Posts by Katharine Moody
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Budget 2017: How do we get…, in reply to Paul Conway,
There is the main paper, which is still accessible but aimed at an economist audience, and a very accessible overview.
Just read the very accessible overview. Reads like a PR piece for the incumbent Government’s BGA (Business Growth Agenda) which has been around for 5 years now;
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/business/business-growth-agenda/towards-2025
But what actual difference has it made? To me in so many areas of the environment and the economy (and of course our economy relies on our environment to such a great degree here in NZ) – all the indicators of social, economic and environmental health and wellbeing are going backwards.
Hence the need for a budget with the emphasis on basic life necessity support mechanisms as we have just seen.
We can’t reverse this trend until we admit failure. We can write all the right fuzzy warm words we want on a page – but has the Commission analysed the government’s uptake of any of its recommendations since its inception, and quantified the positive outcomes observed? Do you know what didn’t work, and have you made recommendations for change?
A specific example that I’d bring up is the work on housing affordability. Many aspiring homeowners would like to buy a section in Auckland and put a house of their size and design choice on that section. However, restrictive covenants for new subdivisions/development prevent that. What has the PC said about that? Wouldn’t it have made a huge difference if SHA legislation had required all new land brought on stream to be restricted from having any of the design/build covenants? Or perhaps my perception is wrong – and there is lots of new land being made available where you can move a relocated house (perhaps the least cost housing solution) onto it?
These are the simple but significant and practical policy measures that (to my mind) are desperately needed.
I don’t mean to be overly critical (its just that my patience is wearing thin) but most of the PC work I’ve had a look at so far seems very much status quo type of advice that mirrors what was said to MED (when that was the name of the equivalent Ministry) years and years ago. The advice states the obvious and provides a set of ‘room for improvement’ sounding goals with heaps of promise for a better future – as opposed to practical ‘on the ground’ advice to do things differently in the here and now.
At least when the government ignores the PCE’s advice – which they usually do – she writes a follow up report and criticises them for their inaction. Same has been the case for the Children’s Commissioner, Perhaps that is not the PC’s mandate.
-
Yes, I think UBI is in our future but we'd need a major overhaul of tax - including, I assume finding a way to make multinationals pay their fair share.
Meantime, maybe a way out for the accommodation supplement is the announcement of a programme of staged reductions in it (perhaps over a 4-5 year period) while announcing at the same time rent controls and tenancy protections (for existing tenancies) and 'ring-fencing' of tax losses on residential rentals. It will have a knock-on effect of lowering house prices over that 4-5 year timeframe (as landlords exit loss making businesses) and likely bring more low-priced/FHB suited property to the market. Government might also need to think about providing housing finance to people who have poor credit ratings mainly because their cost-of-accommodation has just been too high to meet all bill payments on time every month in the past (i.e., mortgages to those households with bad credit ratings but good employment history).
Building more social housing as the safety net is key to any such radical market adjustment I imagine.
And I wonder if the only way out of WFF is wage inflation, possibly through a series of planned (and notified) minimum wage rises over a 4-5 year period. It will have an inflationary effect but we seem to have room for that at the moment anyway. And surely, it would focus business owners and employers on productivity gains. Additionally, perhaps minimum wage rises should be accompanied by a staged approach to lowering company tax rates over the corresponding period - and introducing some form of capital gains and/or inheritance tax to supplement the lost government revenue.
Point is though - I'm neither a tax nor an economics expert but I can see we do need an unwind to all these subsidies and adjustments/tax rebates. I'm aghast it doesn't seem that any political party (aside from TOP perhaps) are crunching numbers with the right people to come up with expert informed solutions.
-
Would be very interested in your thoughts about TOP's policy proposal, Russell;
-
Gorgeous memories and interpretations on the theme. Enjoyed every single one - great warmth in sharing. I had to go for two - who I was and who I am. My husband and I are both the youngest (the babies) in our families. The top photo is the only picture we have of 'we two youngests' with both sets of our parents. Then we had our babies, and our babies had their babies ... and in no time at all - we are the grandies in the family photo. This wheel of life never ceases to amaze me.
