NZ short of 500 hospital beds; 200,000 waiting for appointments; MSD drops homelessness plan; 30% need help buying food; National breaks e-chargers promise; Inside our migrant abuse industrial complex
And in conjunction with government proposed changes to citizens arrest laws!
Currently, citizen's arrests are limited to serious crimes or offenses occurring at night. Proposed changes would allow citizens to 'intervene' and 'detain anyone' for ANY Crimes Act offense, at any time of the day, by using reasonable force.
Bishop says the charger scheme was done on the back of a fag packet. So this scheme had significantly more analysis than most of the coalitions projects then?
Excellent, and depressing, point! Again the question not being asked (that is see) - is the assumption of ‘range anxiety stops people buying EVs’ based in fact? Look at the range of modern EVs available in NZ now then look at google maps, unless you routinely do 300km+ driving a day most people will charge at home with minimal Dc charging.
It's not that I need to routinely do that drive, if you mean daily or weekly. I know I'm going to do it from time to time, as well as other similar drives. I could rent a vehicle for those trips. Not appealing. I appreciate that in one of the urban centers the scenario is different, and a variety of car share/hire schemes are also more accessible.
For you it is, and I have family in the SI who also need charging infrastructure. However do you need 10,000 chargers, or something closer to 100?
To me 10,000 chargers suggest we need a huge density of chargers in the Golden Triangle (Auckland-Waikato-Tauranga) where most people live and that just isn’t true.
To be clear - absolutely NZ needs more chargers and especially strategically placed on state highways. But that is probably better to be a small number of large charging stations, already being done by BP and Shell in the NI, not thousands.
Language like this, and having idiots like Simeon involved, is pushing back EV adoption in Nz.
Yes I agree Andrew, it wouldn't take many charging stations in the SI to make a huge difference. I wouldn't mind having to stop along the way. I wouldn't mind having to schedule it ahead of time. The issue appears to be with the capacity of the existing lines themselves, so it's a chain of power infrastructure that needs upgrading. How that gets done without central government support is an open question. I envision a rollout more like Crown Infrastructure Partners.
Merav (buy a 60K EV) and Bernard (just charge at home) fail to acknowledge the difficulty of the issues involved. You cannot set out to drive distances in the SI without seriously considering the charging options available.
The estimates of EV uptake (2% now, 11% by 2030) seems a bit optimistic too. This announcement isn't exactly going to drive uptake after they tanked the market with the removal of the feebate system and bringing in RUCs with no realistic timeframe for putting RUCs on petrol vehicles.
True. But my point is you don't HAVE to buy that kind of EV as mostly you will not use it more than the 200km range.
The issue in NZ is that we got so caught up in the EV debate that we stopped talking about the one thing that will not only massively reduce emissions but also save people a lot of money - other transport modes. Rail, light rail and cycling (Well, we do talk about cycling but that's mainly in the form of culture war).
Jeez, what depressing set of news! If it's hard to read, I can only imagine how hard it must be to collect it.
Yet as the dad of two kids in the 20s, this one hits me the hardest: "Thirty percent of people have needed help over the past year to get food – for example, from foodbanks, friends, family or Work and Income"
And we got to this situation by the choice of our governments, more than by circumstances... It does not have to be this way :-(
As Luxon hob nobs with the leaders of states and members of royal families at a Pope Francis funeral he too should pause to consider that he will be judged on how he responds to the needs of the vulnerable
Thanks Bernard. What a ghastly set of headlines. Glad you profiled that story about Cleaning Franchises. Our schools are full of them. Another story developing out my way ; Shane Jones sticky beaking into Council consultation on proposed deed of management of Waitakere Ranges as required by the 2008 Waitakere Heritage Protection Act. No doubt he will want to open the ranges up for mining and tree felling.
Some of the social media commentary has been down right horrid. Misinformation about changes to access, fearmongering about the proposal (which they are asking for feedback on) and racist troupe's directed at Kawerau ā Maki which few of us have tried to stop or call out when seen. Submissions close at midnight tonight. The Deed is in response to Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 which specified a deed of acknowledgement with the identified tangata whenua in the act and requires an acknowledgement to Kawerau ā Maki and to identify opportunities to collaborate on management of the area. It's taken 17 years to get to this proposal since legislation was passed. It's taken me quite a bit of reading on the 6 page proposed Deed, and then watching the recorded presentation, to get my head around what I'll actually submit today.
