You really really have no idea how Cindy plays the striptease & PR game, do you?
The interviewers get a phone call from her PR spin team telling them of ‘certain’ questions they are welcomed to ask.
Printable View
That's right. It's a coincidence that she is asked a question about the date and she announces that on a future date where she will announce a date. Then a week later she announces the city, but no date and no venue. Anyone with a mental age of more than 16 would see right through this PR exercise. You watch, anytime she is in the sh*t, she will announce another part of the puzzle.
The recently announced pay freeze for civil servants by the Labour Government would have been described by the fictional Sir Humphrey Appleby as a courageous decision(1).
I was employed(2) by a company which implemented a pay freeze for supervisory administrative and technical staff.
The effect was immediate. A significant portion of those staff quit and went to work for competitors. Mostly they were the more effective staff leaving the employer with a higher ratio of dead wood to take up the slack.
They never did it again.
My advice to civil servants whose pay is frozen is to whistle Waltzing Matilda when walking down the office corridor outside the HR department.
Boop boop de do
Marilyn
(1) Courageous decision, is an idiom used by a civil servant to politely tell a cabinet minister what is proposed is politically dangerous.
(2) Marilyn occupied a position in the company at the "hey you" level and was paid accordingly. Being mean to my pay packet would not have had a meaningful fiscal benefit.
Don't overlook the interest in weddings by the brain dead among the hoi polloi. I have even seen a DVD for sale called something like The weddings from Coronation st, which is simply what has been shown in the program for those who want to watch those scenes again. That's dinkum.
Chris Trotter disgusted with Cynical Cindy & her team of incompetents :
https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/1...-new-game-they
What our politicians now appear to be playing is a game called “Holding On To Power At All Costs”.
In my opinion Labour wants more people dependable on money redistribution as most are guaranteed Labour voters. They don't really care about people's wellbeing. If they did, they'd address real low poor people problems. Like tax bracket creep. No GST on healthy food. Kainga ora first home grants that have limits under which you can actually find houses.
Meanwhile all of their policies are on getting more tax out of people. More tax on fuel doesn't hurt rich people, it hurts poor the most. Minimum wage raises causing services to become more expensive doesn't hurt rich, it hurts poor most. Taxing interest for property investors doesn't hurt investors, they'll just pass it to renters... Labour was even nice enough to spread it for them accros 4 years so they can increase rent progressively.
I don't understand how anyone can't see this. And how anyone is okay with any governments increasing taxes and coming with new sneaky taxes while they run the most inefficient organization. With all the taxes people are now paying more than 50% of income to the government and it gets worse every year...
The 10% swing voters who change parties probably don't though.
Not all landlords will be able to recover new expenses from rent increases. Especially for recent purchases where the new interest deduction rule has not been taken into account in the sums. And of course there are many other new costs, compliances and risks imposed over the past 3+ years.
And not all landlords are paying interest. They will do well out of the new rules if they keep adjusting rents to around market rent. That would be market rent that is already increasing and not looking like stopping any time soon except perhaps in specific oversupply locations like Auckland apartments. Meantime they are quietly upgrading their rentals, as required, and the tenants are paying.
Moe then half of private rentals are managed by professional property managers. They will have a very good handle on market rents, supply and demand and are working for their client not the tenants.
We are still waiting on the definition of "New build" according to Labour. Because obviously their announcement came without actually having an idea what the implementation will be. However you are correct. But my post was to highlight the Labour policies are always hardests on poor people and this one is not an exception.
People might be aware that there is a very big NZ property investors Facebook group (53,000 members and counting). Yesterday a developer posted that they have several new townhouses ready for buyers but as agent doesn't know the new build rules sales are at risk. That developer must be worried sick.
