In September 2017 there were 4,054 on the Priority A waiting list for Housing NZ. These are families who have been assessed as in urgent need of a house.
Labour said 4,054 was a scandal. They said they wanted to abolish homelessness.
In June 2020 there are now 16,651 families on the Priority A waiting list. As Labour has heaped costs on landlords, rents have skyrocketed and the end result is a 400% increase in those deemed in urgent need of housing.
The JP reports:
Bahrain has joined the United Arab Emirates in striking an agreement to normalize relations with Israel, US President Donald Trump said on Friday, a dramatic move aimed at easing tensions in the Middle East.Trump tweeted the news after he spoke by phone to both Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the White House said.
Excellent news. Trump has done more for Israel than arguably any President since Harry Truman.
Audrey Young writes:
Robertson would not say Labour’s tax policy was a bottom line. He wouldn’t rule anything in or out. He declined to even use such language.
What he said repeatedly was that “a Labour Government” would implement that tax policy.
He did not specifically define what he meant by “a Labour Government” but it was understood to mean a majority Labour Government that did not have to negotiate with anyone else.
It was so well understood that National leader Judith Collins was able to reasonably claim that Robertson had not ruled out negotiating additions to tax policy in any coalition negotiations with the Greens.
A very perceptive article by Audrey Young.
Stuff reports:
Wellington’s earthquake stricken central library could receive a category 1 heritage listing, despite being less than 30 years old.
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga is calling for the public to submit their views on the library’s heritage status, while Wellington City Council simultaneously considers the future of the building after it closed in March 2019 over seismic concerns.
Heritage NZ seem to be losing the plot in Wellington. First they designate the ugly as f**k Gordon Wilson Flats built in the 1950s as critical heritage and now they are going for a building not even thirty years old.
I propose two changes to Heritage NZ:
Well worth clicking through to the Twitter thread which shows some absolutely ordinary buildings that Heritage NZ has deemed of huge cultural value.
Stuff reports:
Rongotai MP Paul Eagle has ruled out a run for Wellington mayor in 2022 after several candidates accused each other of not being committed to the electorate.
If you look at what he said, he didn’t actually rule out a run. He has left wriggle room.
Stuff has previously asked Eagle whether he was planning a mayoral run, responding he had no “current plans”.
When asked again on Friday, he again said he had “no plans right now”.
That is the weakest form of denial.
When pushed further to definitively commit to seeing out his term if he were re-elected, he said he would.
”Yes, I will [rule it out]. But what I want to ask is: Do either of them live in the electorate? Are they committed to the people of Rongotai if they don’t live here?
”This is hypocrisy of the highest order from two parties who are barely polling … I’ve lived here for 40 years. Where is their commitment? I know every inch of Rongotai.”
On the basis of what Stuff has reported, he has ruled out not seeing his term as an MP out. That is different to ruling out he won’t stand for Mayor.
You could stand for Mayor, and if elected, do both jobs for a year – on the basis of saving the cost of a by-election.
Maybe Eagle did explicitly rule out standing for Mayor, but the Stuff article links the denial to not seeing his term out. It would be good to know if he explicitly ruled out standing for Mayor under any circumstances.
A guest post by Simon Court:
Policy road littered with good intentions – planning waste infrastructure
Waste Management NZ applied for a Private Plan Change to rezone rural land for the Auckland Regional Landfill at Wayby Valley in the Rodney district, as a precinct for future landfill and gas to energy development.
The local community has raised concerns with individual board members and the media about the environment and human health, long term risks, and effects on property values. This has lead to a divisive debate in the local community, and vilification and threats to local board members both on social media, and directly.
The Rodney Local Board has the statutory right to provide “views” on the issues on behalf of their community to Auckland Council, which has dual roles as the governing body, and regulator for this planning process.
While decision making on this Plan Change falls initially to Auckland Council, it will then move to the Environment Court after the inevitable appeals from all sides, and no doubt to the Court of Appeal for a further debate on arcane matters of resource management law.
However the Board is placed in a difficult situation, as there are expectations in the community that the Board should not only take a strong position objecting to the development, but should also have a decision making role, or some influence over the planning and other consenting decisions, which are clearly outside the scope and legal mandate of the board.
In fact, it is manifestly unfair that any of these expectations have fallen on the Board.