What I understood is that the Council and DOC staff have to manage complexity in silo's across multiple bodies and responsibilities, and the proposal to create a Strategic Plan, Work programmes, and Monitoring through one coordinating Joint Committee (Council/DOC/Kawerau ā Maki with provision for the other iwi when their Deed is sorted) -- increasing joint collaboration at a systems level.
The elected Councillors of Auck Council still manage the Long Term Plan and Budget's etc, as do DOC, so their are controls on this - but at least their should be aligned prioritisation in the plan/programmes. In the recording one of the Council staff said that the Mayor had been clear that this proposal would occur within existing financial delegations - putting to bed some of the rhetoric I've seen in the social media. Anyway, it strikes me that there is opportunities for increased transparency and engagement for the long term good of the Area and so that the 2008 Act objectives are assured.
I do have questions related to what the Terms of Reference will include for engagement and ensuring no duplication between the proposed Joint Committee and the Local Boards for residents and community groups - hence why I appreciate the opportunity to submit on the proposal.
All good. During my 'research' before I submitted in support of the proposal I also found these links. One from Te Kawerau ā Maki that explains their proposal about the heart of the ngahere (which some of the Traditional Trampers have conflated with the proposal for the Deed and saying access will be restricted, when the Deed is proposing a 'how' to prepare a plan going forward). One is the FAQ's from AC that specifically answers to the proposal in relation to the Heart of the Ngahere idea.
One from Democracy in Action which I found after a local published a brochure from them left in her letterbox - the misinformation and concerted attack on democracy is awful.
The change in policy in regards to EV chargers is totally on form for this government. The reality of the costs and mechanics of installing 10,000 chargers has been impressed on them, probably by the lines companies whose grid infrastructure falls far short of the capacity necessary to provide the current demanded for DC chargers in many regions.
So, the stock solution is to transfer the costs and responsibilities to third parties, while also reducing the total sum available to do the works. This is just another case of creative bookkeeping to make it seem like they're balancing their accounts, in line with Councils being saddled with 3 waters provisions and ports being made to pay for ferry terminal upgrades.
Such an EV promoting strategy would carry so much more relevance if accompanied by incentivisation of rooftop solar. One of the leading criticisms of EV adoption is the added demand they will place on our national generation capacity. If EV owners were able to gain government assistance to install their own generation, in the form of solar, that argument is nullified.
We have 2 EVs that derive >95% of their charging from our own solar generation. That not only reduces our grid demand significantly but also makes the economics of investing in solar significantly better due the the portion of our generation that we can consume 'behind the meter'. We are also in the process of installing additional solar capacity which will result in us being net generation positive on an annual basis while also putting us in a position to use one of our EVs in a V2G capacity, and potentially also going off grid in due course. The current grid model incentivises selfish consumption of home solar generation to the detriment of public benefit. Moves towards government support of the EV + PV model is much needed if NZ is remotely serious about EV adoption and emissions reduction.
There's also the problem of grid infrastructure capacity (i.e. the existing cables and componentry aren't big enough to supply the current required). The lines companies are well aware of this situation and the solution is far from cheap or easily upgraded. I guess someone from the Beehive has had an approach from the guys that actually own the supply networks educating them about the mechanics of installing DC chargers. And guess what, home based, PV supplied charging actually reduces demand across that same grid infrastructure.
None of this is wrong - my challenge would be we don’t specifically need matched home PV supply to EV demand and it doesn’t necessarily work for people whose cars spend Monday-Friday daylight hours at the office.
The current grid is sized to meet peak load: if home EV charging off-peak, ideally flexibly, it doesn’t add to grid demand and in fact better uses existing assets. Now you still need the generation but home solar costs more per kWh than commercial or grid scale.
I agree that utility or grid scale solar is cheaper per kW/MW of capacity than domestic 'rooftop' systems but there are two economic advantages.
Firstly the electricity we import ('buy') from the grid doesn't reflect the cost of the generation it is sourced from due to our poorly structured grid generation price model (thanks Max Bradford) so self generation can therefore still be leveraged to potentially have less than an 8 year ROI. Utility scale should be significantly more economically viable.
