, could be devoted to income producing endeavors and would no doubt considerably contribute to reducing our national deficit. Now thats an attractive outcome....win win for everybody.
Iceman, can you provide details of the public sector jobs that were surplus, details on the improved public service that resulted from the culls, and more importantly the names of the people that Ms Clark improperly installed into office. Because I bet you can't. Helen Clark was too politically savvy to be that reckless. That sort of behaviour is more like a National trait.

And I bet that if you added up the minuscule savings that National might have achieved in their wages bill, and then added back in debacles like Novopay, more dole payments, reduced tax takes, etc, there would be no savings. Just a lot of unhappy people looking for jobs and the rest of us getting a poorer public service outcome.

National's mantra I heard on the radio today: Rural police stations have only one on duty after National raids staff for South Auckland, but there will be more on the front line as a result of new iPods and iPads rollout. Magical.

Contact Energy to drop 100 staff. (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/128006/contact-energy-to-cut-jobs-across-the-board)Flat power consumption for the first time in decades, because National stands by and watches manufacturing and employment options decay in NZ.

[elZorro]

That is the left for you elzorro, completely illitterete.

What do you mean?

[Fred114]

That is the left for you elzorro, completely illitterete.

Yes, what does this mean?

[elZorro]

EZ if you would stop posting every 10 minutes, your resulting freed up, and now productive time, could be devoted to income producing endeavors and would no doubt considerably contribute to reducing our national deficit. Now thats an attractive outcome....win win for everybody.

At least you're reading the thread BB, but you have no time to make up any bogus stories about Labour's deficiencies, as some are attempting?

I am far too modest to think that anything I do will affect the country's bottom line, but I am mindful of the big picture, and it's not good. Until you and a few others on the RIGHT around here can convince me otherwise, I'm hoping for (and expecting) a Labour win in 2014.

[iceman]

Iceman, can you provide details of the public sector jobs that were surplus, details on the improved public service that resulted from the culls, and more importantly the names of the people that Ms Clark improperly installed into office. Because I bet you can't. Helen Clark was too politically savvy to be that reckless. That sort of behaviour is more like a National trait.

And I bet that if you added up the minuscule savings that National might have achieved in their wages bill, and then subtracted debacles like Novopay, more dole payments, reduced tax takes, etc, there would be no savings. Just a lot of unhappy people looking for jobs and the rest of us getting a poorer public service outcome.

National's mantra I heard on the radio today: Rural police stations have only one on duty after National raids staff for South Auckland, but there will be more on the front line as a result of new iPods and iPads rollout. Magical.

Contact Energy to drop 100 staff. (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/128006/contact-energy-to-cut-jobs-across-the-board)Flat power consumption for the first time in decades, because National stands by and watches manufacturing and employment options decay in NZ.

EZ, of course I can not and would not provide NAMES of the people we are referring to. After all I thought we were debating policies, not people. As for Contact, I am a shareholder and with their stated non further investment in electricity generation and flat demand, I see no problems with their staff reduction.
Each and every year about 250000 jobs in NZ get discontinued and another 250000 new jobs get created.Whats the big deal ? I know you dont like any0ne losing their jobs and everyone should be kept in their non competitive jobs. I just dont buy into this EZ and accept progress !!!

[elZorro]

EZ, of course I can not and would not provide NAMES of the people we are referring to. After all I thought we were debating policies, not people. As for Contact, I am a shareholder and with their stated non further investment in electricity generation and flat demand, I see no problems with their staff reduction.
Each and every year about 250000 jobs in NZ get discontinued and another 250000 new jobs get created.Whats the big deal ? I know you dont like any0ne losing their jobs and everyone should be kept in their non competitive jobs. I just dont buy into this EZ and accept progress !!!

I agree that job flux is important and a normal process. But while National has been in, there are more jobs being destroyed than created. Our population hasn't dropped, it's gone up over the years. So the only way National could say recently that the unemployment rate was down slightly in the last quarter, was to carefully forget to mention that a lot of people simply gave up on finding a job in NZ. They went back to tertiary education, retired early, or emigrated.

National has a 'brilliant plan' for how to win over the voters before 2014. They will attempt to sell off part of our state-owned energy generating assets for a top price, to the sharemarket. The bonus, one-off money in the system will in theory help restore the govt to surplus. It is a relatively simple procedure to carry out, as long as the courts allow them to do it, and as along as the voters sit back and let them.

What will happen is that they'll get a very poor price for the part-assets, because the timing is terrible. Energy use in NZ is flat-lining, may even be dropping. The Bluff smelter is using 15% of our power, pays very little for it, and is still losing money. That whole plant could be mothballed, or moved overseas to a lower-waged economy. Then we'll have a lot of spare power capacity, and no-one wanting to pay much for it.

So let's observe what happens over the contract negotiations with the Bluff smelter. Will National do the opposite of what they did for the railway workshops, and provide a sweetheart deal for a major domestic power user, to keep them here? Because if they leave, National's highly touted partial asset sale is in deep doo-doo.

[macduffy]

A bit off the main thread here, but reports in Aust are saying that RIO has decided to keep the Gove alumina refinery in operation. Given that the Tiwai Point smelter sources its alumina from Gove, this decision strengthens the case to continue at Tiwai Point. Implications for NZ govt; power prices; SOE part-privatisations?

[elZorro]

A bit off the main thread here, but reports in Aust are saying that RIO has decided to keep the Gove alumina refinery in operation. Given that the Tiwai Point smelter sources its alumina from Gove, this decision strengthens the case to continue at Tiwai Point. Implications for NZ govt; power prices; SOE part-privatisations?

Thanks Macduffy, I didn't know that. There is a lot of downstream work in NZ based on the Tiwai aluminium source too, of course. I certainly want to see the smelter stay here. Labour minister Clayton Cosgrove also says the asset sell-off timing is very poor.
(http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8300795/Axed-jobs-shows-privatisation-danger-MP)
A new report says our minimum wage of $13.50, (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8300471/18-40-an-hour-needed-for-living-wage) which National stuck with, when Labour wanted to set it at $15.00, should really be $18.40 an hour, if people are to live in NZ with dignity.

[craic]

Having been raised in the abject poverty of an Irish village, during and just after the WW2, I can honestly say that vyour comments on "living with dignity" on a minimum wage are absolute rubbish. My family and friends lived with dignity on no minimum wage and the alternative, no wage at all. We scraped together food and shelter as best we could, often with scraps of paid work in seasons when it was available. Now I belong in a society of pensioners and can observe that many live with dignity and reasonable comfort while others degenerate into a pathetic state that they themselves often create between casks of wine. Dignity is between your ears.

[iceman]

Having been raised in the abject poverty of an Irish village, during and just after the WW2, I can honestly say that vyour comments on "living with dignity" on a minimum wage are absolute rubbish. My family and friends lived with dignity on no minimum wage and the alternative, no wage at all. We scraped together food and shelter as best we could, often with scraps of paid work in seasons when it was available. Now I belong in a society of pensioners and can observe that many live with dignity and reasonable comfort while others degenerate into a pathetic state that they themselves often create between casks of wine. Dignity is between your ears.

Great words Craic and I can relate to it from my own upbringing. Dignity is not "provided" by the Government like too many people like to think. It is normally installed in people at a young age by family, which unfortunately is becoming less and less influential in NZ society

[Fred114]

This is a conservative reading of the role of the government, Craic and Iceman. Is there anything else we need in our upbringing to avoid dependency on the state? Is family the best place for getting a start in life?

[iceman]

This is a conservative reading of the role of the government, Craic and Iceman. Is there anything else we need in our upbringing to avoid dependency on the state? Is family the best place for getting a start in life?

I certainly believe a good family is indeed the best place for a good start and guidance in life.

[elZorro]

I certainly believe a good family is indeed the best place for a good start and guidance in life.

I don't think you'd find that is far away from Labour policy Iceman. According to the right-wingers, Labour can't get it right. If they make it too easy to stay on the dole, or create too many unproductive jobs, either way it's not 'real'.

Let's get back to facts. I don't think anyone likes being on the dole (unless they have some family support). I just have a quiet smile if I hear about a state-funded job that I don't understand the importance of. Most of that cash will be recycled into the nearby community, taxes and levies will be paid on it at each recycle, and the govt will get perhaps 50% of the funds back. No other group stands to do near as well from the transactions. That balances out the otherwise direct expense of unemployment and associated social costs. The rest of the country benefit from increased spend, in the retail and service sectors. So increased employment in the public sector is not the enemy, it's not a drain on the taxpayer, it's usually very good news. Labour showed that in their last 9-year stint, the data is there to see at Statistics NZ. Everybody did well.

A bit of humour from Monty Python's Flying Circus, this is at Craic's prompting.
(http://www.phespirit.info/montypython/four_yorkshiremen.htm)

[BIRMANBOY]

I'm ashamed of you EZ...your pythonesque reference is hardly what one would expect from a Labour stalwart. Very disapointing!!
I don't think you'd find that is far away from Labour policy Iceman. According to the right-wingers, Labour can't get it right. If they make it too easy to stay on the dole, or create too many unproductive jobs, either way it's not 'real'.