That the Board is expected to take a position in this divisive and ultimately futile debate, is largely due to the failure of central and local government policy makers, regulators, and planners to act on the advice given over many years – that modern waste infrastructure is just as vital for a functioning society as modern sewage treatment, water supply, roads and highways, cellphone towers, fibre optic cables, gas pipelines, airports, and so on.
Central and local government has failed to take responsibility for protecting suitable land for new waste infrastructure, which means that difficult decisions are again left to local communities and activists to litigate with regulators and the industry. This fails any test of good governance, given what we know about the risk landfills pose to the environment and human health, over very long time frames.
Waste infrastructure includes transfer stations and recycling centres, ideally located close to where waste is generated in cities and towns, to allow efficient resource recovery and diversion from landfill. It also includes regional landfills, located near major highways, in suitable natural geology for long term containment, and in areas of low environmental sensitivity.
The waste industry repeatedly advocated to central and local government to provide planning protection for all types of waste infrastructure – designation and zoning used by private utility companies, and public asset owners, to protect land for future growth and development.
The industry made submissions on the National Infrastructure Plan in 2010, 2011 and 2015, and in regular regional and district plan reviews around the country. These proposals were acknowledged as valid by various committees, but never included in final plans.
Industry and concerned professionals submitted to Auckland Council on the Auckland Plan, and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, on the long term benefit of protecting land for this strategic purpose. That advice was not acted on.
Policy makers drafting the AUP even rejected internal council advice to make basic provisions for stroring household refuse and recycling bins in new developments, which means that bins are always jammed up against homes and left in odd places in newer, and often poorer high density areas. Trucks can barely negotiate narrow streets to empty bins.
Despite the efforts by central and local government to promote zero waste to landfill by 2040 as an objective, which in itself is laudable, there is no escaping the fact that more effective planning is required to manage residual solid waste volumes, to support the healthy functioning of major cities and the regions.
Poorly planned landfills may affect the environment for 100’s if not 1000’s of years. We already have hundreds of these around NZ in sensitive coastal areas, and embedded in major urban areas like Auckland. Successive policy makers and planners have failed to protect land around these high risk urban sites from encroachment by residential and commercial development.
However there is no doubt that the Auckland Regional Landfill application will succeed in some form, and that landfill will then serve part of Auckland’s needs for 50-100 years or more. That is because local authorities have enduring obligations to deliver core public health services under various Acts, which include to collect municipal refuse and dispose it to a sanitary landfill facility.
The infrastructure needed to support this core public health service gets little attention from activist types in the waste policy and planning fields, who prefer to focus their effort and resources on more aspirational long term zero waste goals.
Ironically, around NZ, local authorities own and operate many landfills, which are almost always a revenue generating activity. They need to extend these facilities or construct new ones in years to come, otherwise rely exclusively on the private sector to take on those costs, risks, and the revenues, in an uncertain policy and planning environment.
There is currently zero appetite among policy makers to transition NZ from landfill disposal to thermal destruction or pyrolysis, largely due to the perceived risk to air quality, and by inference, to the agriculture export industry. Those risks have been effectively managed by the European Union and other jurisdictions we typically look to, through effective regulation and planning, and clean technology, in place now for decades.
We have yet to see a coherent policy proposal from local and central government in this area, although it provides the clearest and cleanest pathway to reduce waste to landfill.
This technology is not a “get out of jail free” card for dealing with growing solid waste volumes. We must also provide suitable land, and just as important – a flexible regulatory environment – to allow for innovation in the recovery and reuse of valuable resources from the waste stream – potentially for uses we haven’t even identified yet.
Now is the time that policy makers and regulators at a national and local level should come clean, and state the action they will take to identify and protect suitable land for waste infrastructure, including for new technology, to protect public health and the environment for future generations, not to damage it as some activists would believe.
About Simon Court
Passionate about good governance, good decision making, and excellence in project delivery.
A qualified Civil and Environmental Engineer with 23 years experience in roles for the principal, consultant and contractor, with ten years leading multi-discipline engineering, planning, tendering, and construction teams primarily in Auckland, and in Wellington and Fij.
Leading engagement with clients, designers, planners, legal advisors, regulators, community organisations, local politicians, stakeholders, and mana whenua.
Roles as a senior engineer and business unit manager in road, highway and landfill construction, road maintenance, contaminated land remediation, and waste operations.