Secondly additional generation capacity resulting from distributed rooftop solar is paid for by its owner so much reduced government investment required to boost national capacity. In this respect incentivisation of domestic solar presents a cost saving for the government in the wider picture.
My first point is well recognised and is the crux of what Shane Jones intended to address in the wake of last winter's electricity crisis - waiting, waiting... The wholesale electricity price is dictated by the most expensive generation method needed at any given 30 minute period so cheap generation becomes expensive solely because it's in the common pool. That is why the suggestion of importing LNG for generation is such a poor one. When used to satisfy peak demand it will raise the wholesale price even further, with an energy source that is dirtier than coal when shipping and processing inputs are accounted for. Also worth reading Brett Christophers' book The Price is Wrong which goes into the economic complexities of renewable generation's barriers against widespread grid uptake. https://www.unibooks.co.nz/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=176277
My other point is based on the logic that widespread adoption of rooftop solar would add significant generation capacity to the grid and would be privately owned and funded by property owners rather than requiring public investment. Australia's strategy in incentivising rooftop solar has resulted in over 3GW of distributed solar capacity, subsidised by the government but largely paid for by private entities. https://cleanenergycouncil.org.au/news-resources/rooftop-solar-and-storage-report-july-to-december-2024 so much solar capacity that Australia is now having to change their generation blend and restrict solar input as their base generation is from coal which is inflexible in regard to reducing as a result of the fluctuations presented by solar (and wind) generation. Our hydro based model is far better suited to solar as hydro can be ramped up or down very quickly and hydro generation offset by solar means that the storage capacity can be saved for later, so essentially a huge grid scale battery. This is the strategy that Jack Tame tried to impress on Simeon Brown in their Q&A interview but Simeon was blinkered by other ideologies.
The sheer pace at which we continue to go backwards is astounding. The number you share here Bernard show that we are missing around 4.5% of hospital beds (500/11,000) and the waitlist is also around 4% of our current population (200k out of 5.2 million).
What we all need to be shouting about is how this reflects the limited per-capita (nominal decrease of -1.3% per person between 2024 and 2025) and the even bigger inflation adjusted decrease oof -4.5%). See Craig Renney's CTU analysis here: https://union.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Budget-2024-health-Final-v.3.pdf
Against the backdrop of this what is also missing is the general consensus from insurance businesses (for example here: https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/nz/news/life-insurance/new-zealands-medical-costs-surge-among-apacs-highest-528323.aspx but also commentary from the likes of Aon, another insurance advisors) that NZ nows has has the dubious distinction of having amonsgt the highest medical inflation in both APAC and indeed the world. The short headline number is that our medical trend rates have doubled in the past 12 months from 7.5% in 2024 to 14.5% in 2025. The outcome of this is thta health insurance premiums will significantly rise - ranging from 22% to 27% for some group schemes.
In addition I recently read this commentary on USA health where they talked to the immigration: the public health system being filled with people from the Philippines, other ASEAN countries, east Europe, and so on. These are the same countries we look to draw our back-up labour force from. A system under pressure is going to be a much less attractive employment option when you also have global choices.
The net outcome is likely to be that the magic panacea of using private outsourcing to prop up our public health system will fail. And it will inequitably. Those without insurance will suffer, those who have insurance via their work will also most likely come under pressure as those cost pressures hit businesses.
Lets get out and support the Doctors this May Day.
While this talks about putting "patients first", the implications are that this will lead to a systemic reduction in the quality of the medical professionals in our country. Forced changes to the scope of practice will mean physicians operating outside their capabilities, and without the legal system to cover malpractice this will mean more cost to taxpayers through ACC etc.
That consultation document is one of worst I have ever read. It is full of bad ideological assertions about the cost of regulation, devoid of any facts to back up its assertions, talks about choice and competition not patient safety, does not provide analysis based on the reality of a primarily public health system (it seems to be aiming at facilitating more privatisation), and all examples and 'case studies' given are an exercise in pre-determination. All to make lots of noise to divert attention away from the real cuts to health that our Minister of Household Finance introduced in the last budget.
Yes it is a shocker that is full of leading questions. I would say we would be seriously considering moving offshore if this goes through. It just won’t be safe enough for people here who need medical care.
Fascinating to compare what is provided for under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (the current legislation on medical certification) and what is suggested in the discussion document. Did any of the discussion document authors read what happens under the Act - it requires laypeople on certification boards, it allows the Minister to request a performance review, it has audit provisions. So much of what the discussion document is suggesting should happen already either happens or the Minister has the power already to make it happen.