Let's get back to facts. I don't think anyone likes being on the dole (unless they have some family support). I just have a quiet smile if I hear about a state-funded job that I don't understand the importance of. Most of that cash will be recycled into the nearby community, taxes and levies will be paid on it at each recycle, and the govt will get perhaps 50% of the funds back. No other group stands to do near as well from the transactions. That balances out the otherwise direct expense of unemployment and associated social costs. The rest of the country benefit from increased spend, in the retail and service sectors. So increased employment in the public sector is not the enemy, it's not a drain on the taxpayer, it's usually very good news. Labour showed that in their last 9-year stint, the data is there to see at Statistics NZ. Everybody did well.

A bit of humour from Monty Python's Flying Circus, this is at Craic's prompting.
(http://www.phespirit.info/montypython/four_yorkshiremen.htm)

[elZorro]

I'm ashamed of you EZ...your pythonesque reference is hardly what one would expect from a Labour stalwart. Very disapointing!!

Very perceptive, actually it's my wife who is the Python fan. I'm never sure how she votes.

I understand what other posters are saying, relative to the world population, we're doing well, nothing to grumble about. Well, we should be in a good position, we've only just got here in recent geological time, the climate is good, we have good education provided, and we haven't completely wrecked the place with overpopulation yet.

All the more reason to be unhappy with the fact that 7% of those who'd like to work here, can't, because there are less jobs going around. That profits are down almost across the board, so taxes are down, and govt services are being screwed down to match the lower income. This is the sort of time when businesses and enterprises, prompted by the govt, should get moving, sideways if necessary, into new areas with better profits.

So we look to the govt for a lead, and what do we see? For example, Novopay and Callaghan Innovation, so screwed down with tight finances, they can't do the very job they were set up to do.

[craic]

Where in the world do you get the idea that someone has to employ you - that some other person or organisation has to set up a business and pay you to work in it? The reality is that we are all responsible for our own and our families survival If you do not have the wherewithall to provide and survive one of the successful ones MAY offer you help, financially or otherwise, in exchange for some labour or other favour. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor doesn't work.
(QUOTE)
"All the more reason to be unhappy with the fact that 7% of those who'd like to work here, can't, because there are less jobs going around. That profits are down almost across the board, so taxes are down, and govt services are being screwed down to match the lower income. This is the sort of time when businesses and enterprises, prompted by the govt, should get moving, sideways if necessary, into new areas with better profits.

So we look to the govt for a lead, and what do we see? For example, Novopay and Callaghan Innovation, so screwed down with tight finances, they can't do the very job they were set up to do.[/QUOTE]

[fungus pudding]

Very perceptive, actually it's my wife who is the Python fan. I'm never sure how she votes.

I understand what other posters are saying, relative to the world population, we're doing well, nothing to grumble about. Well, we should be in a good position, we've only just got here in recent geological time, the climate is good, we have good education provided, and we haven't completely wrecked the place with overpopulation yet.

All the more reason to be unhappy with the fact that 7% of those who'd like to work here, can't, because there are less jobs going around.So we look to the govt for a lead, and what do we see? For example, Novopay and Callaghan Innovation, so screwed down with tight finances, they can't do the very job they were set up to do.


A couple of points: Yes - we are doing well relatively and will do miles better as world recovers - that is as long as no political party gets into power that wants to 'fix' things. Prime concern there is Labour/Green, or their chief interferers, Parker,Cunliffe and Russel. Education standards are poor - ask a school leaver to write a letter, or do the simplest mental mathematical equation. We are under-populated, although I have much sympathy for Enoch Powell's view.
And it would be remiss of me not ask in what way are these jobs you say are going around, 'less'? .

[elZorro]

A couple of points: Yes - we are doing well relatively and will do miles better as world recovers - that is as long as no political party gets into power that wants to 'fix' things. Prime concern there is Labour/Green, or their chief interferers, Parker,Cunliffe and Russel. Education standards are poor - ask a school leaver to write a letter, or do the simplest mental mathematical equation. We are under-populated, although I have much sympathy for Enoch Powell's view.
And it would be remiss of me not ask in what way are these jobs you say are going around, 'less'? .

It would be remiss of me, in turn, to not research the Rivers of Blood Speech. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech)

Is that where Don Brash got his ideas from? It nearly worked for him too.

The number of jobs available is not keeping up with the increase in population here, and the pay is being screwed down for new positions.
'
So yes, I hope Parker, Cunliffe and Norman interfere a small amount and try out some ideas, because unemployment, 'it's not working'.

[Major von Tempsky]

Interesting how the market actually solved Obama's jobs problem and none of his job creation schemes worked....

[craic]

I will waste my time again and suggest that unemployment doesn't exist - except in the socialist philosophy. A large section of the worlds population spend thei time hunting, fishing, building shelters and protecting threir families - they are not unemployed. A second section set up and run enterprises that profit them greatly by utilising the needs of others in exchange for a portion of their returns - they are not unemployed. A third group spend their time hunting, fishing, growing and building etc. and seeking to share the returns of the second section in exchange for bartered labour, they are not unemployed. The remainder sit on their arses on street corners seeking mana from heaven or the government - they are losers.

I had a fellow once on probation to me who was suddenly in the second category and I asked him what he was doing about it. He told me that he was getting up every morning and walking the length of Marine Parade with a sack, collecting bottles and cans and anything else he could find including money. He did very well from the drunken revelries of the night before, particulary on weekends. But it didn't last, people pay good money for that kind of enterprise.

[fungus pudding]

It would be remiss of me, in turn, to not research the Rivers of Blood Speech. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech)

Is that where Don Brash got his ideas from? It nearly worked for him too.

The number of jobs available is not keeping up with the increase in population here, and the pay is being screwed down for new positions.
'
So yes, I hope Parker, Cunliffe and Norman interfere a small amount and try out some ideas, because unemployment, 'it's not working'.

Did you ever have a wander, as I did, through China when their communist' jobs for everyone' nonsense was being touted as utopia? No? Thought not.

[elZorro]

Did you ever have a wander, as I did, through China when their communist' jobs for everyone' nonsense was being touted as utopia? No? Thought not.

But the Chinese in their new city apartments are now contacting westerners, speaking good English, and arranging trade opportunities for small manufacturers, sourcing components and finished goods from elsewhere in China, usually nearby. They have taken the initiative. They are now very good capitalists. They will increasingly consume a bigger portion of the world's resources, as they have a right to do.

Maybe Craic is right, too many are not working hard enough over here to get themselves a job, or to (shock horror) create one with their own efforts.

But my point is also that govt has a role in encouraging enterprise. They have a role in not abrubtly making a whole lot of people redundant on their watch, through ill-thought-out policy. They have a role in leading the country as a whole.

From my point of view, and regardless of the international state of play, they are letting us down.

[BIRMANBOY]

EZ your singleminded,dogged determination to lay the blame on anyone and everyone and particularly the Govt is admirable in that it shows your perseverence. Somewhat less admirable is your apparent lack of ability to recognise and ahknowledge the responsibility of people to be proactive in taking control of their lives and their employment. Many, many of us have probably had or done jobs that we didnt really "want" or perhaps even hated, maybe at s**t wages. However we did it and probably used it as a springboard to haul ourself up the evolutionary ladder. Expecting the Govt to do that for us is just wrong....if you have special needs, or disabilities or mental health issues then the Govt should and does help. If you or your needy buddies are "waiting for the job that suits their status" or dont want to move away from Mum doing the washing for them then this falls into Craic's "loser" category. There is only so much any Govt. can do. Governments and political parties come and go. People who think, hope or expect the Govt. will rescue them just because ...well thats what Govt's should do are naive in the extreme and blinkered in their outlook. Take off the blinkers EZ... there are two types of people in the world...those who MAKE things happen for themselves and others and those who allow things to happen to them.
But the Chinese in their new city apartments are now contacting westerners, speaking good English, and arranging trade opportunities for small manufacturers, sourcing components and finished goods from elsewhere in China, usually nearby. They have taken the initiative. They are now very good capitalists. They will increasingly consume a bigger portion of the world's resources, as they have a right to do.

Maybe Craic is right, too many are not working hard enough over here to get themselves a job, or to (shock horror) create one with their own efforts.

But my point is also that govt has a role in encouraging enterprise. They have a role in not abrubtly making a whole lot of people redundant on their watch, through ill-thought-out policy. They have a role in leading the country as a whole.

From my point of view, and regardless of the international state of play, they are letting us down.

[elZorro]

EZ your singleminded,dogged determination to lay the blame on anyone and everyone and particularly the Govt is admirable in that it shows your perseverence. Somewhat less admirable is your apparent lack of ability to recognise and ahknowledge the responsibility of people to be proactive in taking control of their lives and their employment. Many, many of us have probably had or done jobs that we didnt really "want" or perhaps even hated, maybe at s**t wages. However we did it and probably used it as a springboard to haul ourself up the evolutionary ladder. Expecting the Govt to do that for us is just wrong....if you have special needs, or disabilities or mental health issues then the Govt should and does help. If you or your needy buddies are "waiting for the job that suits their status" or dont want to move away from Mum doing the washing for them then this falls into Craic's "loser" category. There is only so much any Govt. can do. Governments and political parties come and go. People who think, hope or expect the Govt. will rescue them just because ...well thats what Govt's should do are naive in the extreme and blinkered in their outlook. Take off the blinkers EZ... there are two types of people in the world...those who MAKE things happen for themselves and others and those who allow things to happen to them.