Experienced in local government operations, functions, roles and responsibilities, statutory and regulatory frameworks, and how Council Controlled Organisations plan, budget and deliver projects and services.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/simon-court-47a56216/
References
https://www.localmatters.co.nz/news/37014-wastetoenergy-answer-to-dome-valley-landfill-blues.html
https://www.localmatters.co.nz/news/37074-candidates-air-their-views-on-dome-valley-landfill.html
Mahurangi Matters May 20,2020
“Leaked submission fails to condemn Dome Landfill”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TCpoJKGuye6_5zAyh0bM3GvVFHrORe0g/view
The Victoria Voluntary Assisted Dying Act is fairly similar to the End of Life Choice Act in NZ, which we vote on in a few weeks.
The latest six monthly report on the Victoria regime is worth reading. They note:
Feedback and information gathered over the past six months continue to highlight the compassion and relief Victoria’s voluntary assisted dying scheme is providing to terminally ill people, their friends and family.
Some key aspects:
A guest post by Lindsay Mitchell:
An urban myth rapidly gaining momentum is that New Zealand women have been harder hit by Covid than men. The origin of this claim comes from the Household Labour Force Survey (HLFS) – the official source of the New Zealand’s unemployment rate. The latest result for the June quarter showed 11,000 fewer people employed than in March. (Oddly this breaks down to 1,000 fewer men and 9,000 fewer women. That’s not making sense. Obviously some rounding issues there.)
Kiwibank said they “didn’t quite believe the numbers” but despite this ran with a press release titled, “90% Of The Drop In Kiwi Employment Were Women.” Three days later KiwiBank economist Mary Jo Vergara said the figures should be taken with “a grain of salt” because the level of disruption during lockdown made it hard to conduct the survey.
Nevertheless a number of journalists began running with the alarmist headline. Michelle Duff wrote in an election ‘analysis’ piece for Stuff on August 22 that, “Government appears to have barely considered the fact women are the worst impacted” again quoting the 90% statistic. A few days later RNZ reported, “The Detail looks at how the Covid 19 crisis has hit women hard, with latest employment figures showing 90 percent of those who lost their jobs in the three months from April to June were women.”
Much was also made of female underutilisation yet their rate compared to male stayed steady. That it is higher is nothing new.
Anyway tonight TV Three News reported the now run-of-the-mill ‘fact’ that women have been worse hit by Covid again quoting the HLFS data. There is no link as yet but readers will have heard the item I refer to.
The HLFS is a survey of 15,000 households and while it is usually a reliable method of collecting data, and consistent with other OECD country methodology, in this instance the responses were severely disrupted. Stats NZ itself says:
“COVID-19 resulted in data collection and measurement challenges for the June 2020 quarter. While data collection via face-to-face interviewing was suspended for the majority of the quarter, interviews for the HLFS continued to be carried out over the telephone. At the same time, lockdown affected many New Zealanders’ ability to look for work, impacting how they are represented in official labour market statistics.”
So where can we get accurate real-time relevant data?
From Ministry of Social Development benefit numbers: Jobseeker and Covid Income Relief Payment(CIRP) receipt.
The July annual increase uptake of Jobseeker Support was GREATER for males – 41.5 percent versus 35.3 percent for females.
It can be legitimately argued that females get locked out of Jobseeker receipt if they have a working partner.
But that did not apply to the CIRP for workers – both full and part-time – made redundant after March.
The June-July monthly increase uptake of CIRP was GREATER for males.
And 22% more males than females were receiving CIRP.
None of the MSM news reporters/outlets have bothered to check this data. Or, if they have, chose to ignore it.
My posts this week on Patreon are:
A guest post by Mike Knell:
Councillor Matthews should apologise for her unfounded and misleading comment about pokie players urinating on seats at a recent Wellington City Council meeting. She should also note a conflict of interest due to her one-sided, biased and misleading comments and abstain from voting at the gambling policy review to be held later this year.
Councillor Matthews’ comments and actions at this meeting, including taking selfies with Problem Gambling Foundation representatives before joining the table, are questionable behaviours from a duly elected public official.
Councillors take an oath of duty to come to the table with an open mind. Clearly, this and other misleading comments and actions illustrate a compromised and misinformed councillor pushing her own political agenda.
If councillors cannot act professionally, present information based on evidence and avoid their own personal opinions where common sense should prevail, then they should be held to public account.
Rebecca Matthews and a group of politically motivated councillors are demonizing the Class 4 fundraising model in an orchestrated manner to push their own agendas and deliberately mislead the public.