And the bad news just keeps flooding in. Taking a step back, it’s pretty obvious to anyone looking that Neoliberalism is the feature, not the bug, in a political system that is rapidly collapsing taking the economy and our way of life with it. MMP hasn’t helped much either allowing the fringe to wag the centre, which just throws fuel on the fire making it difficult for traditional ‘centrist’ governments (of either persuasion) to course correct.
Instead of urgent remedial action and a pivot to fresh thinking, the current government is embracing austerity, which some think isn’t austere enough. Meanwhile the cabinet of status quo disciples are hoping and praying for ‘growth’ to miraculously save the day. Praise be. While that fantasy plays out they continue to preside (and pray some more) over a housing market with bits tacked on further defying gravity. That’s a troubled strategy if ever I saw one, particularly if the housing market falters or the bits fall off.
And those in charge are wait for it…neoliberal managerialists. Their potential replacements in 2026 are…can you guess? Correct, neoliberal managerialists. And so it goes…
Yeah pretty grim reading. Particularly evil is that practice of having cleaners become solo practitioners in order to avoid minimum wage. Just when you think you're across the ugliness, there's another layer.
"Back of the envelope" as part of an election campaign? Seriously? And these people portray themselves as better financial managers than the other lot. As for 10,000 chargers - what about really good public transport in cities instead of some of them. As has been pointed out above, if you don't go far on a regular basis you can charge from home. Where they are really needed is between cities, in rural areas, especially for evs that don't have a huge range. The whole thing needs rethinking. As does the "growth" mantra - that's a whole other story.
Mr Seymour thinks that tax payer funded choice is important for our children by way of Charter Schools, - regardless of the cost. Perhaps he could promote that concept to the Minister of Health!
Dropping Police recruiting standards is a terrible decision.
And in conjunction with government proposed changes to citizens arrest laws!
Currently, citizen's arrests are limited to serious crimes or offenses occurring at night. Proposed changes would allow citizens to 'intervene' and 'detain anyone' for ANY Crimes Act offense, at any time of the day, by using reasonable force.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/543061/details-of-new-citizen-s-arrest-rules-unveiled
One of many terrible decisions. Tho this one is just more obvious than most and will have greater and longer term impact on service.
Bishop says the charger scheme was done on the back of a fag packet. So this scheme had significantly more analysis than most of the coalitions projects then?
Excellent, and depressing, point! Again the question not being asked (that is see) - is the assumption of ‘range anxiety stops people buying EVs’ based in fact? Look at the range of modern EVs available in NZ now then look at google maps, unless you routinely do 300km+ driving a day most people will charge at home with minimal Dc charging.
Yeah, for me it's a fact. I'm top of the south island and the thought of setting out to drive to Chch with only a repurposed battery pack in Springs Junction that may or may not be available between me and the side of the road? https://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/news-and-events/springs-junction-ev-charging-site-is-open-for-business
It's not that I need to routinely do that drive, if you mean daily or weekly. I know I'm going to do it from time to time, as well as other similar drives. I could rent a vehicle for those trips. Not appealing. I appreciate that in one of the urban centers the scenario is different, and a variety of car share/hire schemes are also more accessible.
For you it is, and I have family in the SI who also need charging infrastructure. However do you need 10,000 chargers, or something closer to 100?
To me 10,000 chargers suggest we need a huge density of chargers in the Golden Triangle (Auckland-Waikato-Tauranga) where most people live and that just isn’t true.
To be clear - absolutely NZ needs more chargers and especially strategically placed on state highways. But that is probably better to be a small number of large charging stations, already being done by BP and Shell in the NI, not thousands.
Language like this, and having idiots like Simeon involved, is pushing back EV adoption in Nz.
Yes I agree Andrew, it wouldn't take many charging stations in the SI to make a huge difference. I wouldn't mind having to stop along the way. I wouldn't mind having to schedule it ahead of time. The issue appears to be with the capacity of the existing lines themselves, so it's a chain of power infrastructure that needs upgrading. How that gets done without central government support is an open question. I envision a rollout more like Crown Infrastructure Partners.