Only two types of people in the world? You don't think that maybe there are extremes that fit that statement, and that most of us sometimes take control, and sometimes go with the flow?

Your only problem is that you are on the right, politically. From what I've seen, this means that you'll have to take a very fixed black and white view, or none of the policies from the right will make sense. Armed with this philosophy, you can banter at great length about how the economy can be fixed simply by the govt doing nothing, and letting the market fix it all. Thus, apart from social services, education, and maybe roading, the govt has no right to take taxes at all. Brilliant!

Except, as you have stated, some of us are lazy. I think we're all a bit lazy, some of the time. So for the common good of everybody, what is going to prompt someone to go off the dole (assuming they cannot start their own job), and into work? The market will need to provide an interesting job, good conditions, and pay that makes it worthwhile for them to give up a big chunk of their life. Because that is the nature of work, and an employer has obligations to play fair.

By running down the state sector's performance and constantly reminding us that we're in deficit, coming out of a recession, the govt at once justifies sacking a lot of people, and tells the private sector to buckle down the hatches. So employers get lazy too. I have, for a year or so. I intend to do better in 2013, but I won't be taking on any new staff. Forget about me - what if you extend that to all the other employers out there? For example are you taking on extra staff, or are you sitting comfortably?

[craic]

Oh Dear! Tonights Colmar Brunton tells us that we still support JK and Labour are still losing?

[elZorro]

Oh Dear! Tonights Colmar Brunton tells us that we still support JK and Labour are still losing?

Yes, 875 people from various places around NZ were asked for their opinion, after the holidays. The margin of error in a small sample like that is 3.38%. It's early days in 2013 Craic. We'll see what happens with the Christchurch schools today.

[fungus pudding]

Yes, 875 people from various places around NZ were asked for their opinion, after the holidays. The margin of error in a small sample like that is 3.38%. It's early days in 2013 Craic. We'll see what happens with the Christchurch schools today.

No need to wait. They won't accept any change at all, no matter how necessary. School teachers in general will never ever like anything that happens when National are in power. They are a brainwashed lot.

[elZorro]

No need to wait. They won't accept any change at all, no matter how necessary. School teachers in general will never ever like anything that happens when National are in power. They are a brainwashed lot.

Not too many happy with the school closures, (http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/246135/seven-christchurch-schools-close) except the bean counters.

Results from 19th Feb.
(http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/school-closures-brought-forward-give-parents-certainty-5344871)
Brainwashed or smarter than the average bear? Teachers are put in the top 25% of a bell-shaped curve for IQ.

Australia, meanwhile, has decided that the biggest firms don't need R&D tax credits. Anyone with turnover above $20billion that is. There's a rate change at the $20mill level, and for smaller firms the tax deduction is 45% of the spend. The saved $1billion cash is being spent on new innovation hubs around the country.


Federal government announces manufacturing innovation precinct

18 February, 2013 Brent Balinski (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/author/Brent%20Balinski)



http://media.rbi.com.au/MM_Media_Library/toyota-australia-altona-factory1_300.jpg Cuts to R&D tax credits to some of Australia’s biggest companies will fund a network of innovation precincts, the first of which will be dedicated to manufacturing.
Prime minister Julia Gillard and members of her government made the announcement yesterday during a visit to Boeing Australia’s headquarters in Melbourne.
Industry minister Greg Combet said that a three-point plan to boost manufacturing - focussing on local content (http://www.manmonthly.com.au/news/gillard-announces-measures-to-encourage-local-cont), growing SMEs and establishing innovation precincts - would be funded through an end to research tax breaks for companies with revenues of $20 billion or more.
The tax break is equivalent to a 133 per cent tax deducation, according to Fairfax Media (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/top-20-companies-to-fund-1b-innovation-drive-20130217-2elbb.html).
This would affect 15-20 companies and save an estimated $1 billion over four years.
"We think it's a prudent saving that targets the resources that are available in the most effective way to achieve jobs growth," Combet told reporters (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/02/17/14/00/alp-jobs-plan-is-old-news-rebadged-oppn).
The plan for industry, called “Building On Australia’s Strengths”, was the result of six months’ work by Combet and bureaucrats. It is in response to the report released in August by the non-government members PM’s manufacturing taskforce (http://minister.innovation.gov.au/gregcombet/MediaReleases/Pages/GovernmentwelcomesManufacturingTaskforcereport.asp x), which made over 40 recommendations (http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Manufacturing/Taskforce/Pages/default.aspx).
The Courier Mail (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/miners-lose-grants-to-benefit-small-firms/story-e6freon6-1226579339159) reported before the announcement that “the innovation hubs will dovetail with the Asian Century White Paper by promoting export potential.”
The first innovation precinct will be dedicated to manufacturing and will extend over two locations in south-east Melbourne and Adelaide. The second will focus on the food industry and be based in Melbourne.
The delivery of the 10 precincts is budgeted at $504.5 million. They aim to examine ways of commercialising research.
“We need to increase the level of industry-led research and get better economic and business dividends from our research so that our economy can realise the opportunities of the future," said Combet (http://minister.innovation.gov.au/chrisbowen/MediaReleases/Pages/industryInnovationPrecinctstocreate.aspx).
The opposition claimed the innovation precinct plan was a re-announcement of a 2011 scheme for research innovation hubs.
"I was hoping for something of substance today," said Sophie Mirabella, the opposition industry spokeswoman.
"Like so many workers in the manufacturing sector, I'm bitterly disappointed."

[elZorro]

Either Colin hasn't done the maths on the funds budgeted for Callaghan Innovation, or he has a very good idea what's going to happen. It's unlikely there will be an increased spend.


Colin James's column for the Otago Daily Times for 19 February 2013

The challenge of being a small, smart country

Bill English has set the budget date nice and early -- as John Key did the election date in 2011 and is likely to do in 2014. Now are English and Key -- and Steven Joyce, who is to make a science speech on Thursday -- up to the fiscal science challenge?

That science challenge -- not to be confused with the Prime Minister's science challenge for scientists themselves -- is to match richer small-countries' commitment. Governments here for two decades, including Key's, have not committed to science the public resources better-performing small countries do. Contrast the European Union's increase in its science budget this month while cutting its overall budget.

Joyce, who as boss of his new superministry is the minister in charge of science and other innovation, would protest that in the 2012 budget the government did lift investment in science and innovation and project a continuing lift over the next four years.

But even at the end of that trajectory -- and note that Key is talking up innovation as the key to enrichment -- Joyce would be investing below 0.6% of GDP, that is, below the OECD average and far below that of smart-rich-small countries with which Key's Chief Science Adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, has been building a relationship. That investment underpins the success of Nordic countries, billed by The Economist this month as "the next supermodel".

Sir Peter brought together Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Israel and Singapore in Auckland in November in a discussion which linked science and innovation with economic analysis by David Skilling, once of the Treasury and now in Singapore, who argues that small countries, being flexible, can, if they act strategically, navigate global ups and downs better than big countries with lumbering political systems.

Gluckman, like the legendary Sir Paul Callaghan a notable innovator in his own right, is now teasing out with those countries a programme of joint projects.

There is a parallel with United Nations Ambassador Jim McLay's pitch for a Security Council seat in 2015-16: that small countries have different priorities from big muscly ones, not least in needing good global governance. McLay argues that small New Zealand contributes disproportionately to peace-building and other cooperative activities, has an independent foreign policy which gives it good credentials as a broker and conciliator and thus can be an accurate and energetic representative for small countries.

Another way of putting the McLay line is that New Zealand is a small, smart country. That is what Sir Peter wants us to want to be -- more than our fiscal commitment shows.

Joyce would protest, with reason, that his Callaghan Innovation Crown entity, with a tight focus on working with businesses to solve technical challenges and help them innovate, will do that by making more effective use of some of our scientists.

Actually, Industrial Research Ltd, out of which the new institute was created, was increasingly doing what the institute is to do. Callaghan Innovation looks less an innovation and more a managerial reshuffle.

There is also a risk, which will need careful management, that too tight a focus on technical assistance to firms will distract scientists from doing the science that generates unexpected commercial innovations, as Sir Paul's science did -- and that scientists decamp to another country (one of Sir Peter's other five?) to do that work.

The more scientists who do that -- after an expensive education at taxpayers' expense here -- the less will they be able to meet another Gluckman ambition.

Joyce's speech on Thursday is to a two-day conference of science communicators which will focus on natural disasters science's role in warning the public and public agencies of risks and explaining events. Gluckman's on the same day is to the Institute of Public Administration on "communicating and using evidence in policy formation".

Gluckman will develop a theme that has been a hallmark of his Chief Science Adviser's role: that good policy requires good advice which requires the best use of the best evidence -- and that science has a big role to play.

