Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, November 23rd, 2025 - 30 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Well this was a surprise on a quiet Sunday morning. Treasury says we need to increase taxation and need more consistent taxation of capital income. They are endorsing the 2019 Tax Working Group but don't quite explicitly endorse Labour's current CGT.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/personal-finance/tax/treasury-its-a-matter-of-when-not-if-taxes-need-to-rise-to-get-the-countrys-finances-on-a-sustainable-path/premium/C6U6DOQVZVDX7DN4IA6LIWDAOU/
https://archive.li/rMZng
Way to much in there for a selective quote, but the speech comes across as a solid rebuttal of the Government's taxation policies, or rather our society's taxation expectations.
The conundrum here is how a Government shapes society's taxation expectations with what's required to pay for the infrastructure and services society also expects to be provided.
True….but taxation is also about fairness and equality.
That is captured by gift duty and an estate tax. The first part is problematic because of the bank of middle class parent assisting people into homes – gift equity (so some of means test regime to exclude the middle class doing this).
From Chris Bishop, a 'kiwi doing it tough'.
"I've had the pleasure of a couple of bits of (very quick) overseas travel in the last couple of weeks – first to Chicago for the All Blacks v Ireland game where I hosted a range of functions and events to promote "NZ Inc" in the USA, and then a flying visit to Sydney to see one of my favourite bands, Oasis…..". and …
"The other story that's had people filling my inbox is the clown show that is the Maori Party,…"
Such a nice chap (not) – is he related to Donald?
https://beatthebish.co.nz/
Good ol’ Bish – just another sorted Kiwi doing it tough – did someone say "clown show"?
Cartoon depicts National Party Prime Minister of New Zealand's 3 party coalition dressed as a clown wearing long shoes as he is tripping over the skull of smokers (refers to plans to cancel the smokefree target and repeal legislation). Luxon's head has struck a bee's nest labelled 'Tiriti O Waitangi' from which angry bees fly to sting him on the ass. His top hat falls off labelled '7 Houses'. He is about to fall face first into budget custard while crying profuse clown tears "Why can't I get a break?" he whimpers plaintively. https://natlib.govt.nz/records/54155704
A bit of UBI news from Sweden.
Is there any link to the actual details of this. The FB post is heavy on PR, but light on actual detail, or links to sources.
In any case, if it applied to only 5,000 individuals, it was anything but universal.
Now National’s sucking up to Winnie.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/579741/watch-prime-minister-christopher-luxon-announces-new-national-party-kiwisaver-policy
”National is pledging to further increase the default KiwiSaver contribution rate if re-elected at the next election.
The policy is the first firm National policy ahead of the election, which is still around a year away.
At the Budget, the government confirmed an increase to the default contribution from 3 percent to 4 by 2028.”
Not really, NZF wants it compulsory.
National would keep it voluntary (current government policy is to allow those in it to stay at 3% on hardship grounds – but only for 12 months).
Their plan is to KiwiSaver contribution to 6% (employee and employer) in 2032 (by 0.5% pa from 2028).
Labour supports the increase to 4% and further increases in the future.
NZ First wants it going up to 8% and then onto 10% (a lot for many workers).
At the moment the employer is only obliged to pay the default rate.
Employees can pay a higher amount than the default.
In Australia, the employee contributions are voluntary, but the employers ones are compulsory (that at 12%).
The Oz way is pro worker.
Winnie also got a major boost from / has the backing of the savings industry.
Simon Power, ex Nat MP now CEO of Fisher Funds came out the other day calling for higher contributions and for KiwiSaver to be compulsory.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/money/360892267/super-power-business-heavyweight-calling-compulsory-kiwisaver
He also took a slash at Muldoon axing Labour's 1975 scheme, outlining where we would be now had the Labour scheme gone ahead,
That fund even partially investing in the NZ economy would have made us a very different place. But Muldoon convinced enough people that that was Communism.
https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/dancing-cossacks-national-party-ad-1975?collection=politics
The news that Michael Wood is to stand for Labour in Mt. Roskill in the next election is welcome. It’s fair to say that I’ve long held a view that he’s an important part of Labour’s future and, like many, was dismayed by the Mt. Roskill outcome at the last election.
He clearly faced an important choice. Putting aside a possible career as travel writer and long-distance hiker, he has the potential to rise high in the union movement, which would benefit greatly from his grasp of employment relations policy and practice and commitment to working people.
Equally, however, his parliamentary career to date shows him to be at ease with the challenges of parliamentary life and high office. His return to the parliamentary party would add experience and policy grasp, and, importantly, strengthen the vital link between Labour and working people.
It’s pleasing to see the widespread commentary in support of his return to the parliamentary party. Labour can only benefit from his mixture of principle, experience and competence.
Not sure if Chris Hipkins will be so keen to have him back as he was one of the likely people to be the Labour leader. Wasn't it Hipkins that got rid of him?
Here is Shane Jones railing against the National government's pro-mining in 2010 when he was in the Labour Party.
"They have decided that the quick fix remedy is to dig the country up……it will be a short-term fillip for foreign-owned countries, the jobs will be scarce and the degradation I would think would be irreversible”
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17U9hWSbM5/
Lying hypocrite? Moi?
Up to the media if they're game enough to get him to shanesplain his positional flexibility. Go on ya pack of poodles make him earn his pieces of silver.
Irreversible degradation is same old same old and there's even less jobs than 15 years ago with automation, fly-in / fly-out nature of the work etc.