The question all ratepayers should be asking is: are these councillors really representing the local community’s voice?
Around 11,000 organisations benefit annually from the Class 4 fundraising model nationally. Many grant recipients we speak to say they certainly cannot do without the support, nor do they need or want councillors to speak on their behalf when in reality all they are doing is chasing a political career.
Wellington City’s current Class 4 gambling policy is, all in all, a fit-for-purpose approach. The existing policy achieves many outcomes and objectives of the Gambling Act. This should be applauded, not conveniently ignored.
There is no evidence that sinking lid policies have reduced the problem gambling rate in the past 15 years, which has remained static at around 0.5% of the adult population. The gambling sector pays a problem gambling levy of around $18 million per annum. On top of this, millions of dollars are invested by Class 4 societies on harm minimisation initiatives and technologies that are proven to be effective at controlling the problem.
It is naïve and misguided to believe that people are going to stop gambling because there are no longer pokie machines. As evidenced by COVID-19 responses, they will simply gamble online and on other products which do not return anywhere near the same, if any, economic benefit to their community.
Wellington City Council needs to take a balanced and factual approach to the harm and benefits from Class 4 gambling. Wellington city enjoyed the benefits from Class 4 gambling to the tune of more than $60 million over 2017 and 2018.
No one has yet come up with a sensible and practical plan B that would at least equal the contributions to the community and local economy from Class 4 gambling.
Adding tens of millions of dollars to the annual rating scheme to replace Class 4 funding will not likely be a favoured nor realistic solution for Wellington ratepayers.
We can’t stop generalisation and we shouldn’t try; what we should do is to avoid generalising incorrectly.
Mike Knell is the CE of the NZ Community Trust and the Acting Chair of the Gaming Machine Assn of NZ
The Herald reports:
He wouldn’t say what the Greens’ bottom lines in those talks were, but said a “wealth tax” was a “top priority”.
Which Labour has not ruled out. They have used weasel words to downplay it, but if it was ruled out then Ardern would use the same language as she used for Capital Gains Tax – that it will never happen while she is Prime Minister.
He would also be pushing for co-leader Marama Davidson to be a minister and suggested a Green MP hold the agriculture portfolio.
Good God. A Minister of Agriculture that hates farmers. It would be like appointing making Francis 7 from Logan’s Run the Minister for Senior Citizens.
NewstalkZB reports:
Labour is promising to bring forward the Government’s 100 per cent renewable electricity generation target by five years if they are re-elected.
But to get to this ambitious target, the next government will need to spend $4 billion on an energy generation plan at the bottom of the South Island.
The Labour-led Government’s policy during this term in power was to have all of New Zealand’s electricity renewable by 2035.
But, speaking to reporters in Taupō this afternoon, Labour leader Jacinda Ardern said her party would bring that forward to 2030.
This should be filed in the same folder as Kiwibuild and Auckland Light Rail.
Under National, the share of renewable electricity did increase significantly – from 65.4% to 81.9%. That’s an increase of 16.5%. Since 2017 it has increased only a further 0.5% in two years.
As always Labour ig good on rhetoric, and bad on delivery.
Do you know the big increase since 2017? It has been coal.
In 2008 coal used for electricity was 4,515 GWh. By 2017 it had dropped to 1,133. That’s a 75% drop.
What has happened under two years of Jacinda? An 87% increase from 1,133 to 2,118.
The Herald reports:
Cigarette sales are plunging faster than any time before as smokers turn to alternatives like vaping – with 410 million fewer smokes sold annually than just two years ago.
Dr Murray Laugesen, a trustee of the End Smoking NZ charity, analysed tobacco company returns that are published by the Ministry of Health and found a remarkable drop in sales.
About 2132 million cigarettes were sold last year – 193 million fewer than 2018, and following a 217 million drop the previous year.
The rate of decline from 2017 to 2019 has been about 8 per cent annually – roughly three times the rate across the first six years of the Government’s Smokefree 2025 project, started in 2011.
The trend is driven by factors including cost (a 25-pack of cigarettes was $16.39 in 2011 and is now about $41.89) and alternative products like vaping e-cigarettes
If the rate of decline has been three times greater in the last two years, that is obviously due to the greater prevalance of vaping.
“Although electronic cigarettes and heat not burn products are not perfect – the best thing is to not use any of these products at all – actually, if we were to convert our smoking epidemic into a situation of people using reduced-harm products, that would actually be a much better situation.”
