Written By:
- Date published:
5:30 pm, April 30th, 2026 - 29 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
The NZ public has been given just over 2 weeks to make submissions on the NZ-India FTA.
https://www3.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/54SCFADT_SCF_ECD96E4C-4BD9-4244-978C-08DEA4D2595B/international-treaty-examination-of-the-free-trade-agreement
That seems ridiculously short to get all ducks in a row for such a big deal; the main document is 1399 pages!
Sincere question:
What is the point of a submission?
It's a done deal.
Especially as neither of our two major parties have ever seen a "free trade" deal they didn't like.
A prime example of "magical fix" thinking, that prove over time that the results never live up to the promise.
Other countries know that NZ Governments are such true believers in "free trade" that they can screw us over a barrell.
It is a set up.
National want NZF to win opposition votes on the issue and keep them in office. (they ignored NZF in making the deal and would do the same in any next term).
If Labour blocked it, National would have sought to win votes off them on trade and economic policy.
A leak leading to an investigative story that gets stymied.
Then a social media post. So it gets into the MSM that way.
And it all began in a Minister's office around a budget cycle ago
(was it a racial slur resulting in a response?)
What we do know is the Minister then criticised Shane the mouth Jones for opposing more Indians being in the country under the FTA (as distinct from more migrants per se) as racist.
Even AI notes
It is sort of funny that the Indian response has been "we can make better tasting food at lower cost". Inferring they expect more of their mouth when talking and thus feed it better.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/593706/mike-hosking-says-tvnz-threatened-to-sue-us-over-maiki-sherman-story
"(was it a racial slur resulting in a response?)"
That was my first reaction and still is. She appears to have been having an argument of some sort and my suspicion is, she was provoked into making a reciprocal response. Racism in all its ugly hues?
Not a subscriber so can't see it, but Audrey Young has written a piece about the hate and venom Maiki Sherman is apparently experiencing. I'm not a fan of her style of commentating but I acknowledge she plays a straight ball no matter who is in the firing line.
https://archive.li/xFjG9#selection-5089.0-5109.303
Note allegedly
https://archive.li/DIIe2#selection-4297.65-4297.140
Immigration sentiment
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/593144/kiwis-views-on-immigration-are-hardening-very-fast
In the UK anti-immigration peaked after immigration slowed substantially.
The same here.
A concern maybe over demographic make-up because of the outflow of New Zealanders to Oz.
https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/net-migration-gain-of-13700/
It appears to be an Auckland issue.
https://archive.li/m377B#selection-4943.70-4947.28
Auckland to 50% European by 2030, New Zealand 50% by 2050.
https://archive.li/m377B#selection-4943.70-4947.28
The longer term issue is planning.
Forecast labour shortages and job loss via AI (robotics)(automation).
One big issue will be sustaining the regions/provinces/towns – their older New Zealand setting and subdivisions may have appeal in the on-line economy.
The older aged provincial population will also need care workers/residential care hub placements in exchange for housing.
Super
1.an estate tax manages the structural cost problem
2.if there is still a problem, there is the 1983-1984 discussion
*make it a payment for those who have retired
*no some people are still working to pay off their mortgage (AH), Labour did a surtax
^make it a payment for those who have retired, those still working to either pay rent or to pay a mortgage.
The effective retirement age is well after 65 already, as the super is not enough to live on now, even if you own your own house. Unlike 30 or even 20 years ago.
More and more pensioners have to work to supplement the pension.
Raising the age, means testing or putting other conditions on super, like the petty meanness we already inflict on the unemployed and disabled, have been suggested.
Anything but the obvious solution. Tax wealth.
i think 65 is to early now . people live well into there 80s with massive medicql costs that come with it , we need to restructure work . more flexible hours ,job share.
As having been a manual/physical worker most of my working life…I really think 65 was pushing it. Most of us..are worn out…
It used to be 60 back in the day…for all the boomers that are now enjoying the golden years.
The retirement age went back up to 65, well before boomers retired.
But we did have the 60% marginal tax rate, to pay for the people that did.
Well, IMO you are looking at that through your own personal filter. Doesn't answer my point at 3.1.1.1.1.1…
My perspective is fighting to keep super for our grandchildren.
It doesn't make any difference to me.
We are already on a slippery path to privatised super, which will end with the same tears as other privatisations. As Harris said, in my link above, when Kiwisaver was on the offing. Universal super eliminates so much unfairness, and yes, costs. Marginal tax rates already means test additional earnings.
It's proponents don't need ammunition, about replacing State pensions with private savings, from the left.