Merav (buy a 60K EV) and Bernard (just charge at home) fail to acknowledge the difficulty of the issues involved. You cannot set out to drive distances in the SI without seriously considering the charging options available.
The estimates of EV uptake (2% now, 11% by 2030) seems a bit optimistic too. This announcement isn't exactly going to drive uptake after they tanked the market with the removal of the feebate system and bringing in RUCs with no realistic timeframe for putting RUCs on petrol vehicles.
Yes, it all works together to say to people “don’t buy an EV yet”. And I think the current market shows that government messaging matters.
Considering that most driving is done at 2km radius from home, the range anxiety is just BS. If you have range anxiety, buy a hybrid.
And with the advertised 600km range of some EVs that's really a lame duck.
hmmm @Merav $60,000 and upwards for that kind of range. https://evdb.nz/evs. That is indeed an impediment to many people.
True. But my point is you don't HAVE to buy that kind of EV as mostly you will not use it more than the 200km range.
The issue in NZ is that we got so caught up in the EV debate that we stopped talking about the one thing that will not only massively reduce emissions but also save people a lot of money - other transport modes. Rail, light rail and cycling (Well, we do talk about cycling but that's mainly in the form of culture war).
Great point Andrew. The obsession with charging stations is strange, speaking as an electric vehicle driver. I always charge at home.
Jeez, what depressing set of news! If it's hard to read, I can only imagine how hard it must be to collect it.
Yet as the dad of two kids in the 20s, this one hits me the hardest: "Thirty percent of people have needed help over the past year to get food – for example, from foodbanks, friends, family or Work and Income"
And we got to this situation by the choice of our governments, more than by circumstances... It does not have to be this way :-(
You said it --- by the choice of this Government! Had enough of this neoliberal ideology, give me social democracy anytime.
Yep. Sorry Francisco. I do need to find a ray of sunshine occasionally.
Morning swims in Palm Beach help, but enough sometimes 😔
As Luxon hob nobs with the leaders of states and members of royal families at a Pope Francis funeral he too should pause to consider that he will be judged on how he responds to the needs of the vulnerable
Thanks Bernard. What a ghastly set of headlines. Glad you profiled that story about Cleaning Franchises. Our schools are full of them. Another story developing out my way ; Shane Jones sticky beaking into Council consultation on proposed deed of management of Waitakere Ranges as required by the 2008 Waitakere Heritage Protection Act. No doubt he will want to open the ranges up for mining and tree felling.
Some of the social media commentary has been down right horrid. Misinformation about changes to access, fearmongering about the proposal (which they are asking for feedback on) and racist troupe's directed at Kawerau ā Maki which few of us have tried to stop or call out when seen. Submissions close at midnight tonight. The Deed is in response to Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 which specified a deed of acknowledgement with the identified tangata whenua in the act and requires an acknowledgement to Kawerau ā Maki and to identify opportunities to collaborate on management of the area. It's taken 17 years to get to this proposal since legislation was passed. It's taken me quite a bit of reading on the 6 page proposed Deed, and then watching the recorded presentation, to get my head around what I'll actually submit today.
What I understood is that the Council and DOC staff have to manage complexity in silo's across multiple bodies and responsibilities, and the proposal to create a Strategic Plan, Work programmes, and Monitoring through one coordinating Joint Committee (Council/DOC/Kawerau ā Maki with provision for the other iwi when their Deed is sorted) -- increasing joint collaboration at a systems level.
The elected Councillors of Auck Council still manage the Long Term Plan and Budget's etc, as do DOC, so their are controls on this - but at least their should be aligned prioritisation in the plan/programmes. In the recording one of the Council staff said that the Mayor had been clear that this proposal would occur within existing financial delegations - putting to bed some of the rhetoric I've seen in the social media. Anyway, it strikes me that there is opportunities for increased transparency and engagement for the long term good of the Area and so that the 2008 Act objectives are assured.
I do have questions related to what the Terms of Reference will include for engagement and ensuring no duplication between the proposed Joint Committee and the Local Boards for residents and community groups - hence why I appreciate the opportunity to submit on the proposal.
https://akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/waitakere-ranges-heritage-area-deed-acknowledgement
Here are 2 differing perspectives.