The Luxon government opposes the phase out of fossil fuel usage at COP30.
Hipkins should say Labour would join 83 principled countries and sign up to this.
"Labour's Deborah Russell says 83 countries had signed a roadmap pushing for the end of fossil fuels during the conference in Belem. New Zealand only signed up to the main climate action agreement which omitted the words fossil fuels, Russell said."
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/labour-criticises-lack-commitment-over-fossil-fuels
sigh
Published on 13 November 2025
Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels are projected to rise by 1.1% in 2025 – reaching a record high, according to new research by the Global Carbon Project.
[…]
Other key findings from the 2025 Global Carbon Budget include:
https://globalcarbonbudget.org/fossil-fuel-co2-emissions-hit-record-high-in-2025/
Great stats joe….India is a problem as is the continuing overall increase in fossil fuel usage.
BTW one of the tools supported by the COC, carbon capture (CC), is offsetting CO2 emissions growth by roughly 0.2% per year (source AI) despite many billions having been spent on it.
CC doesn't work, but Luxon, Peters and Seymour are using it as a fig leaf.
IMO best solution: Party Vote Green.
What I want for Christmas is for whatever's needed to make the left agitate educate and organize with the conviction shown in the squabble about Old Left and Russia.
To be fair, that post only blew up because some of the takes were monumentally stupid.
The left already has plenty of consensus on what needs doing in terms of social and economic policy. We’re just slow to actually do the politics.
I don't think that's it. I think it's easier to fight with clear positions than it is to do the actual mahi necessary to make change. It's long been a frustration with TS.
What's your understanding of the left there?
Good to see the new Labour candidates eh.
Yeah, honestly it’s encouraging. Wood coming back matters: Labour kneecapped itself by swallowing a right-wing storyline there. And Rennie and Payinda aren’t just fresh faces, they’ve got serious policy heft behind them.
Pair that with people like Sophie Handford in Kāpiti and Labour can tell a credible change story: owning what didn’t land last time, learning from it, and offering something bolder than “we’re not the coalition.”
The talent’s definitely there now we’ve got to match it with some solid policies and the right narrative.
And on the tone/energy around foreign-policy debates: I actually think that stuff matters. Maybe it’s self-serving given how gleefully I’ll charge into anyone peddling pro-Russian or CCP propaganda (or, honestly, anyone who disagrees with me
), but those arguments aren’t really about technocratic settings.
They’re about values. And the intellectual framework we operate under.
I get your point, and I agree with it in principle: yes, it’s easier to scrap over clear positions than to do the long, grinding mahi of building power and delivering change.
But I also don’t want to give ground on the foundations. There’s no point debating the finer points of something like a CGT when one side of the debate can’t even agree on baseline reality. On facts like that Russia invaded Ukraine, or that China is an authoritarian police state.
If we’re not starting from the same facts and democratic norms, we’re not having a policy argument at all; we’re arguing about whether truth and liberal democracy matter.
Until that’s settled, everything else is just rearranging furniture.
You mean.
"They don't agree with your "baseline reality".
I agree that "Russia invaded Ukraine, or that China is an authoritarian police state"! It doesn't mean there are not valid reasons to question those veiws.
Do you want us follow and whitewash the USA descending into an "authoritarian" police state while currently being the worlds biggest threat to the environmental response, our world desperately needs. Because they are a fellow "Liberal democracy"? What are you going to say when they do the "regime change" in Venezuala, or Brazil?
While I support training Ukrainian troops. Should we send troops to train Venezualans? After all "Invading neighbouring countries"?
"Jingo's must Jingo", I suppose?
I think you’ve made an important point:
Whatever we may think of each other's perspective and motivations, that’s separate from the facts on the ground. If we can agree on those, then there’s plenty of legitimate room to genuinely argue about causes, moral responsibility, double standards, and what policy makes sense next.
My concern is only when debate shifts from interpretation to denying verifiable events.
Sure, but there's one author who writes about it occasionally, and maybe 3 or 4 die hard pro-Russia commenters who are never going to change. Imo your comments are useful for people reading, which is important.
But meanwhile, there was significant climate action bad news this week. I can write a post about that and not many people will comment. I can write a post about positive and empowering pathways despite the bad news, of things we can actually do, and I'll get even less comments. If I put it in a NZ context I'll get more. If I frame it in terms of 'NACTF are evil bastards, I'd probably get a debate.
The problem is we already know NACTF are bastards. Talking about that isn't political action. It's a distraction. What we need to be talking about is how to create narratives of change that aren't just end of the world, but transition.
Maybe I should write a post about how human brains are evolutionarily hardwired towards the negative, and this sets us up for socialisation into conflict, and is why we can't solve the climate crisis 🤷♀️
I'm not actually criticising anyone for putting their energy into that particular post. It's more a general issue. We really do prefer to fight online rather than organise. It's depressing.
That would be super cool! There's a ton of fascinating ways to explore that dynamic. Stuff like bounded rationality, and a bunch of fun (read dangerous and stupid) cognitive biases.
I concede your point though. I've often been guilty of the vice I love to point out in others: being unduly negative and wasting time and energy navel gazing instead of building something better.
Craig Renny for Labour.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/579750/labour-selects-ctu-economist-craig-renney-as-wellington-bays-candidate
Michael Wood, Gary Payinda, and Craig Renny, that is some serious intellectual and political grunt.
Good to see them getting good people in place early. This elec could happen very fast.
I feel heartened.