Most policy reflects politicians' instincts, prejudices, values or pragmatism and the inevitable tradeoffs politics and electoral success require. It is informed by advice from public servants who do usually trawl through evidence, including scientific evidence, but often, Gluckman says, the science is misunderstood, misused or misapplied. Politicians, interest groups and the media also often cherrypick or otherwise employ science to support a case or, as in climate change, declare the science "confused" as an excuse for inaction.

A report is due soon on a survey which found wide variations in government agencies' use or misuse of scientific evidence. Gluckman says protocols are needed, including peer review of expert advice.

That is quite a science challenge for Key and Joyce -- perhaps as big as their and English's fiscal one.




-- Colin James, Synapsis Ltd, P O Box 9494, Wellington 6141
Ph (64)-4-384 7030, Mobile (64)-21-438 434, Fax (64)-4-384 9175
Webpage http://www.ColinJames.co.nz

[elZorro]

There's been a bit of a debate on minimum wages lately. Rod Oram has waded into this.

But first, I have been berated by those on the right (who appear to still be in the majority!) because I have not provided a balanced view.

I don't have to - I'm not a journalist, but this popped up on a google search.

Why low minimum wages are a good thing..
http://www.aei.org/article/economics/fiscal-policy/labor/raising-minimum-wage-is-maximum-stupidity/

This article from the American Enterprise Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute)has to be seen in context. This is a neo-conservative think-tank, also with impressive history, with over US$30mill of funding p.a. and nearly 200 staff. They seem to be keen on funding from Exxon Mobil, partly directed towards offering scientists $10,000 to critique the IPCC on climate change.

John Key not keen on a higher minimum wage. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8288718/Key-not-keen-on-Living-Wage) Of course he wouldn't need to live on that, he has got ahead OK, he's probably in the top percentile of IQ. It's what we do with the 'long tail' that is important here.

And now Rod Oram, who has been paid a smaller amount perhaps, to write a weekly article in the SST, based on his impressions of the state of play.

Rod Oram: "The Wages of Stupidity" Feb 17 2013, Sunday Star Times. Not available on the web, anywhere.

FAQ from Livingwagenz.org.nz. (http://www.livingwagenz.org.nz/faq.php)

Here's a leftish blog site with an interesting blog on Shearer. (http://www.tumeke.blogspot.co.nz/2012/01/earth-to-labour-party-where-are-you.html) A good summary of all the main political blogs on the RHS of the page.

[elZorro]

This morning on TV3, the Prime Minister faced the camera and had great glee in claiming that when Helen Clark was in power, Labour did "exactly the same deal" as National is doing with Sky City now. A convention centre in exchange for allowing more pokies.

He's hoping that's all the dumb and redneck voters remember -that punch line. Except it's bull.

In 2001, the sinking lid policy on gaming machines (that Labour introduced in 2003)hadn't been set up. The deal back then was a $37mill convention centre, in exchange for 230 pokies and 12 gaming tables. The new convention centre is on a different scale, $350mill, in exchange for up to five hundred gaming machines at the casino (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10799699), in defiance of the sinking lid policy.

And the earlier decision was not made by the Labour government at all, but by the Casino Control Authority. Guess who ran that back then? Judith Collins (National, now Justice Minister) was the chair.

More rubbish from John Key about the number of gaming machines being lower now, than in 2002. Yes, of course, Labour's sinking lid policy did that (http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Resource-material-Information-We-Provide-Gambits-December-2012?OpenDocument). By 2008 when National got in, the bulk of the good work had already been done. How dare John Key and National take the credit for it. Every dollar that disappears from a local community into gaming machines doesn't get spent in the nearby businesses. 1/3 of it goes to govt, 1/3 to fat cat trusts or bars, and 1/3 to community grants. (Except for the casinos, they hardly pay anything back to local community causes).

A gaming machine is budgeted to take at least $1,000 clear a week. 500 machines would reap $26mill a year. Sky City's tender for the building was the worst deal of five offers, and it was accepted.

[Major von Tempsky]

I, and most voters - well 49% anyway plus at least 1% for United Future, ACT, Conservatives, Maori Party... commend John Key for his initiative and enterprise. A huge new Convention Centre for Auckland and New Zealand.
Beat that.
All the Greens and Labour NZ know how to do is to put obstacles in the way of jobs and growth.
Read what Labour in Australia is saying "The Greens (Australia) only know how to put obstacles in the way of jobs and growth."
Try reading the Sydney Morning Herald occasionally - yesterday and the day before.
Labour in Oz is equivalent to National in NZ.
Where does that leave the Labour NZ supporters? Cloud Cuckooland.

[elZorro]

I, and most voters - well 49% anyway plus at least 1% for United Future, ACT, Conservatives, Maori Party... commend John Key for his initiative and enterprise. A huge new Convention Centre for Auckland and New Zealand.
Beat that.
All the Greens and Labour NZ know how to do is to put obstacles in the way of jobs and growth.
Read what Labour in Australia is saying "The Greens (Australia) only know how to put obstacles in the way of jobs and growth."
Try reading the Sydney Morning Herald occasionally - yesterday and the day before.
Labour in Oz is equivalent to National in NZ.
Where does that leave the Labour NZ supporters? Cloud Cuckooland.

You should be careful about agreeing with the Sky City jackup MVT. It's going to get very embarassing for National. (http://www.3news.co.nz/Key-rejects-criticism-of-Sky-City-deal/tabid/1607/articleID/287452/Default.aspx)Latest on the news tonight: Sky City want the govt to pay for the marketing of the convention centre. Plus other fine details no doubt. Please rebut my comments though, were any of those facts wrong? No, I didn't think so. Do your research before you jump in.

From a blog site, but sounds about right..


Facts: People at risk of problem gambling (not actual problem gamblers) are 1.2% of the population from MOH stats 2011. .. Charities that operate pub pokies are required to return a minimum of 37.12% back to the community or risk being shut down. The Casino only gives 2.5% back to the community, the rest goes to corporate profits.


John Key said this morning that the new convention centre is

"..bespoken, off the shelf, so is all a bit different"

Here's the meaning of bespoke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bespoke),John. I don't think there is such a word as 'bespoken'. It means the opposite of 'off the shelf', and it doesn't normally apply to buildings. Sounds flash from a distance though. This is our elected Prime Minister speaking - maybe David Shearer doesn't have to improve his sound bites too much, to compete. David has potential, according to Janet Wilson.
(http://www.janetwilson.co.nz/2012/11/get-ready-to-rumble/#more-430)
Here's an article about why Labour's capital gains tax idea is going to help even things out a bit. I don't rent out property, I prefer to use it to earn a living, for myself and several families. Bring it on.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business-editors-picks/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501981&objectid=10865946

[elZorro]

David Shearer was just on TV3, being questioned on his thoughts over John Key's role in the Convention deal, and the latest benefit fraud crackdown.

I liked everything I saw. He was very fluent, had no trouble at all getting his (really good) points across, he pinned John Key to the wall on the Sky City debacle, and that was fair enough. I think that what we saw there, was that he had real conviction about these points, and as Janet Wilson said, this swamped out the little 'advisor voices' that so often get him confused when fronting the camera. Shearer carefully pointed out that the govt is after maybe $20mill of benefit fraud, but don't apply the same rules to at least $100mill to $120mill of tax fraud that goes on every year.

If you added in the tax haven stuff, it'd be a lot higher than that. Fat cat rules are different you see.

One nation, one set of rules, yeah right.

[craic]

EZ if you spend your whole day digging up points to defend/support your left wing politics, you wont convince anyone but yourself and you certainly will not benefit from the exercise. I am about to go outside and unload a truckload of horse manure now and thus ends my limited participation in this topic - have a nice day.

[Fred114]

This article says that Tax policy is in disary. Overdue tax now $7.8 Billion, comparable to the amount that Greeks owe their government, but don't want to pay. Student loans at $550million, just 5% of the uncollected. Child support payments are 29% the biggest amount. Overall despite targeted measures over a ten year period, tax collection has declined to dangerous levels.

Why go after benefit fraud? Why is the media not putting this the critical factor to John Key?


http://www.interest.co.nz/personal-finance/63175/terry-baucher-says-irds-attempts-collect-overdue-tax-78-bln-close-outright-fa

[Fred114]

For tax purposes it is counted as a debt to the state, imposed by the courts.

http://www.ird.govt.nz/aboutir/external-stats/debt/overdue-growth/debt-total-overdue-debt.html

[elZorro]

This article says that Tax policy is in disary. Overdue tax now $7.8 Billion, comparable to the amount that Greeks owe their government, but don't want to pay. Student loans at $550million, just 5% of the uncollected. Child support payments are 29% the biggest amount. Overall despite targeted measures over a ten year period, tax collection has declined to dangerous levels.

Why go after benefit fraud? Why is the media not putting this the critical factor to John Key?


http://www.interest.co.nz/personal-finance/63175/terry-baucher-says-irds-attempts-collect-overdue-tax-78-bln-close-outright-fa

Very good point Fred114. There are so few real journalists left. But it does kind of put the $20mill de facto benefit fraud into context. As Belgarion says, a right-wing person would look just at the overdue child support payments (which could mostly be onerous interest and fees added on), but overdue income tax, GST, and PAYE from businesses is also there, a big chunk of it. And that's the tax they've advised IRD they need to pay, it's not the income that has already slipped through to tax havens.