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/richard-hills-auckland-councillor-unveils-new-proposed-plan-for-management-of-wait%C4%81kere-ranges/
https://gregpresland.com/the-proposed-joint-council-committee-for-the-waitakere-ranges-parkland/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJ7tVZleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETEweFUxaUY2dkNsZ0l0azJLAR5PY2JEFIdreUWbmIbgp-dEq-f2G-OvhxkSJMoGKhbeBvvLLgVDO5BivGN9eQ_aem_Ba0o2H6vq7hXi0OhP49AUA
Great links. Thanks Em.
All good. During my 'research' before I submitted in support of the proposal I also found these links. One from Te Kawerau ā Maki that explains their proposal about the heart of the ngahere (which some of the Traditional Trampers have conflated with the proposal for the Deed and saying access will be restricted, when the Deed is proposing a 'how' to prepare a plan going forward). One is the FAQ's from AC that specifically answers to the proposal in relation to the Heart of the Ngahere idea.
One from Democracy in Action which I found after a local published a brochure from them left in her letterbox - the misinformation and concerted attack on democracy is awful.
https://tekawerau.iwi.nz/wp-content/uploads/wrha-heart-of-the-ngahere-proposal-2023-1.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawJ8z_xleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFxV1J0M1JDRWRQanhhVFRRAR6lDrAAuPYG8CxIk1UdixFolwR7YOs2gq8hNk1k76Op2ChNl_tC2mHFgcd0UQ_aem_r15sD1A9DbKRibWIuPv22A
https://hdp-au-prod-app-ak-haveyoursay-files.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/5717/4278/4119/FAQ.pdf
https://www.democracyaction.org.nz/hands_off_the_waitaks
Backwards at a rate of knots. Thanks for the roundup.
Yes open it up to public
The change in policy in regards to EV chargers is totally on form for this government. The reality of the costs and mechanics of installing 10,000 chargers has been impressed on them, probably by the lines companies whose grid infrastructure falls far short of the capacity necessary to provide the current demanded for DC chargers in many regions.
So, the stock solution is to transfer the costs and responsibilities to third parties, while also reducing the total sum available to do the works. This is just another case of creative bookkeeping to make it seem like they're balancing their accounts, in line with Councils being saddled with 3 waters provisions and ports being made to pay for ferry terminal upgrades.
Such an EV promoting strategy would carry so much more relevance if accompanied by incentivisation of rooftop solar. One of the leading criticisms of EV adoption is the added demand they will place on our national generation capacity. If EV owners were able to gain government assistance to install their own generation, in the form of solar, that argument is nullified.
We have 2 EVs that derive >95% of their charging from our own solar generation. That not only reduces our grid demand significantly but also makes the economics of investing in solar significantly better due the the portion of our generation that we can consume 'behind the meter'. We are also in the process of installing additional solar capacity which will result in us being net generation positive on an annual basis while also putting us in a position to use one of our EVs in a V2G capacity, and potentially also going off grid in due course. The current grid model incentivises selfish consumption of home solar generation to the detriment of public benefit. Moves towards government support of the EV + PV model is much needed if NZ is remotely serious about EV adoption and emissions reduction.
There's also the problem of grid infrastructure capacity (i.e. the existing cables and componentry aren't big enough to supply the current required). The lines companies are well aware of this situation and the solution is far from cheap or easily upgraded. I guess someone from the Beehive has had an approach from the guys that actually own the supply networks educating them about the mechanics of installing DC chargers. And guess what, home based, PV supplied charging actually reduces demand across that same grid infrastructure.
None of this is wrong - my challenge would be we don’t specifically need matched home PV supply to EV demand and it doesn’t necessarily work for people whose cars spend Monday-Friday daylight hours at the office.
The current grid is sized to meet peak load: if home EV charging off-peak, ideally flexibly, it doesn’t add to grid demand and in fact better uses existing assets. Now you still need the generation but home solar costs more per kWh than commercial or grid scale.
I agree that utility or grid scale solar is cheaper per kW/MW of capacity than domestic 'rooftop' systems but there are two economic advantages.
Firstly the electricity we import ('buy') from the grid doesn't reflect the cost of the generation it is sourced from due to our poorly structured grid generation price model (thanks Max Bradford) so self generation can therefore still be leveraged to potentially have less than an 8 year ROI. Utility scale should be significantly more economically viable.
Secondly additional generation capacity resulting from distributed rooftop solar is paid for by its owner so much reduced government investment required to boost national capacity. In this respect incentivisation of domestic solar presents a cost saving for the government in the wider picture.