I agree. I think some can see. However probably insufficient numbers for Labour to rely on in order to get elected. Labour wanted the Treasury Benches and decided that the way to achieve electoral success was by promising not to broaden the tax base by introducing a general CGT etc. However they tried to get around that by making a dog's dinner by introducing a new income tax band, extending brightline, disallowing interest deductions in some circumstances and now saving costs by freezing pay.
Labour becomes "comradey" and flies "The people's red flag" only when it suits them.
I can't help but to ask, what do you suggest how the NZ gov't can help those in need, those on low income without proper accommodation or the means to make a living?
All too easy to point the finger and blame and rah rah. I've even given examples what other countries like Canada have done to address these issues but the response is more like, "well if you think Canada is great, why don't you move there right away kind of attitude".
When I moved to NZ 25 years ago, I assumed it was a very progressive country. But all I see is the rich continually suck the wealth from society (by the hands of owning residential properties). Many don't realise that NZ's residential market is a net sum game meaning the actions by the wealthy from buying more and more houses (as demand increases), also punishes the majority in paying more on their mortgages. The winners are the banks as they reap more profits and where do these earnings go?
So again, if everyone is so rah rah on how poor of a job Jacinda and her Labour Party has done, I would suggest gives some other better ideas to this conversation. There's a lot of people I dislike but that doesn't mean I need constantly say so and so is "disgusting" (eh Balance ?)
I fail to see the distinction of communism and what the Labour Party has done. Raising taxes is not an act of communism. Capitalism still applies in NZ businesses and if individuals make their wealth, they're able to enjoy it. I do feel Jacinda wanted CGT in NZ (as recommended by the TWG) but there was no way to convince the rest of the NZ gov'ts that CGT would be the best choice. How could you when the majority of NZ gov't politicians own a hefty real estate portfolio? So instead Jacinda when for the easy ones. Very easy to extend the Bright Line test, add another income tax bracket, salary freezes all around. On the latter, it's called leading by example and nothing is worse than gov't politicians having increases in pay while the private sector struggles to employ anyone.
Look at Singapore where they citizens are under strict gov't authoritarian rule while maintain all incentives for capitalism. A system that worked so well, China even copied it. However, the key distinction is China copied only their business economic model and not their individual freedom and rights that western nations embrace. Maybe i'm not seeing the whole picture but communism to me means loss of individual freedoms such as the ability to voice your own opinion, ability of mobility, ability of thoughts and expression to the public, ability to make different choices.
Jacinda is a fair weather socialist. If a socialist policy won't get her elected she discards it. NZ has socialised capitalism bounded by tax and regulation.
There is no doubt that NZers wealth is so very heavily dependent on real estate, both owner occupied and rented out. Politicians on both left and right treat it as a sacred cow.
Sure if Individuals inherit or increase their wealth, they keep it*. If people earn income to try to build up wealth, it is taxed - and then any interest - is taxed again. Add to that the GST on necessities too. NZ may have a progressive income tax system but it has has a regressive tax system overall.
*by and large. There are exceptions. Hence individuals have sought the tax efficiency of investing heavily in their owner-occupied real estate.
No tax on first 10-15k of income. Change tax brackets to take into account last 11 years of inflation. No GST on healthy food ingredients you can use to cook from. Government led aprenticeship program that would allow businesses to deduct aprentices as a business expense. Mandatory school finance classes that will teach debt is bad and how to save and invest. Let home owners deduct part of the interest on their house.
Review housing NZ residents need for housing. Kick the ones abusing it. Kick out the ones causing issues. Put time limits for benefits for people who are fit to work.
As for property. Relax zoning. Force councils to clear land for development by private sector, in exchange private sector would have to provide percentage of those houses to FHB through Kainga ora. If you build enough, you'll suspend house prices as is happening in Christchurch.
As for HNZ, build tiny homes, apartments, container homes. It is a huge mistake buying houses for social housing.
I was interested to read that an interaction with moaning Brit unionist Pat Kelly had a significant influence on management colossus, Rob Campbell.