Of course. Perfect is the enemy of good. Better that no one is addicted to nicotine, but if they are then vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking.
A good piece by Geoffrey Miller on how NZ needs to do more to condemn what is happening in Belarus with the rigged election.
There is a non trivial chance that the current regime may fall, as the protests have attracted widespread support. But there is also a non trivial chance the Government may set the armed forces on its own citizens.
This is why international pressure is critical, to try and ensure the protests don’t end up with more bloodshed.
The Taxpayers’ Union has an excellent paper making the case that the best response to the Covid-19 economic crisis would be cutting GST from 15% to 10% temporarily. Far better than the masses of wasteful spending by the Government.
Some key points:
Parties of both the right and left should support this. GST is a regressive tax so a temporary cut in GST would help low income households the most.
ACT announced:
“ACT would end the climate hypocrisy in Wellington by slashing taxpayer-funded flights to Parliament by 25 percent,” says ACT Leader David Seymour.
“Politicians spend a lot of time talking about climate change. MPs can take one simple action to help the planet and the taxpayer.
“Instead of preaching about the planet, politicians should lead by example when it comes to addressing climate change by committing to individual action that will have real, measurable benefits.
“Parliament has talked about putting solar panels on the roof and turning the Beehive green, but these changes would make little difference when MPs fly en masse into Wellington 30 times a year.
“Almost no other group of New Zealanders has an unlimited air travel budget. Ironically, it’s often the politicians who talk about climate change the most who report the biggest air travel expenses each quarter.
“Parliamentarians could take one simple action to help the climate and save the taxpayer significant money.
“ACT proposes to change the parliamentary calendar so that MPs sit for four days a week for 23 weeks a year, instead of three days a week for 30 weeks. “This would reduce the number of flights taken by MPs, and carbon emissions, by around 25 percent.
I like this proposal.
A guest post by Emily Broadmore:
Throughout my twenties in parliament I learnt the importance of science-based decision making. This wasn’t just due to the logic of founding policy in evidence, but from a saleability perspective: we needed to convince the public about why we were making a decision and have a platform on which to defend ourselves if it was a total flop.
But evidence alone doesn’t sell a policy. As a communicator I am keenly aware of the power of emotive language – we pull at the heart strings, we carefully craft a call to action, we play on emotions to get the desired reaction. And there is no greater emotion than fear.
Thanks to the approach taken in New Zealand our healthcare system hasn’t been inundated with Covid-19 cases. Much of this success is due to the effective communication that bought the team of five million on board. However, alongside the shift in messaging – from flattening the curve to stamping it out – a culture of fear has bred throughout New Zealand.
This has manifested itself in the oddest ways, which over the past few months I have observed at first amusement and more recently exasperation. Neighbours not only practiced social distancing but also avoided eye contact, children share birthday cake at preschool yet morning tea is deemed a Covid-19 risk. This is as absurd as the popularity of book, toy and baking swaps that went on over Level 4, which also defied logic.
Despite the Ministry of Health lifting the Lockdown rules in line with New Zealand’s risk level, the messaging to the public has led to an acceptance of rules for rules sake. We are living in a community where rules based on fear, not science, are considered enough and questioning the logic of these rules is seen as rebellion.
The result is marginalising those in the community who respect evidence-based decision making. This is the status quo, and I do not think it is kind. Nor does it align with the can-do and curious nature that New Zealanders are known for.
Scholarly articles abound on how fear appeals have been used in relation to Covid-19. Now that a culture of fear prevails in the community it will be difficult to unwind. There is evidence that fear has a maximum value – that is, once a moderate amount of fear has been received there is no further benefit to adding more. The media could abate fear by showing perspective in the stories they choose to publish. Educate us about the latest science, don’t just whip us into a fear frenzy.
Cases of Covid-19 on the border are to be expected and will be business as usual for the distant future as we ease the borders and begin to live a new normal. Moving forward we can’t continue to be wrapped in cotton wool, isolated from the world in Covid free New Zealand. This isn’t the Nuclear Free movement. Cases in quarantine facilities shouldn’t be breaking news, flashing across the screen in a red banner. The word elimination was taken out of context from the start.
It’s time to change the messaging. And this isn’t just up to the Government – we also need a strong Opposition who isn’t afraid to challenge the status quo. The 2020 election will be a platform on which all parties can demonstrate how they plan to reopen New Zealand’s borders and unwind the culture of fear.