The answer is, National always trots out 'benefit fraud!' at some stage. Often it's dragged out when they're getting a hard time somewhere else. Maybe the system needs a tuneup every so often, but anyone who thinks a bit about the big picture will see that it's simply smoke and mirrors. The top 1% will be untouched by National, they'll likely get better and better deals from the state.

[slimwin]

You think people should get away with benefit fraud?

[elZorro]

You think people should get away with benefit fraud?

No. Although I think there will be degrees of fraud, just the same as there are degrees of tax evasion. Some shouldn't be worth following up. Because at the other extreme will be people with multiple aliases using cashflow machines and burying gold or cash in their backyards, and people using every trick in the book to not pay substantial income tax if they can help it. You just have to look at the difference in the amounts involved.

$ 20 mill might be involved in de facto benefit fraud, $4.44 per NZer.
$7,800 mill is definitely owned in back taxes and fines, child support etc. $1733.00 per NZer.

So why knock out a new law for the smaller amount if you can't collect on the much larger amount? Because it may be a vote catcher. National -type voters are more likely to have an issue with taxes, and even child support. They probably won't be on a benefit though.

[elZorro]

Solid Energy in trouble, looks like more jobs will be lost here, more infrastructure laid to waste. It doesn't mean we're using less coal - for years now, Huntly power station has been partly fed with coal brought all the way from Indonesia. (http://www.3news.co.nz/State-owned-company-imports-coal/tabid/421/articleID/270570/Default.aspx)Because it's a bit cheaper on paper. The power station was built at Huntly because there was a lot of suitable coal for it in the ground nearby. There will be other reasons for the slump in profits too, but again, some big picture thinking would help the situation, we could keep more people employed and the economy stronger, keep using local inputs if they are plentiful.


Solid Energy in urgent talks with Government and bankers on debt level


Simon Hartley — 22 February 2013
The beleaguered State-owned enterprise Solid Energy – one of the West Coast's largest employers - has disclosed it is in talks with its banks and Treasury, over its “substantial” debt and the support required to turnaround the flagging operations.
During the past year, Solid Energy's total liabilities have been driven up by increased borrowings, from $614 million to more than $743.5 M, according to its annual report to June, released last November.
The $743.5 M includes cash provisions held, term interest borrowings and accounts payable.
More restructuring appears likely for its remaining 1,500 staff, when Finance Minister Bill English and State Owned Enterprises (SOE) Minister Tony Ryall responded to the shock announcement by Solid Energy chairman Mark Ford yesterday.
English said at a briefing the Government would not let the company go into receivership. He would not directly answer questions about a taxpayer-funded bailout, but would not rule it out.
No mention was made on the question of whether Solid Energy was close to breaching banking covenants.
Ryall said Solid Energy was facing “very serious financial challenges” - its debt stood at $389 M and its interim result “will show additional losses.”
“The Government appreciates this is a very unsettling time for employees and suppliers and the company's wider stakeholders but it is a process which must be worked through carefully and properly,”' the ministers said in a joint statement.
A year ago Solid Energy was on the Government list for SOE floats, but this announcement will kill any chance of that happening in the near future.
English said: “World coal prices have dropped significantly [40%] which has contributed to the deteriorating financial position that Solid Energy is in now.”
Beginning in August last year, Solid Energy flagged the likelihood of a $200 M slump in revenue, followed shortly after by announcing almost 500 redundancies around the country.
Next, in November, its annual profit plunged 146% and it booked a $40 M loss; because of the slumped global coal prices. There was no repeat of the previous year's $30 M dividend.
Barely 20 minutes after Solid Energy's statement yesterday, English and Ryall gave short notice of the 4.30pm media briefing.
Following a global coal price high of $US350/tonne ($NZ419) in January 2011, the price slumped to$US140 by last September, but had since retraced some losses to trade around $US224 in June.
Three weeks ago chief executive of 12 years, Dr Don Elder, resigned, effective immediately, amid criticism of having too many developmental projects underway in recent years.
The lion's share of its more than 4 million tonnes of annual production is from the West Coast, and a relatively new $25 M lignite-to-briquette plant near Mataura, has been unscathed by restructuring, so far.
In an unusual move, Solid Energy chairman Mark Ford yesterday released a statement outlining the company's trading position was continuing to deteriorate, in spite of initiatives to reduce costs, preserve cash and restructure, in the face of low global coal prices.
“We are in discussions with our banks and Treasury on the debt and equity support required for future operations of the business.
“A restructuring and turnaround plan for the company is being prepared by the newly appointed board in support of these discussions,” Ford said.
He warned that Solid Energy was “carrying substantial debt” and the half-year result to be released shortly “will record a significant loss.”
*Simon Hartley is senior business reporter for the Otago Daily Times.


Here's more detail about where the Huntly coal comes from, how it is blended.
http://www.contrafedpublishing.co.nz/Energy+NZ/Issue+9+Winter+2009/Feeding+the+thermal+beast.html

It would appear that part of the debt at Solid Energy is due to massive bonus payouts in the millions to top management. Wait a minute, it's an SOE. Surely part of the prescription is to not allow it to go bankrupt, to run it carefully, preserving jobs if possible. Don Elder left a few weeks ago, probably just as well.

[iceman]

It would appear that part of the debt at Solid Energy is due to massive bonus payouts in the millions to top management. Wait a minute, it's an SOE. Surely part of the prescription is to not allow it to go bankrupt, to run it carefully, preserving jobs if possible. Don Elder left a few weeks ago, probably just as well.

It was "only "just over $ 20 million in bonuses over last 2 years EZ !!!! Yes it is indeed a SOE, the best form of business operation and ownership according to you and Shearer, so why is the Government now going to have to jump in and save it with tax payer dollars. What happened ? Oh that's right, all National's fault !

[Fred114]

It was "only "just over $ 20 million in bonuses over last 2 years EZ !!!! Yes it is indeed a SOE, the best form of business operation and ownership according to you and Shearer, so why is the Government now going to have to jump in and save it with tax payer dollars. What happened ? Oh that's right, all National's fault !

Pretty much National's fault. The company has deviated too far from its core business. Politicians have wanted to fatten the cow for sale and the business leaders, whilst taking massive bonuses to give maintain the illusion of certainty, have ventured into risky projects that have failed taking the company with it. According to Geoff Bertram, buring coal requires the capturing of carbon to avoid greenhouse gases. Don Elder initiated so-called "lignite projects" but technology not there. He took on massive expansion plans in the face of considered advice not to. Racing in to highly speculative ventures that are sold to us as significant, but turn out to be crap. Boom and bust. Same with Mighty River power write-down of $90M, another example of highly speculative deals that are made to appear a great investment, but actually profit arrived from highly risky ventures in geothermal in California, set up as a tax avoidance scheme to 'divert' investment. The Chile venture bombed. Such activity sucks attention of the board away from their core business, which in Solid Energy's case was to adapt to the collapsing coal price. The whole sector of SOE's have taken on gilt edged expansionist mode, that the National party are only too happy to fuel. The core business is simply a cash cow to fund risky ventures needlessly. Such a direction has lead us to the reckless exposure of market forces that will again strangle the cost of energy to consumers.

[elZorro]

It was "only "just over $ 20 million in bonuses over last 2 years EZ !!!! Yes it is indeed a SOE, the best form of business operation and ownership according to you and Shearer, so why is the Government now going to have to jump in and save it with tax payer dollars. What happened ? Oh that's right, all National's fault !

It's not National's fault, it's a result of their policy. If the volume purchased from a coal mine drops, of course the price per tonne delivered has to go up. Then it becomes steadily less cost-competitive in the interim. The value of coal dropping worldwide will only be a temporary thing. Once the USA uses up the new shale oil/gas, it'll be all go again. As the price of coal is currently cheaper from overseas, why has the domestic power price not dropped? Huntly sets the benchmark for expensive power, and all the other generators tag along. So the govt has made extra profits on power, and with the GST on power. When the older parts of Huntly run, it's on a powdered coal brew, most of it imported from Indonesia.

National's new plan is to run down Solid Energy so it's a mere shadow of its former self, but that then exposes NZ to a bigger dependence on overseas energy sources in the short to medium term. And it will also make a lot of people and equipment redundant.

Finally, National has allowed those $20mill of Solid Energy bonuses to be paid out, but they now intend to get that all back from de facto benefit fraudsters. A very few people got the bonuses, and hundreds of people who are probably on low incomes, are going to have to pay it back to the govt (minus the legal costs no doubt). That's 'fair', in National Party terms.

I see Fred114's points too, it's quite likely the Solid Energy business was being pumped up in these oddball areas, and it's backfired.

[Major von Tempsky]

"Once the US uses up all the shale oil/gas".

You should do a bit of reading, Internet is ok for it, start with a Google search.

You'll find the US has so much recoverable shale oil/gas it will last for over a hundred years.