Great point Tony. Got any studies or cabinet papers making that argument? Cheers. Bernard
My first point is well recognised and is the crux of what Shane Jones intended to address in the wake of last winter's electricity crisis - waiting, waiting... The wholesale electricity price is dictated by the most expensive generation method needed at any given 30 minute period so cheap generation becomes expensive solely because it's in the common pool. That is why the suggestion of importing LNG for generation is such a poor one. When used to satisfy peak demand it will raise the wholesale price even further, with an energy source that is dirtier than coal when shipping and processing inputs are accounted for. Also worth reading Brett Christophers' book The Price is Wrong which goes into the economic complexities of renewable generation's barriers against widespread grid uptake. https://www.unibooks.co.nz/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=176277
My other point is based on the logic that widespread adoption of rooftop solar would add significant generation capacity to the grid and would be privately owned and funded by property owners rather than requiring public investment. Australia's strategy in incentivising rooftop solar has resulted in over 3GW of distributed solar capacity, subsidised by the government but largely paid for by private entities. https://cleanenergycouncil.org.au/news-resources/rooftop-solar-and-storage-report-july-to-december-2024 so much solar capacity that Australia is now having to change their generation blend and restrict solar input as their base generation is from coal which is inflexible in regard to reducing as a result of the fluctuations presented by solar (and wind) generation. Our hydro based model is far better suited to solar as hydro can be ramped up or down very quickly and hydro generation offset by solar means that the storage capacity can be saved for later, so essentially a huge grid scale battery. This is the strategy that Jack Tame tried to impress on Simeon Brown in their Q&A interview but Simeon was blinkered by other ideologies.
Thanks for another great example of just how dim, and seemingly captured by vested interests, this Govt. is.
The sooner we depoliticise health as Dr Bloomfield is suggesting the better. (see here: https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360634200/why-we-should-take-first-step-towards-long-term-health-plan).
The sheer pace at which we continue to go backwards is astounding. The number you share here Bernard show that we are missing around 4.5% of hospital beds (500/11,000) and the waitlist is also around 4% of our current population (200k out of 5.2 million).
What we all need to be shouting about is how this reflects the limited per-capita (nominal decrease of -1.3% per person between 2024 and 2025) and the even bigger inflation adjusted decrease oof -4.5%). See Craig Renney's CTU analysis here: https://union.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Budget-2024-health-Final-v.3.pdf
Against the backdrop of this what is also missing is the general consensus from insurance businesses (for example here: https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/nz/news/life-insurance/new-zealands-medical-costs-surge-among-apacs-highest-528323.aspx but also commentary from the likes of Aon, another insurance advisors) that NZ nows has has the dubious distinction of having amonsgt the highest medical inflation in both APAC and indeed the world. The short headline number is that our medical trend rates have doubled in the past 12 months from 7.5% in 2024 to 14.5% in 2025. The outcome of this is thta health insurance premiums will significantly rise - ranging from 22% to 27% for some group schemes.
The scale of this is scuh that HR advisory businesses are also now shouting about this: https://www.hcamag.com/nz/specialisation/benefits/new-zealands-medical-trend-rate-surges-in-2025-aon-report/528469 because of cause this will have a significant flow through effect on total labour costs and benefits.
In addition I recently read this commentary on USA health where they talked to the immigration: the public health system being filled with people from the Philippines, other ASEAN countries, east Europe, and so on. These are the same countries we look to draw our back-up labour force from. A system under pressure is going to be a much less attractive employment option when you also have global choices.
The net outcome is likely to be that the magic panacea of using private outsourcing to prop up our public health system will fail. And it will inequitably. Those without insurance will suffer, those who have insurance via their work will also most likely come under pressure as those cost pressures hit businesses.
Lets get out and support the Doctors this May Day.
And yes please open up.
Fantastic set of links Geoff. Eye-opening.
Just a heads up, there is consultation open for "modernising nz medical workforce" until Wednesday this week. https://consult.health.govt.nz/regulatory-policy/putting-patients-first/
While this talks about putting "patients first", the implications are that this will lead to a systemic reduction in the quality of the medical professionals in our country. Forced changes to the scope of practice will mean physicians operating outside their capabilities, and without the legal system to cover malpractice this will mean more cost to taxpayers through ACC etc.
