Act would force Government to show how it would lower rent, food & energy inflation in the long run through investment in housing, renewable power & green jobs funded via windfall & capital taxes
Thanks Craig and Bernard, always interesting to read more discussion on policy ideas (even if I don't agree with much of it!). Contributes to better public debate than the say-nothing politicians we have now. Like most things in NZ, hardship comes from lack of appropriate housing.
Bernard, you missed the 45% income tax rate over $70k! That's an absolute non starter!
How does forcing Huntly to close (before we have any alternative) reduce power prices? Seems to me to do the opposite. Especially in winter peaks and low rain, electricity prices would sky rocket!
How much truth is there to the reason NZ has to have low public debt is due to our private household debt being monstrous? (all linked to housing!)
Great article Bernard. About time. Maybe it’s also about being the media to account so that they are no longer the mouthpiece of corporate NZ and hold them to start educating the voting public on the impact of short termism and exploitative consumption based measures of success
The Inflation and Incomes Act suggested by the CTU would "require the Government/ Reserve Bank to ..." seems to me to be a set of toothless requirements as a government not wanting to do these things would just shrug its shoulders and say "whatever". Well, not literally "whatever'; probably something closer to "Blah, blah, blah".
The most telling graph as far as what our two party consensus neoliberal economic policy means is the one graphing real productivity growth and real wages growth - divergance started in 1991.
Good to see the policy ideas being promoted by the CTU as an alternative to neoliberalism. Much of the policy direction is reinstating the best of what worked before Douglas/Richardson wrecked things.
Unfortunately this Labour government has no interest in renouncing neoliberalism.
I think (a lot) and have come to the conclusion that, generally speaking, any government should either have a monopoly position in an industry or be not involved at all.
Take electricity. Before Max Bradford it was a government monopoly. And god forbid there should be blackouts because they couldn't produce enough power. They'd be out at the next election.
Now the current mixed ownership model forces the government to choose between enough power at a reasonable price and maintaining the dividend it earns.
If I were king-for-a-day this is what I would do: -
a) Build Lake Onslow. This is the renewable alternative to Huntly and doesn't require the importation of a million tonnes of coal (with its attached CO2) every year.
b) The gov't to sell down its shareholding in the gentailers to 11% (to block takeovers). Use some of that money to pay for Lake Onslow.
c) Require solar panels to go on to all new builds. At less than $10,000 per house it is a pitiful cost compared to the total cost of that new house. Apartment blocks?.
d) The retailer must buy that solar power at an amount not less than what they pay for their other power.
e) No retailer can turn down a new customer because they have solar power to sell.
f) Lake Onslow not required to make a profit.
g) Generators required to use it or lose it when they get a consent for more generation regardless of what type of generation it is. Currently there is some consent banking where the generator doesn't build the generation because that would lower the price they could get.
Driving back to Auckland from Wellington this week (I had plenty of time to think)
As I was passing through the towns I was thinking why can’t each town have its own cooperative sustainable power supply! The build could be subsidised by a government grant which would be paid back through revenue raised from the power supply, once paid back the cost of power cost could be reduced...win win
Ecellent analysis and ideas. Acting responsibly and prudentially doesn’t mean not paying obligations and failing to invest in critical things. The tax system isn’t equitable for women and children generally carrying all costs despite laws to the contrary and dependents and costs needs to be reflected in taxes. So the Government and agencies are actually currently breaking the law to favour (usually) men and the wealthy. This inequity is not able to be challenged by women in the courts and extreme efforts have been taken to avoid it to continue the inbuilt sexism and breaches of womenswear rights and childrens standards of living they are entitled to under various acts Divorce law, Property Relationships Act, Family Oroceedings Act, Child Support Act.. the list goes on and none of which are accessible. If it cost on average 21k per child plus parent maintenance costs and childcare costs in the early 2000’s as I calculated to maintain they QOL then
I think the most important statement in this podcast is that the buck always stops with the government. The media need to start holding them to account when they blame the Reserve Bank and everyone else. If Ardern and co can’t do their jobs, they need to quit. I agree with Bernard that “The only realistic pathway to these policies being enacted would be a change of leadership at Labour and a rise in political support for either (or both) Te Pāti Māori and TOP”. Quite literally, our lives depend on it.