That invalidates your argument. Also, most countries incl even China, are making a conscious effort to move away from coal as an energy source.
Solid Energy is not the easy fix for Labour that you think it is and its present predicament has nothing to do with National, twist, squirm, writhe as you will to try to portray this. Anyone with any business nous at all knows this.

[elZorro]

"Once the US uses up all the shale oil/gas".

You should do a bit of reading, Internet is ok for it, start with a Google search.

You'll find the US has so much recoverable shale oil/gas it will last for over a hundred years.

That invalidates your argument. Also, most countries incl even China, are making a conscious effort to move away from coal as an energy source.
Solid Energy is not the easy fix for Labour that you think it is and its present predicament has nothing to do with National, twist, squirm, writhe as you will to try to portray this. Anyone with any business nous at all knows this.

Touche, MVT.

Wikipedia states that there has been speculation that there might be up to 100 years of natural gas production available. That probably depends on whether coal fired power stations are converted to gas, as we did with Maui. We used up an internationally major gas field in a fairly short time. Also:


A June 2011 New York Times (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/New_York_Times) investigation of industrial emails and internal documents found that the financial benefits of unconventional shale gas extraction may be less than previously thought, due to companies intentionally overstating the productivity of their wells and the size of their reserves.[46] (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/#cite_note-46)


But I have to agree, it would be better for all of us if the coal (and gas) stays in the ground. We should be looking much harder at techniques for extracting biofuels from bacteria or algae, as that pulls the carbon back out of the atmosphere, instead of releasing more from ancient storage.

However, in the meantime we have the ridiculous situation of NZers paying more and more for their energy, the price of coal dropping, and the govt (through SOEs) sacking NZ coalmine workers while they import cheap coal via ports and rail systems. We should be using the ports and rail systems to export more added value items. Heavy machinery, tech gear.

[iceman]

Touche, MVT.


However, in the meantime we have the ridiculous situation of NZers paying more and more for their energy, the price of coal dropping, and the govt (through SOEs) sacking NZ coalmine workers while they import cheap coal via ports and rail systems. We should be using the ports and rail systems to export more added value items. Heavy machinery, tech gear.

So proves the point EZ that Government should stay out of running businesses so shareholders (not tax payers) taking the risk will be rewarded or punished based on the business performance. Simple really.
But Labour, which appointed all the Solid Energy people involved in this fiasco, has the gut to criticise the Government making it sound like John Key did all of this. A bit like the school closures they so much criticise now, forgetting that in 4 years National has closed around 40 schools but Trevor Mallard closed 281 schools in his 9 years at the helm. They must think voters are all stupid and/or have alzheimers.

[elZorro]

So proves the point EZ that Government should stay out of running businesses so shareholders (not tax payers) taking the risk will be rewarded or punished based on the business performance. Simple really.
But Labour, which appointed all the Solid Energy people involved in this fiasco, has the gut to criticise the Government making it sound like John Key did all of this. A bit like the school closures they so much criticise now, forgetting that in 4 years National has closed around 40 schools but Trevor Mallard closed 281 schools in his 9 years at the helm. They must think voters are all stupid and/or have alzheimers.

281 schools? I thought it was 115 at most , from 2002 to 2008, with another 90 voluntary closures. How many new ones were built? Happy to debate real figures.

The idea of the state owning a large portion of the coal production over here would be smart in terms of using assets consistently, providing mining training and employment, rotating cashflow around provincial areas. If we simply buy in coal from overseas, it's of no help in the local economy, and especially bad if the per tonne saving was only minor. The govt can easily recoup the balance from improved taxes from local production, and lower unemployment. They have already been mean in not passing on energy input savings to consumers. They've put themselves in the position of needing every bit of income from a run-down economy.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10867108

John Key must think I have alzheimers. His govt removed the R&D tax credits because they said small businesses will only be rorting the system. He has no faith in small and startup businesses at all. That's one of the reasons why we're in a mess now.

[Fred114]

"Once the US uses up all the shale oil/gas".

You should do a bit of reading, Internet is ok for it, start with a Google search.

You'll find the US has so much recoverable shale oil/gas it will last for over a hundred years.

That invalidates your argument. Also, most countries incl even China, are making a conscious effort to move away from coal as an energy source.
Solid Energy is not the easy fix for Labour that you think it is and its present predicament has nothing to do with National, twist, squirm, writhe as you will to try to portray this. Anyone with any business nous at all knows this.

I think we're getting a bit distracted by "business nous". Being a "state owned enterprise" is a reckless and loathsome means to providing basic necessities, such as power and water. "Business nous" has only blinded leaders into conferring on themselves an appetite for free enterprise, rather than stewardship. Their actions have only confirmed how inefficient this model is for delivering basic services.

[elZorro]

I think we're getting a bit distracted by "business nous". Being a "state owned enterprise" is a reckless and loathsome means to providing basic necessities, such as power and water. "Business nous" has only blinded leaders into conferring on themselves an appetite for free enterprise, rather than stewardship. Their actions have only confirmed how inefficient this model is for delivering basic services.

Hi Fred, I agree with that. Do you mean like the crazy idea of splitting up NZED into smaller competing state-owned enterprises so not one of them builds any more major power stations, because the effect on their individual books would be too horrendous? As it turned out, power demand has flat-lined, just as well. NZED did a good job of looking after our power needs, building installations when and where appropriate, for the good of the country. It acted as a steward, not a profit-making venture. As we are seeing, power prices haven't dropped, even though coal has, and as far as I'm aware, our hydro stations haven't cost a lot to maintain lately. Endusers still pay 25c a kWhr for power from them, even though we have a fair idea the actual running cost of hydro generation is under a cent per kWhr.

In the SST today, Rob O'Neill pointed to all the big failures in NZ lately, leading to more unemployment. In most cases they had "structural or cyclical issues that are industry specific".Telecom was different. This is a big business model that is certainly innovating too. They are buying equipment to make people redundant, and if they can't do that, they outwork helpdesks to overseas, or screw down fault services with contractors.

Rob then said that "We need a lot more F&P Healthcares, Orions, Datacoms, high-value manufacturers and software developers".

Amen to that.

Maria Slade and Rod Oram both had articles dealing with the casino deal in depth. As I had suspected, SkyCity is looking to add 500 gaming machines and another 20 tables, and this will generate an additional revenue of $41mill a year, according to Morningstar analyst Nachi Moghe. By comparison, the convention centre might find it hard to break even with all the competition out there, and if it did OK, the extra EBIT might be $10mill p.a. It's not about the centre at all, it's the gaming machines. Labour's policy of dropping gaming machines back over time, is going to be knocked back in favour of a greedy corporate.

This unfair advantage was picked up by an equally outraged Rod Oram:
(http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/8344053/No-way-to-run-a-country)
"This very sweet deal sends a very clear message: If you want to build a convention centre, school, road, hospital, prison or any other form of infrastructure (in NZ), don't bother with the appropriate processes. Do an end-run around the competition - deal directly with the prime minister.

This is no way to run any country".

[iceman]

281 schools? I thought it was 115 at most , from 2002 to 2008, with another 90 voluntary closures. How many new ones were built? Happy to debate real figures.

The 281 number came from a parliamentary debate I listened to and was not objected to by Labour or Mallard, so I have assumed it is the correct number for ALL school closures during Labour's 9 year tenure

[Major von Tempsky]

A small item in today's newspapers.

NZ is now assessed by Moodys as having a higher credit rating than the UK - NZ Aaa, UK Aa1.

Despite EZ's opinion, one would have to say that this reflects favourably on PM John Key's financial stewardship. :-)

[iceman]

A small item in today's newspapers.

NZ is now assessed by Moodys as having a higher credit rating than the UK - NZ Aaa, UK Aa1.

Despite EZ's opinion, one would have to say that this reflects favourably on PM John Key's financial stewardship. :-)

And most recent polls also indicate most people see through Labour's populist policies and like the "steady as she goes" approach from current Government in a very difficult global climate

[POSSUM THE CAT]

Iceman steady as you go down an ever steepening slope

[elZorro]

Hello PTC, thanks for the moral support. I'm like a leper out here - apart from Fred114.

It would seem that Labour did indeed preside over the closing of 281 schools in their last term. Some had a roll as low as 17, some closed voluntarily, but there you go. Mallard's handling of it was a bit rough too, I seem to remember. I'd guess many of those schools were in rural areas, and are part of the increasing size and reduced labour requirement of many farms.

At least Labour don't make a habit of lying about what they're up to. If National had been able to run the place properly (after Labour left it in such a tidy state), you right-wing people wouldn't need to preface everything with "well the whole world's finding it tough, we're doing better than most, Moody's think we're better than the UK".

National haven't been able to find the tiller yet, we're a rudderless boat being swamped in a vicious market-driven sea.

[Major von Tempsky]

I seem to remember some rather obvious and blatant lies told by Cullen and Peters about a certain phone conversation with Peters....

[iceman]

It would seem that Labour did indeed preside over the closing of 281 schools in their last term. Some had a roll as low as 17, some closed voluntarily, but there you go. Mallard's handling of it was a bit rough too, I seem to remember. I'd guess many of those schools were in rural areas, and are part of the increasing size and reduced labour requirement of many farms.

