Labour govt 2020-23

[Balance]

Don’t worry too much about the future - Labour’s aim by 2023 is clearly to put in place a UIE (universal income entitlement) and make as many of the population as dependent on the government as possible to entrench its voters’ base - breeding beneficiaries is its singular focus with all of its free spending no holds bar welfare policies.

[Panda-NZ-]

Australia is on track for a credit rating downgrade (1T debt bomb) while ours is overdue for an upgrade I think.

[Panda-NZ-]

The finance minister has taken the Aussie banks to task for ripping profits out of NZ by removing most of them from default kiwisaver provision.

10% of our kiwisaver balances gone in fees alone while sir John of ANZ was in charge.

[SBQ]

The finance minister has taken the Aussie banks to task for ripping profits out of NZ by removing most of them from default kiwisaver provision.

10% of our kiwisaver balances gone in fees alone while sir John was in charge!

This morning I had a courtesy call from my BNZ manager that by July 1st, they will not longer be accepting cheque deposits. Interesting outcome how the NZ gov't brought in these AML / FMA / CRS regulations trying to deter $ laundering - as I explained to her all this has done is punish the businesses in NZ and it does nothing in addressing those (organised crime / patch gangs) from conducting business. I also explained to her how all the major banks in NZ are foreign owned and asked, "Where do the profits go?"

Indeed these Australian banks are ripping the profits out of NZ through all the residential lending. I wouldn't point the finger at Kiwi Saver for all the $ leaving NZ.

Not sure where the 10% figure on KS balances are coming from? You must be factoring all the taxes that all these NZ managed funds fail clearly disclose?

[Panda-NZ-]

1 % each year in fees to the Aussie banks (who have closed regional branches) over 9 years or so years.

[macduffy]

1 % each year in fees to the Aussie banks (who have closed regional branches) over 9 years or so years.

If you can't beat them, buy them!

[Zaphod]

I always wondered how it was so easy for migrants between both NZ & Aus can freely move between both countries. No visa requirement!! Coming from Canada, the US treats the skilled Cdn moving to the US no different than any OTHER skilled migrant from another country (and vice versa). When we had that Chch mosque shooting, that question came up again. I'm seeing nothing but baddies moving between both countries. Australia rejects law breaking Kiwis living there and sends them back here. That Tarrent guy exploited NZ's ease for Australians to move over. The real question I ask is who are the people that are really benefiting from the Aus/NZ free migration pact deal? Our skilled doctors and nurses moving to Aus for the better climate and higher pay? What % of Aus are we seeing coming over to NZ? What if we close that deal and go back to having borders ; where would that leave NZ if the Visa process became a requirement no different to how other countries treat migrants?

New Zealand citizens traveling to Australia to live & work do actually require a visa, which in this case is a subcategory 444 visa but which does not require any pre-travel application or payment and is issued at discretion of the immigration agent once you present yourself at the border. The reciprocal arrangement is implemented in a similar fashion for Australian citizens wishing to live & work in New Zealand.

From a Canadian perspective, If I remember correctly, there were some roles which had the automatic right to work in the USA under the NAFTA agreement. The roles were very limited and there were restrictions, but that's probably the closest comparison.

In terms of the Tarrent situation, there appears to be nothing to alert authorities that he would become a threat. He wasn't on any watch lists, hadn't previously committed a crime, but his travel patterns did appear suspicious in hindsight. I think it would be unlikely that any of the other categories of NZ visas would have be able to filter out his intent.

[Zaphod]

Microsoft data centres moving to NZ.
Amazon LOTR film production bringing more attention to nz.

We do need to make it easier for tech workers but there was too much low skill immigration.

Data centres don't provide very much ongoing economic benefit aside from their initial construction or on-going lease, maintenance, & electricity consumption costs.

Filming in NZ always seems to involve vast quantities of tax relief & general subsidies before companies agree to produce films here. The last economic analysis I skim read stated that it was of a net benefit to the country, but it would be nice if the highly profitable studios could foot the bill themselves don't you think?

The finance minister has taken the Aussie banks to task for ripping profits out of NZ by removing most of them from default kiwisaver provision.
.

Really? I think this statement made by David Clark illustrates why the new providers were chosen: "The six default providers were selected because they offer the best value for money for their members in terms of lower fees and higher levels of service."

Besides which, there are still a number of Australian owned firms on the default provider list.

[Zaphod]

HM NZG's priorities: 1. Making sure the housing market does not implode 2. Not to introduce a general CGT, which is basically a subset of 1.

We're a simple folk here in NZ aren't we? Keeping our ambitions to a minimum.

[SBQ]

New Zealand citizens traveling to Australia to live & work do actually require a visa, which in this case is a subcategory 444 visa but which does not require any pre-travel application or payment and is issued at discretion of the immigration agent once you present yourself at the border. The reciprocal arrangement is implemented in a similar fashion for Australian citizens wishing to live & work in New Zealand.

From a Canadian perspective, If I remember correctly, there were some roles which had the automatic right to work in the USA under the NAFTA agreement. The roles were very limited and there were restrictions, but that's probably the closest comparison.

In terms of the Tarrent situation, there appears to be nothing to alert authorities that he would become a threat. He wasn't on any watch lists, hadn't previously committed a crime, but his travel patterns did appear suspicious in hindsight. I think it would be unlikely that any of the other categories of NZ visas would have be able to filter out his intent.

The visa is given at border upon arrival is the biggest distinction (no prior arrangement required) which is basically... a free ticket to going to Australia from NZ. You just say you're looking for employment and they rubber stamp you with the visa (at least this is how this was described by my cousins who left to Aus over 10 or 15 years ago).

Hold on there about your NAFTA statement. They are entirely different to what we have with NZ & Australia:

1) No person is allowed to search for employment. Ie the Cdn that is gaining employing in the US must ONLY be done so by invitation by the US employer and like any visa. Not go and visit the US and hand out a bunch of resumes trying to find the right job.

2) The most distinctive difference between NZ/Aus and the USMCA is neither Cdn or American can obtain full permanent residency. The reason is under the TN visa, the applicant must demonstrate INTENT to MOVE back. Therefore the Cdn under a TN visa is not the path for a green card (despite the TN visa can indefinitely be renewed - this rarely happens. - ie borders service will wonder after 9 years you're application to keep renewing is well... no demonstration to move back to Canada and will deny the application). Instead the path to getting the green card residency is under the H-1B visa which ding ding! treats migrants no different than ANY OTHER person around the world applying for a work visa.

Overall the deal with NAFTA was not about employment migration but rather, about COMMERCIAL TRADE. The USMCA made the trade field more equitable such as Canada allowing more dairy imports from the US (by trying to abolish these absurd high import tariffs) and by allowing companies to send their staff to either countries freely to promote their products at ie. trade shows, etc. this means the goods and services would freely cross borders. But hardly a comparison to what NZ/Aus has which basically has an open door policy for migration between both countries.

The issue with Tarrent, as in his manifest, citing that NZ was an easy place for him to move over and obtain firearms. It may be highly probably that if NZ / Aus didn't have open borders, then at best he may of only come to NZ as a tourist. Just look over in the US/Canada and see how many cases of foreign visitors obtaining firearms and shooting people up? What i'm getting at is the 1st line of defense is not at the firearms licensing level but at the border security.