Posts by Sacha
-
Labour MP Grant Robertson blogs about politics and the quake (and attracts inflamed comments already - sigh).
The mere fact of this debate has caused anguish for some. I accept that this is a sensitive area. As I said there are many people still waiting to learn the fate of their family members, and thousands of people doing it really tough every day. But the discussion about the future of Christchurch and what will be done is now in the public arena as likely costs are released by the government, and questions asked by the media and others. It does not, and should not stop the focus on rescue, recovery and ensuring the immediate health and safety of residents.
In fact it is important for our democracy that the debate is held. These are important decisions about the future of our whole country, especially Christchurch, but for all of us in the end. The choices that are made, and the priorities accorded to future spending need to be the subject of debate. There is need to hold the government to account, and to oppose and propose where necessary. This is not disrespectful to the people of Christchurch, it is in fact to support them and take further steps to recovery.
We must strive to work together for the people of Christchurch. We must be sensitive to an emotionally charged situation. But there will be debate and disagreement. That is a healthy part of our democracy. That is part of politics. And politics need not be a dirty word. It should be the mechanism by which we go about about finding the best outcome for the people and the future of Christchurch and the rest of our great country.
-
Here's a cracker. The Standard digs out Bill English explaining National's decision in 2008 not to roll back WFF if elected.
“The National Party’s decision not to change Working For Families delivers certainty for struggling families.
A careful analysis of Working For Families reveals there would have only been small savings had National opted to remove those on higher incomes from the scheme. Taking higher-income families out of WFF saves very little money, at least in the short term.
As at 31 March 2007, around 1,000 families earning over $100,000 were receiving WFF, and payments to those families totalled only $1.1 million. Any policy to take higher-income families out of WFF would only affect a handful of families, and they would be families with four or more children.
So cutting the top of WFF would save a tiny fraction of what's needed to pay for Christchurch. However the scheme is apparently constructed so that cutting the top inevitably hacks into the middle as well. Idiot/Savant considers the impact:
Basically, there's no way to do this which doesn't hurt people who National doesn't want to hurt, either by cutting their income or sticking them in a poverty trap. It can't be done. If National wants to cut the top-end of WFF, then everyone else gets to be collateral damage to their symbolism. That's not good policy.
And in an election year, its not good politics either. There will be no shortage of people in Christchurch willing to ask "how does cutting my income / massively increasing my marginal tax rate help me recover from the earthquake". Its a damn good question.
-
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to Stephen Judd,
Once your radio batteries have died, how exactly do you hear where to go and who to call? After a week there must be a lot of people who are isolated from official news and unable to report problems.
Hence my earlier suggestion:
Reading that Peter Hyde piece, it sounds like an urgent investment in door-to-door circulation of clear printed material is warranted - and asking at the same time what each household needs. Then repeating the process regularly.
-
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to Matthew Poole,
If he's going to do so, rebuilding the CBD "fast" is possible
The more pressure to act in the short-term interests of those to whom this government prefers listening, the more likely standards will be 'relaxed'.
However it could go either way. Building and Housing Minister Maurice Williamson just told Mark Sainsbury he's proud of our standards for new buildings, but sidestepped questions about how to get more urgent action on retrofitting *older* ones. Christchurch's CBD looks likely to continue to have a mix of both - unless the standards are enforced more *strongly* to avoid that dangerous heritage so worrying to regional commandant Brownlee.
Williamson used the same language as his govt does about matters environmental - all about "balance" with economic objectives (which mainly centre around the convenience of the wealthy, obviously). If only smarter minds were around that cabinet table, we could have a bit of confidence about good decisions being made about this.
-
Hard News: The First Draft, in reply to B Jones,
I'd be surprised
I see no reason to doubt that someone gave it to him. More important fish to fry anyway.
-
WFF cuts increasingly portrayed as a done deal.
Stuff site headline trumpets "High-income benefit cut after Christchurch earthquakes", though the story remains more tentative.
Herald story begins:
Wealthy parents receiving money from Working for Families look set to lose the funding as the Government looks to find financial relief for the Christchurch earthquake.
-
More opportune lobbying. Rebuild the cbd real fast says the head of the large Ballantynes department store - and make decisions in the next few weeks.
"Speed is going to be of the essence here. The longer the city is closed off, the more people will leave it, the more businesses will relocate, they'll set up in other areas, and they may like those areas and never come back to the city," Richard Ballantyne, executive director of Ballantynes department store, said.
"Key decisions have to be made relatively quickly, in order to make sure that the confidence can be kept up to a level where people will feel that they can come back and build their businesses in the inner city. What those businesses will look like nobody knows at the moment."
...
It would be difficult for Ballantynes to go anywhere else, due to factors such as the size of its footprint, the fact it only worked very well in central city, and because it was synonymous with the inner city.
...
While hopeful about the rebuilding of the inner city, Ballantyne acknowledged there had been concerns about the central district even before the first earthquake in September.
Issues had included the growth of shopping in the suburbs, commercial office space moving outside the four avenues central city precinct, and the near disappearance of the manufacturing sector.
-
Haven't seen a cost for the response. The estimate for rebuilding seems to be a $5b topup above EQC and insurance (though I'd say more). Key has talked today about the impact on GDP and tax revenue.
A recession in the first half of 2011 cannot be ruled out, and there’s likely to be “virtually no growth” recorded in New Zealand for the financial year through June, Key said. He estimated the impact of the earthquake will reduce gross domestic product by about NZ$15 billion ($11 billion) and result in about NZ$5 billion less in tax revenue.
-
Hard News: What Now?, in reply to Emma Hart,
Bound to reassure
-
Good on you, Orcon