Sir Peter Gluckman, Rt Hon Helen Clark and Rob Fyfe asked in their July report – At what point will New Zealand accept less than absolute elimination? As they said – such a goal is likely unrealistic over a long term. Whichever government we have post-election will need to adopt new public health messaging: the type that encourages the public to face up to their fears and accept the new reality of this post-Covid-19 world.
Emily Broadmore is a Director of Heft Communications in Wellington, and previously worked in Parliament supporting MP’s and Ministers during the John Key-led National government.government.
The next Parliament will have some changes to its Standing Orders, and as with previous reviews they are generally positive. Significant changes include:
One of the more significant revisions. People often think Parliament is all about question time, but in reality a huge amount is done outside that which is constructive and useful towards improving laws and Government performance.
Labour have just announced a new tax rate of 39% on incomes over $180,000. This is in contrast to Australia that has legislated to cut taxes.
Of course the 39% new tax rate is just the beginning. If they have a Labour/Green Government then they could strike a deal to implement part of the Greens’ tax agenda also.
But even with just what Labour is promising, this will see every New Zealander who earns up to and including $300,000 a year paying more income tax in New Zealand than they would in Australia.
| Income | NZ | Aust | Extra tax NZ |
| $ 10,000 | $ 1,050 | $ – | $ 1,050 |
| $ 20,000 | $ 2,520 | $ 342 | $ 2,178 |
| $ 30,000 | $ 4,270 | $ 2,242 | $ 2,028 |
| $ 40,000 | $ 6,020 | $ 4,142 | $ 1,878 |
| $ 50,000 | $ 8,020 | $ 6,592 | $ 1,428 |
| $ 60,000 | $ 11,020 | $ 9,592 | $ 1,428 |
| $ 70,000 | $ 14,020 | $ 12,592 | $ 1,428 |
| $ 80,000 | $ 17,320 | $ 15,592 | $ 1,728 |
| $ 90,000 | $ 20,620 | $ 18,592 | $ 2,028 |
| $ 100,000 | $ 23,920 | $ 21,592 | $ 2,328 |
| $ 110,000 | $ 27,220 | $ 24,592 | $ 2,628 |
| $ 120,000 | $ 30,520 | $ 27,592 | $ 2,928 |
| $ 130,000 | $ 33,820 | $ 30,592 | $ 3,228 |
| $ 140,000 | $ 37,120 | $ 33,592 | $ 3,528 |
| $ 150,000 | $ 40,420 | $ 36,592 | $ 3,828 |
| $ 160,000 | $ 43,720 | $ 39,592 | $ 4,128 |
| $ 170,000 | $ 47,020 | $ 42,592 | $ 4,428 |
| $ 180,000 | $ 50,320 | $ 45,592 | $ 4,728 |
| $ 190,000 | $ 54,220 | $ 48,592 | $ 5,628 |
| $ 200,000 | $ 58,120 | $ 51,592 | $ 6,528 |
| $ 210,000 | $ 62,020 | $ 56,092 | $ 5,928 |
| $ 220,000 | $ 65,920 | $ 60,592 | $ 5,328 |
| $ 230,000 | $ 69,820 | $ 65,092 | $ 4,728 |
| $ 240,000 | $ 73,720 | $ 69,592 | $ 4,128 |
| $ 250,000 | $ 77,620 | $ 74,092 | $ 3,528 |
| $ 260,000 | $ 81,520 | $ 78,592 | $ 2,928 |
| $ 270,000 | $ 85,420 | $ 83,092 | $ 2,328 |
| $ 280,000 | $ 89,320 | $ 87,592 | $ 1,728 |
| $ 290,000 | $ 93,220 | $ 92,092 | $ 1,128 |
| $ 300,000 | $ 97,120 | $ 96,592 | $ 528 |
| $ 310,000 | $ 101,020 | $ 101,092 | $ (72) |
A person earning $40,000 a year pays 45% more income tax in NZ than Australia. On $70,000 you are paying 11% more here than Australia and on $200,000 you are paying 13% more here than Australia.
The amount of revenue this will bring in is trivial compared to the amount of extra spending and debt Labour is incurring. So beyond doubt, if re-elected, they’ll then say they need to increases tax even more.
National on the other hand says it is unfair that inflation pushes you into a higher tax bracket even when your disposable income remains constant, so National will inflation adjust tax brackets to stop inflation pushing up your tax bill every year.