At least Labour don't make a habit of lying about what they're up to. "..

EZ of course many of the schools Labour closed should have been closed. But if you are going to debate it, be consistent. National is closing 15 schools in Christchurch after the biggest natural catastrophe NZ has ever witnessed, many of them with severely damaged buildings and/or land. This surely is relevant. It should also be mentioned in the same breath that 13 schools are either being rebuilt or built new in Christchurch.

What are you referring to about lies ? National campaigned clearly on all major policies before the elections, including 'unpopular"policies like partial sell downs of SOE's and also gave more advance notice of the election than anyone has done before ! I think John Key has stuck very much to what he has said he would, whether people like it or not

[elZorro]

EZ of course many of the schools Labour closed should have been closed. But if you are going to debate it, be consistent. National is closing 15 schools in Christchurch after the biggest natural catastrophe NZ has ever witnessed, many of them with severely damaged buildings and/or land. This surely is relevant. It should also be mentioned in the same breath that 13 schools are either being rebuilt or built new in Christchurch.

What are you referring to about lies ? National campaigned clearly on all major policies before the elections, including 'unpopular"policies like partial sell downs of SOE's and also gave more advance notice of the election than anyone has done before ! I think John Key has stuck very much to what he has said he would, whether people like it or not

The SkyCity deal is one area Key has put himself on shaky ground. As a commentator put it today, he is parking that aside in some sort of suspended or alternate reality while he waits for the press to forget about it. He clearly used selective facts to present National as having positive policy over gaming machines, when it was Labour's policy origination.

I don't know Christchurch very well, and so I assume some of the noise about the schools closing is the final reality that suburbs near them, will never be built on in future.

My main grump about National is that they are doing their best to leave small businesses out in the cold. And with them, the prospects of employment for many. National is lying, right now, about the new innovation scheme, Callaghan Innovation. They have only funded it to about half as much as it needs with the current staff.

Labour's reshuffle brings some hope to the ranks: David Clark has been given the job of going head-to-head with Steven Joyce. He was on TV this morning, he's very good. Dynamic, enthusiastic, fluent. I think Jabba Joyce will be in big trouble there.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Shearer-reveals-Labours-new-shadow-Cabinet-lineup/tabid/1607/articleID/288034/Default.aspx

[Major von Tempsky]

The vast majority of voters, particularly Aucklanders, see no need to apologise for getting Auckland a huge new Convention Centre, free, with extra tourism, employment, profits, self respect as a city - you have to have a bent for defeatism, punctiliousness, finickiness and losing sight of the overall objective and muddling your priorities to get it wrong.

As Australian Labour said of the Australian Greens - the Party of Protest, opposing growth and jobs. That's the anti-convention centre people in Auckland to a T.

[POSSUM THE CAT]

ElZorro what did you expect when they elected a professional gambler for Prime Minister (what else is a foreign exchange trader) But I am not that much of a Labour fan either. My belief is most politicians would qualify to be certified blithering idiots.

[janner]

ElZorro what did you expect when they elected a professional gambler for Prime Minister (what else is a foreign exchange trader) But I am not that much of a Labour fan either. My belief is most politicians would qualify to be certified blithering idiots.

With forked tongues..

[POSSUM THE CAT]

janner do you qualify alongside the politicians. I overheard a person asked a minister of the church if God loved crooked politicians? When the minister replied no. He was then asked why he made so many of them? Could you name some totally honest ones? You are accusing us of talking with forked tongues (basically being liars) for expressing our honest opinions. My honest opinion of your post gives me the impression that you think the sun shines out of John Key's rear end.

[BIRMANBOY]

Read the POST more carefully...even my cats have longer attention spans than you.
janner do you qualify alongside the politicians. I overheard a person asked a minister of the church if God loved crooked politicians? When the minister replied no. He was then asked why he made so many of them? Could you name some totally honest ones? You are accusing us of talking with forked tongues (basically being liars) for expressing our honest opinions. My honest opinion of your post gives me the impression that you think the sun shines out of John Key's rear end.

[elZorro]

Read the POST more carefully...even my cats have longer attention spans than you.


SP [QUOTE]..even my cats have a longer attention span than you. would technically be better BB. I thought we were discussing politics. However I think PTC's posts are of top quality considering he's mature enough to think twice about right-of-centre policy.

Last night (or was it this morning) John Key was asked if using ACT to get back in in 2014 would be a trifle embarrassing. He said that since the National Party is only slightly right of central, and he's basically centrist, there is a bit of room available to head right, but that National's best results come when they head back towards the centre.

Here's a clue about what to expect from National before 2014. They'll start looking like Labour. Only for long enough to try to get back in, however.

What is their real agenda - we've been seeing that already in 2013. They like to see lots of unemployed, for one. This means businesses that are left, the bigger ones in general, are doing very well. As an employer, I get the odd contact from other employers. They're saying that in the provinces you can get a highly skilled equipment operator for $25 an hour, who also takes charge of other staff. You have trained commercial painters earning just $16.50 an hour. These are not wage rates that will set your family up. But people have to take those pay rates, or nothing. Take off rent, the costs of getting to work, and there's not a great deal left. 20% of NZers are struggling to make ends meet now, according to a survey.

[janner]

Read the POST more carefully...even my cats have longer attention spans than you.

Thank you BIRMANBOY.. hopefuly PTC will work it out.. :-))

As for " you think the sun shines out of John Key's rear end. "... Not at all.. I refer to him as " Your St. John " when speaking to a friend of mine.. Who thinks it does..

[janner]

[QUOTE=BIRMANBOY;394941]Read the POST more carefully...even my cats have longer attention spans than you.


SP would technically be better BB. I thought we were discussing politics. However I think PTC's posts are of top quality considering he's mature enough to think twice about right-of-centre policy.

Last night (or was it this morning) John Key was asked if using ACT to get back in in 2014 would be a trifle embarrassing. He said that since the National Party is only slightly right of central, and he's basically centrist, there is a bit of room available to head right, but that National's best results come when they head back towards the centre.

Here's a clue about what to expect from National before 2014. They'll start looking like Labour. Only for long enough to try to get back in, however.

What is their real agenda - we've been seeing that already in 2013. They like to see lots of unemployed, for one. This means businesses that are left, the bigger ones in general, are doing very well. As an employer, I get the odd contact from other employers. They're saying that in the provinces you can get a highly skilled equipment operator for $25 an hour, who also takes charge of other staff. You have trained commercial painters earning just $16.50 an hour. These are not wage rates that will set your family up. But people have to take those pay rates, or nothing. Take off rent, the costs of getting to work, and there's not a great deal left. 20% of NZers are struggling to make ends meet now, according to a survey.

What survey is this EZ ????..

Did it ask how many fags they go through a week ??. Burgers ?.. Bottles of fizzy drinks ?.. Grog ?..

I am not saying that there are not cases of hardship out there..

Just doubting the 20%.

[elZorro]

[QUOTE=elZorro;394996]

What survey is this EZ ????..

Did it ask how many fags they go through a week ??. Burgers ?.. Bottles of fizzy drinks ?.. Grog ?..

I am not saying that there are not cases of hardship out there..

Just doubting the 20%.


I heard this figure on National Radio this morning. The terms were vague but the percentage had gone up.

Article: PR from National. Sure.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10867563

Read the comment from Murray.

Corin Dann exhorts the govt to remember about jobs.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10867482

[slimwin]

I'm surprised you'd listen to a station called "National radio" EZ. Lol

[janner]

EZ. I have gone to the site you recommended..Read Murray's comment.. See below.

" murray
09:07 AM Tuesday, 26 Feb 2013Yet another promotional piece from the National party press secretary Fran O'Sullivan.

Meanwhile, in the real world, youth unemployment grows, industries close, jobs are exported and our kids lose hope. And this clueless government just sits on its hands and concentrates on it's prime mission of transferring the nations wealth into private hands. "..

Nothing in Murray's post refered to 20% struggling..

You say...

I heard this figure on National Radio this morning. The terms were vague but the percentage had gone up.

When asked you give a VAGUE reference to a VAGUE radio programme..

Not good enough EZ... Simply not good enough..

Run along then... There's a good boy !!...

[elZorro]

EZ. I have gone to the site you recommended..Read Murray's comment.. See below.

" murray
09:07 AM Tuesday, 26 Feb 2013Yet another promotional piece from the National party press secretary Fran O'Sullivan.

Meanwhile, in the real world, youth unemployment grows, industries close, jobs are exported and our kids lose hope. And this clueless government just sits on its hands and concentrates on it's prime mission of transferring the nations wealth into private hands. "..

Nothing in Murray's post refered to 20% struggling..

You say...

I heard this figure on National Radio this morning. The terms were vague but the percentage had gone up.

When asked you give a VAGUE reference to a VAGUE radio programme..

Not good enough EZ... Simply not good enough..

Run along then... There's a good boy !!...

Don't get so wound up Janner, have I ever been wrong? The figure was actually 22%, not 20%. Here's a link to what I heard on National Radio 101FM.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2547504/more-people-struggling-to-make-ends-meet

[janner]

Don't get so wound up Janner, have I ever been wrong? The figure was actually 22%, not 20%. Here's a link to what I heard on National Radio 101FM.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2547504/more-people-struggling-to-make-ends-meet

" have I ever been wrong? ".. YES !!..