Thanks Craig and Bernard, always interesting to read more discussion on policy ideas (even if I don't agree with much of it!). Contributes to better public debate than the say-nothing politicians we have now. Like most things in NZ, hardship comes from lack of appropriate housing.
Bernard, you missed the 45% income tax rate over $70k! That's an absolute non starter!
How does forcing Huntly to close (before we have any alternative) reduce power prices? Seems to me to do the opposite. Especially in winter peaks and low rain, electricity prices would sky rocket!
How much truth is there to the reason NZ has to have low public debt is due to our private household debt being monstrous? (all linked to housing!)
Great article Bernard. About time. Maybe it’s also about being the media to account so that they are no longer the mouthpiece of corporate NZ and hold them to start educating the voting public on the impact of short termism and exploitative consumption based measures of success
The Inflation and Incomes Act suggested by the CTU would "require the Government/ Reserve Bank to ..." seems to me to be a set of toothless requirements as a government not wanting to do these things would just shrug its shoulders and say "whatever". Well, not literally "whatever'; probably something closer to "Blah, blah, blah".
The most telling graph as far as what our two party consensus neoliberal economic policy means is the one graphing real productivity growth and real wages growth - divergance started in 1991.
Good to see the policy ideas being promoted by the CTU as an alternative to neoliberalism. Much of the policy direction is reinstating the best of what worked before Douglas/Richardson wrecked things.
Unfortunately this Labour government has no interest in renouncing neoliberalism.
I think (a lot) and have come to the conclusion that, generally speaking, any government should either have a monopoly position in an industry or be not involved at all.
Take electricity. Before Max Bradford it was a government monopoly. And god forbid there should be blackouts because they couldn't produce enough power. They'd be out at the next election.
Now the current mixed ownership model forces the government to choose between enough power at a reasonable price and maintaining the dividend it earns.
If I were king-for-a-day this is what I would do: -
a) Build Lake Onslow. This is the renewable alternative to Huntly and doesn't require the importation of a million tonnes of coal (with its attached CO2) every year.
b) The gov't to sell down its shareholding in the gentailers to 11% (to block takeovers). Use some of that money to pay for Lake Onslow.
c) Require solar panels to go on to all new builds. At less than $10,000 per house it is a pitiful cost compared to the total cost of that new house. Apartment blocks?.
d) The retailer must buy that solar power at an amount not less than what they pay for their other power.
e) No retailer can turn down a new customer because they have solar power to sell.
f) Lake Onslow not required to make a profit.
g) Generators required to use it or lose it when they get a consent for more generation regardless of what type of generation it is. Currently there is some consent banking where the generator doesn't build the generation because that would lower the price they could get.
Enough for now.
My holiday brain mumbled something about debt to GDP at 50% realizing the $200B the Infrastructure Commission called out?
Driving back to Auckland from Wellington this week (I had plenty of time to think)
As I was passing through the towns I was thinking why can’t each town have its own cooperative sustainable power supply! The build could be subsidised by a government grant which would be paid back through revenue raised from the power supply, once paid back the cost of power cost could be reduced...win win
Or would I be living in an alternate universe!!!
Let’s face it...it’s a long drive🤷🏼♂️
Happy Holidays!!
Ecellent analysis and ideas. Acting responsibly and prudentially doesn’t mean not paying obligations and failing to invest in critical things. The tax system isn’t equitable for women and children generally carrying all costs despite laws to the contrary and dependents and costs needs to be reflected in taxes. So the Government and agencies are actually currently breaking the law to favour (usually) men and the wealthy. This inequity is not able to be challenged by women in the courts and extreme efforts have been taken to avoid it to continue the inbuilt sexism and breaches of womenswear rights and childrens standards of living they are entitled to under various acts Divorce law, Property Relationships Act, Family Oroceedings Act, Child Support Act.. the list goes on and none of which are accessible. If it cost on average 21k per child plus parent maintenance costs and childcare costs in the early 2000’s as I calculated to maintain they QOL then
Agree with every single one of the proposals. Just a shame that our two largest parties will never break with their neoliberal doctrines
I think the most important statement in this podcast is that the buck always stops with the government. The media need to start holding them to account when they blame the Reserve Bank and everyone else. If Ardern and co can’t do their jobs, they need to quit. I agree with Bernard that “The only realistic pathway to these policies being enacted would be a change of leadership at Labour and a rise in political support for either (or both) Te Pāti Māori and TOP”. Quite literally, our lives depend on it.