-
Hard News: Media Take: We need to talk…, in reply to ,
But mostly, it’s not really medical marijuana, it’s decriminalisation.
Yes, I agree and that's why I prefer the Colorado model over the California one. Decriminalisation (largely for medicinal purposes) is a Clayton's form of reform. From what I can gather from the doco Druglawed it simply became the evil weed as a means to keep bureaucrats in jobs once alcohol prohibition ended in the US.
And that has unfairly hindered society's progress toward exploring and exploiting its medicinal benefits - whilst at the same time making the criminal element in terms of its distribution wildly prosperous, along with the horrific cruelty such escalation of cartels and gangs has wrought on many societies.
Better it becomes a legal substance, regulated like alcohol - as to me it is a more honest (and sensible) approach.
-
Hard News: Media Take: We need to talk…, in reply to ,
The best case for medical marijuana that I’ve seen, is in California. It’s better to just allow people who want to use it, to use it, just as long as they know the side effects. And just like any medication, there are side effects.
That's where the doco on Choice added new understandings - as they were growing different hybrids for different medical uses/conditions, and processing medicines and prescribing delivery mechanisms on an individual patient basis. All these things subsequently reducing the negative and psychoactive side effects. What I got from that was that self-medicating, even for pain, isn't the way to go.
-
Hard News: Media Take: We need to talk…, in reply to dave stewart,
My argument completely. Let’s get rich on a sustainable, value-add crop. Lead the world. Point is - it won't happen in the US due to big pharma - we can get a serious jump on the int'l market by leading the way in R&D.
-
Life of Its Own: The Truth about Medical Marijuana on Choice TV on Sunday, converted my super-straight, conservative, pensioner partner :-). He became a conspiracy theorist at the same time, certain that US pharma was behind the suppression of all the product research and expertise on it in Israel.
Of course there's me just thinking about agri-academic utopia in NZ where our best agrichemists and botanists were developing new strains of weed that targeted all kinds specific medical uses - instead of trying to develop GM grasses that reduce methane gas output from cows.
The husband being an epileptic with chronic pain would quite rather be taking a herbal remedy than his current swathe of chemical remedies too.
And as for what to do - I'm for legalisation via the Denver model. I participated in TOP's survey of members and it was really well put together. An exemplar of informed choice. Can't wait to see the policy output - though I suspect Gareth himself to be more of a conservative incrementalist.
We should be getting into this industry/harvest like a dog's breakfast. No bigger value-add commodity product out there to my mind. Suzanne Aubert funded her orphanages with the value-add medicinal products she prepared. We need to embrace our true heritage.
-
Finally, Paul Spoonley has admitted:
There is a case for revising aspects of the recruitment and approval of immigrants. The low value courses and qualifications offered by some educational providers puts New Zealand’s reputation at risk.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11847932
-
Hard News: Every option has costs, every…, in reply to James Littlewood*,
If there’s a magic number that balances the need for in-demand labour categories against growing infrastructure costs, I’d really like to see it.
I follow a lot of local government issues - and my pretty sound impression is that the infrastructure deficit in NZ is a massive, massive problem - here and now. Most/many LGs are already at or exceeding their earlier self-imposed debt limits. Needed wastewater treatment plant upgrades and stormwater system upgrades are the most common of the capital project under investments. These infrastructure deficits are causing serious environmental degradation. Neither are we very good at solid waste management.
Our urban areas are big polluters. We have exceeded the environmental carrying capacity in most of our urban areas already, based on our existing infrastructure, notwithstanding our roading/transport problems.
We really are fouling our own nest at an alarming rate. We are simply not geared up in a modern, technological way for the present tourist and resident population.
You know the old saying, 'somethings gotta break' - well it is breaking daily, right in front of our eyes, but we just aren't mature enough to admit it. Yet, as Rosemary points out above - visitors do notice it, along with our growing level of visible poverty.