Who is doing that?
Hipkins, for one.
Harris in 1999 was responding to a referendum proposal from Peters for compulsory super saving.
2007 era KiwiSaver (voluntary) has been the basis for saving for a home and having savings when retiring – so that people are not just living on a fixed income in their retirement.
It does not supplant super, because it was not designed to do so – being voluntary – and the rates are too low for this.
And you don't think others (myself included) feel the same?
I however do not think we are all equally entitled to Super. Especially the (boomer and other) asset class.
I absolutely agree with Susan st John
And some numbers…
I can see where you are coming from, but means and asset testing for welfare is a poverty trap for many. You have to deplete anything you have accumulated over years to almost zero, before getting unemployment benefit, for example. Any disabled help is clawed back even for minimal earnings. Pensions is the only welfare that is not. The issue is if means testing is to make any inroads on costs, it has to start at rather low amounts of means.
Do you want to discourage private savings, such as Kiwisaver, that everyone is so keen on replacing state pensions with? (I object to replacing state pensions with private savings. The argument is that it "reduces the burden on the state. However the burden on the generation supporting old people remains exactly the same. Same resources. Changing where the money comes from doesn't change that). Of course you could always just leave the elderly to die on the street. ACT would be happy to do that just to reduce the "tax bourdon".
You forget that those pensioners still working on those high incomes are still working, still contributing to the economy, and paying much more in tax than they receive in super.
We need them to keep voting for a liveable super, even if the cost is their "pocket money" so that our kids get it.
Higher marginal income tax rates deal with the "costs" of keeping the "wealthy" still working with pocket money. And taxes on wealth such as capital gains, progressive taxes on inheritences and other forms of unearned income pay for decent welfare for the disabled, sick, unemployed, as well as for Government investment.
New Zealands "structeral deficit" is due to lack of State and private investment that builds capability.
I don't think you do at all. And IMO all your comments on this show me exactly that. And FFS do not conflate anything I have said with ACT !
You were the one saying the Left must….I do indeed find that hard to digest, when you have quite openly commented on these very rich super recipients condescending largesse in spending their pocket money in the village. Seems strangely incongruous to me. And IMO a new take on the trickle down..charitable spending.
The rate was cut to 33% in the 1980's
The super age went from age 60 to 65 in the 1990's.
When the oldest boomers were 50.
Budget deficit and debt problems existed before the structural deficit resulting from the baby boomer demographic (much larger number of people on super to the total population in our history).
It can be argued that the nation could not afford the generous level of universal super (previously a means test) that Muldoon brought in 1977 to remove the Kirk-Rowling government.
The age pension was age 65 back in olden times when we began one of the first programmes back in 1898.
Working class Labour introduced payment from age 60 in 1938 as a means tested age benefit.
Today's universal super began in 1977.
1984 Labour introduced a surtax regime (for those with higher other income)
1992-2001 saw the increase in age to 65, (but those age to 60-65 got a higher rate benefit if they were unemployed/sick).
[Transitional Retirement Benefit (TRB)] in 1994
Because there are so many jobs available like that?
The only "flexible hours" are 24/7 on call. Which are taken up by immigrants who are desperate enough to take the low pay and uncertainty.
They don’t want pensioners anyway. Many of them refuse to employ even young Kiwis.
There is a large disparity.
It is based on occupation and health.
This is why if the resort is to raising the age, it has to be done by paying super rate benefits for those without work over 65 (or even back to over 60).
For all those paying rent or a mortgage sure (and the numbers of these will be increasing for those of the post boomer demographic).
But less than half of those age 65-70 work (because home ownership is near 80% for those 65-74).
As I said, the first action is to manage the structural deficit issue via an estate tax (2/3rd of the OECD do this).
If there is still a problem, of revenue and costs why?
1.lack of growth and tax derived
Then vote out the C of C, because they made things worse and do not invest well for the future either.
2.transfer of profit from growth into non taxable forms (CG, unrealised CG).
The limited CG (near all of the OECD have a broader CGT than this) Labour would get is already earmarked for health spending.
It does provide a minor incentive to invest in more productive economic sectors.
It is just a way of reducing payout to those who are working over age 65, if this is without a transitional payment to those without work or unable to, it would be the meanest option to the working class etc.
Means tests do not impact the working class – thus Australia has them.
Why are we so mean to the unemployed, sick and disabled compared to those on super? It is a class issue.
The priority is an estate tax. It can be at death, or one can have a wealth tax that collects money each year in predictable amounts and is a pre payment of the future estate tax liability.