Run along now.. time for bed..

[elZorro]

" have I ever been wrong? ".. YES !!..

Run along now.. time for bed..

You just might suit this phrase Janner:

un petit con arrogant, aux airs supérieurs

[janner]

You just might suit this phrase Janner:

un petit con arrogant, aux airs supérieurs

Oui mon petite choux.. Je suis Anglais.. :-))

[janner]

No reply.. Ooops .. Sent 10:38. Past lock up time.. :-))

Maybe reply tomorrow..

[elZorro]

No reply.. Ooops .. Sent 10:38. Past lock up time.. :-))

Maybe reply tomorrow..

What do you mean, My little cabbage, I am English??

I have to admit google provided my phrase, so I hope it's accurate. :D

Genesis has predictably made good profit in the last 6 months. (Your power bill has accordingly been reduced).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10867822

National has decided to increase the minimum wage. By 25c, to $13.75. Woop de doo. It's small enough that hardly any employers will need to bother doing anything.

But National will now be able to say that "we have increased the minimum wage".

[Major von Tempsky]

Never occurred to EZ that those on the minimum wage are using it as a stepping stone, experience then switch, or are not after a brain surgeon wages but a bit of part time pin money or are handicapped in some way and in some sort of care....

[janner]

What do you mean, My little cabbage, I am English??

I have to admit google provided my phrase, so I hope it's accurate. :D .

Just agreeing with your Google provided phrase..

You have the word Yes missing from your Google translation.

[elZorro]

Just agreeing with your Google provided phrase..

You have the word Yes missing from your Google translation.

Thank goodness the govt will be able to go ahead and sell off part of the assets previous generations worked hard for (MRP), to secure cheap power for the country in later years. They need the money so desperately (of course they could simply print it instead).

But not before National had to restate their position on water rights. So it's a small win for common sense and respect for the Treaty.

[POSSUM THE CAT]

ElZorro I believe the National Gov't gave the maoris lake Taupo so can they now divert or Export the water if they cannot charge for it

[elZorro]

ElZorro I believe the National Gov't gave the maoris lake Taupo so can they now divert or Export the water if they cannot charge for it

Not sure what you mean there PTC. From what little I think I know, 50% of the special trout fishing licence for Taupo is paid to the local tribe. They also have to be consulted on anything affecting the lake and lake bed, for example the golf-ball promo area near the main street pays the tribe members to collect golf balls hit into the lake. The effect of all this is that anything impacting on the pristine state of Lake Taupo has been under control. It remains one of the cleanest, clearest water bodies in the world. And that alone feeds tourism. You can still find old untouched areas of Taupo if you look, and that suits me fine.

[POSSUM THE CAT]

el Zorro Iron man competitors were each asked to pay a fee for the swim leg. As it was regarded as a commercial enterprise as an entry fee was being charged. Apparently they have full rights to charge any commercial venture that wishes to use the lake. When the power company is privatised it becomes A commercial enterprise so could it charge for the water or divert it elsewhere. I would like to know all the legal infrastructure of this. I Suspect this could be an absolute legal minefield.

[janner]

Thank goodness the govt will be able to go ahead and sell off part of the assets previous generations worked hard for (MRP), to secure cheap power for the country in later years. They need the money so desperately (of course they could simply print it instead).

But not before National had to restate their position on water rights. So it's a small win for common sense and respect for the Treaty.

EZ.. Where did you get the information that the ..

" previous generations worked hard for (MRP), to secure cheap power for the country in later years " ..

EZ..
They borrowed the money.. Not to provide " cheap power for the country in later years " ..

They borrowed the money to provide themselves ( The greedy self centred bastards ) with POWER.

For their " Radios ".. " Milking sheds ".. " lights " .. " Pumps ".. Jobs...

You and I ( well maybe I as a none State tit sucking person ) have helped to repay those borrowings..

Are we .. The majority .. Not alllowed to use and direct the investments made by our Fore Fathers ( sexist statement ) for greater use.. ??..

[Major von Tempsky]

Seems to have totally escaped EZ that the Gummint will still own 51% of MRP....

[janner]

Seems to have totally escaped EZ that the Gummint will still own 51% of MRP....

Could it be because he thinks ( loose use of the word ) His Government paycheck may be reduced by 49%.. ??

[elZorro]

Russell Norman put Bill English on the spot today: the state asset sales will in fact make the govt books worse, technically. I told you they do their homework, the Greens. The return on all the asset sales is going to be less than 5-7 Billion. Less than 10% of one year's tax take. If National knew what they were doing, they'd have made this amount in extra taxes over the last 4 years. But they're just plonkers. The tax take has drifted down from Labour's high point.

Janner, Labour did their level best to repay old debts a few years back, and anyway we did really well in the 60s and early 70s, when all the hydro assets were being built. Your problem is that you're in a generation where energy costs are higher. Hold onto your hat, because unless some stuff gets sorted out, it'll get a lot worse. That's partly why we're all struggling.

At last, some hope for local manufacturing. Part of the reason is the high transport costs to ship goods to market.

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-insourcing-boom/309166/#.UOOZYKuaTGE.mailto

[slimwin]

Russell Norman is a clown. Made another mention in an opinion piece by Brian Fallow.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10868175

[iceman]

Russell Norman put Bill English on the spot today: the state asset sales will in fact make the govt books worse, technically. I told you they do their homework, the Greens. The return on all the asset sales is going to be less than 5-7 Billion. Less than 10% of one year's tax take. If National knew what they were doing, they'd have made this amount in extra taxes over the last 4 years. But they're just plonkers. The tax take has drifted down from Labour's high point.


He did not put English on the spot at all. English simply replied that owning Solid Energy has not made the books look better in the last couple of years and if it was as simple as Norman claims, we should just adopt his policy of printing endless money and buy up all the supermarkets and other businesses in NZ. Based on what you and Norman say, the way to balance the books is for the Government to own all businesses in NZ.

I am surprised you haven't mentioned the good news we've had this week EZ. A few examples:
FPA creating 100 new high tech jobs in NZ,
ANZ business outlook survey the most optimistic for a long time,
large increase in building consents,
economists forecasting on average 2.5% growth PA for next 3 years.
And King Salmon adding 4 new salmon farms creating an estimated 170 new jobs, which is a direct result of current Government's changes to the law, removing the nuts moratorium policy of Labour that saw NOT ONE new aquaculture farm built between 2000-2010 and almost killed the industry.

[elZorro]

From NZResources/RadioNZ:


English puts some truth serum into SOE debate

1 March 2013
Finance Minister Bill English told Parliament yesterday that the Government books could be worse off if it proceeds with its plan to sell off part of State-owned power companies.
However, Radio New Zealand said English told Parliament the partial sale of shares will help boost the capital markets and impose private sector disciplines on the State owned enterprises (SOEs).
During Question Time Green Party co-leader Russel Norman asked English whether the half-year economic and fiscal update revealed the operating balance before gains and losses would be $441 million worse off over the next five years if the sales went ahead.
English said it did, but argued that other measures show the Government would be better off.
He warned against putting too much confidence in the forecasts, saying last year the Treasury had predicted that Solid Energy would make a profit and got that spectacularly wrong.
Source: radionz.co.nz


Yes, that's very good news that Haier/FPA will employ about 100 engineers to work on new R&D projects here. Haier have been as good as their word so far. Now it's up to current and new staff to come up with some suitable results.

Salmon farming projects - sounded like a lot of cash to get through the hearing stages, for a project where the sea would clean up any problems if the farms ceased operating. According to King Salmon anyway. Fish are much better at converting food to flesh, than land animals in general. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio) I didn't know there was a moratorium. It's taken 4 years into a National term for anything to happen, so maybe it's not as simple as it sounds.

[iceman]

From NZResources/RadioNZ:

I didn't know there was a moratorium. It's taken 4 years into a National term for anything to happen, so maybe it's not as simple as it sounds.

Yes it has been a long and expensive process for King Salmon to get this through and they did not get all they wanted. But I think the decision now is a fair compromise between the opposing views and allows economic growth in a very sensitive and beautiful environment , without undue environmental risks. My next door neighbour is a marine biologist and did some of the research about effects of salmon farming in the proposed areas and agrees with KS that nature would fairly quickly clean any residual effects left from the farm should it be discontinued.
I think we can both agree that this decision has been a good compromise.

[Major von Tempsky]

"Another opinion poll has shown National riding high and holding a big lead over Labour.

The Roy Morgan poll released on Friday puts National on 47.5 per cent, up 3.5 points, and Labour down four points to 30.5 per cent.

A One News Colmar Brunton poll on February 17 gave National 49 per cent and Labour 33 per cent, followed by TV3's Reid Research poll a week later showing National holding 51.4 per cent and Labour 32.6 per cent.

In all three polls National's support is higher than its election night 47.31 per cent.

Labour is also up on its 27.48 per cent election result but the gap between the main parties is still close to the 20 point mark.". :-)