That consultation document is one of worst I have ever read. It is full of bad ideological assertions about the cost of regulation, devoid of any facts to back up its assertions, talks about choice and competition not patient safety, does not provide analysis based on the reality of a primarily public health system (it seems to be aiming at facilitating more privatisation), and all examples and 'case studies' given are an exercise in pre-determination. All to make lots of noise to divert attention away from the real cuts to health that our Minister of Household Finance introduced in the last budget.
Yes it is a shocker that is full of leading questions. I would say we would be seriously considering moving offshore if this goes through. It just won’t be safe enough for people here who need medical care.
Fascinating to compare what is provided for under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (the current legislation on medical certification) and what is suggested in the discussion document. Did any of the discussion document authors read what happens under the Act - it requires laypeople on certification boards, it allows the Minister to request a performance review, it has audit provisions. So much of what the discussion document is suggesting should happen already either happens or the Minister has the power already to make it happen.
It is shocking how poor this document is. I have just spent 3 hours on it and still have a way to go. The examples, honestly!
"I’ve had some problems with my back recently, and my friend
recommended a physiotherapist he’s been visiting. I want to make
sure they’re registered, but I don’t know how or where to check." Google it can be a good start.
"I expect that a surgeon would be subject to very high standards and
oversight because of the risks from their practice. However, I would
not expect the same level of regulation for a lower risk profession." No shit, Sherlock. That is why there are 18 different regulation bodies!
And true to form, Te Tiriti bashing:
"My friend, who trained as a specialist in New Zealand and has
been practising overseas, is returning to work in New Zealand.
However, they have been told they need to complete a course on
cultural requirements. I don’t understand why this is necessary. This
emphasis on cultural requirements seems like a distraction from the
real issues facing our health system, where the focus should be on
ensuring patients receive timely, quality care from the most qualified
professionals." If you don't understand maybe you need some cultural education as well.
And don't get me started on Seymour's power garb.
Oh, how did I miss noticing this. So important to submit.
Right, I'll Crack into working on this now.
And the bad news just keeps flooding in. Taking a step back, it’s pretty obvious to anyone looking that Neoliberalism is the feature, not the bug, in a political system that is rapidly collapsing taking the economy and our way of life with it. MMP hasn’t helped much either allowing the fringe to wag the centre, which just throws fuel on the fire making it difficult for traditional ‘centrist’ governments (of either persuasion) to course correct.
Instead of urgent remedial action and a pivot to fresh thinking, the current government is embracing austerity, which some think isn’t austere enough. Meanwhile the cabinet of status quo disciples are hoping and praying for ‘growth’ to miraculously save the day. Praise be. While that fantasy plays out they continue to preside (and pray some more) over a housing market with bits tacked on further defying gravity. That’s a troubled strategy if ever I saw one, particularly if the housing market falters or the bits fall off.
And those in charge are wait for it…neoliberal managerialists. Their potential replacements in 2026 are…can you guess? Correct, neoliberal managerialists. And so it goes…
Indeed on the neoliberal managerialists.
Yeah pretty grim reading. Particularly evil is that practice of having cleaners become solo practitioners in order to avoid minimum wage. Just when you think you're across the ugliness, there's another layer.
Fantastic time cleansing pic! It sort of reminds me of North Point Barbados.
Cheers
😊
It's a tidal vent at Dolomite Point pancake rocks in Punakaiki on the South Island's West Coast. Beautiful spot. Mike.
Thanks for the info. I'll have to check it out one of these days. The consistant beating from the ocean makes for dramatic scenery.
😎
"Back of the envelope" as part of an election campaign? Seriously? And these people portray themselves as better financial managers than the other lot. As for 10,000 chargers - what about really good public transport in cities instead of some of them. As has been pointed out above, if you don't go far on a regular basis you can charge from home. Where they are really needed is between cities, in rural areas, especially for evs that don't have a huge range. The whole thing needs rethinking. As does the "growth" mantra - that's a whole other story.
Great chart from Musical Chairs. Please keep rolling it out until & beyond Budget Day.
Hi Bernard. Please open this one up to all. This bad news really needs to be spread far and wide.
Mr Seymour thinks that tax payer funded choice is important for our children by way of Charter Schools, - regardless of the cost. Perhaps he could promote that concept to the Minister of Health!