“Pat worked for the drivers’ union, and he had some colleagues with him. They were expressing the view that when they went to their wage negotiations and said ‘we’d like more’ and the boss refused, all they could do was either sulk about it or go on strike,” he says"
https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/13...g-class-heart/
The circle of life.
I have written about it before and will do so and repeat once more again!
Copy Singapore's Housing Development Board (HDB) model and provide affordable housing to all NZers who want one.
End of the story.
I'm sure all NZ's gov'ts have looked that these issues. Regarding the income tax exemption limit & no GST on healthy foods, the problem I hear from accountants is it makes the income tax very complicated. When Canada created the GST system, they made foods exempted from this tax. NZ came over and looked at the GST system and brought it over to NZ ; with the exception for simplicity by placing GST on everything at end consumption. Interestingly there is no GST on bank service fees in NZ.
Canada index payments according to inflation. Likewise to investment contributions like their TFSA (Started at $5K / year and how grown to now $6K / year). In fact a lot of the ideas you're saying already exist in Canada. So the real problem is why didn't the NZ gov't copy it? Again the key reason is "in sake for simplicity". Such as NZ residents not requiring to file a tax return every year while in Canada, it's nearly mandatory.
Home owner mortgage interest deductions i'm not a fan of unless the capital gain is taxed. You either run it like a business or you don't. This issue has been hammered in Canada and they found the average person can not file that properly - so better to leave it out and keep the individual principal dwelling as exempt from CGT. But what we have in NZ is it seems that investors into residential properties game it by complaining they can no longer take this mortgage expense deduction while getting away of paying any CGT at the end. This is not fair. But many will disagree saying that it just increases rent which is not the case (again this is not the case in Canada too where taxes are more extreme for those in the rental game; there's a limit to how much more you can increase rent).
Relaxing zones are not the problem. The problem councils have said time and time again is the development cost. Who pays for that like infrastructure? Roadways, sewer, storm water, landscaping, etc. to those new zones? The land owners already pay enough to develop their own roads - but can't ask them to pay for the road ways going in and all the connections? I believe the RMA needs to be changed so that we build UP and not build single story everywhere. But the RMA is just that - it restricts all development going up and adds HUGE costs to compliance and 'notified public resource consents'.
Tiny homes are a waste of time. They don't add real value to the land and are not considered real 'improvements' to the land as they are suppose to be 'temporary' buildings (hence being moveable). In Canada welfare / dole recipients go into gov't housing which is.. MULTISTORY complexes, many nicer than the Somerset / Ryman offerings in NZ to the elderly. The high density living gives low income families no benefit to having their 'own back yard', no ability to park their own vehicles, no pets, ; like they say, when you are poor "you are really poor" and anything else is not a necessity. Keep in mind, the gov't owns these mass complexes and they integrate these buildings within wealthier communities too, so their children go to the same school where the wealthy send their children to.
Have a look what Vancouver is doing:
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/1552...sing?auto=true
Compare Vancouver's city landscape the Auckland. There should be no reason why most of Auckland is developed on single story dwellings. All because the RMA restricts everything (and no, i'm sick of the excuse that if you don't have the income, go move to South Auckland where dwellings cost a lot less). The high price neighborhoods NEED intensive high density building.
All I see here are excuses.
Adding a second tier to GST is completely normal in most of the world and something your POS software system will solve for you. The same is with tax returns, you'll add couple of fields to current automatic system and you're done.
Infrastructure - we pay enough in taxes, developers pay horendous amounts of money for consents. Government is just so inefficient they use most for just running itself. And I never said the developments should be low density.
Tiny homes are better solution than motels before you develop enough apartment buildings.
We are witnessing government’s intervention in the housing & accommodation market on a massive scale - with bugger all impact.
Might as well go the whole hog and adopt the Singapore HDB model - affordable housing for all. Better spent of the tens of billions of dollars wasted currently on ill conceived and piece meal solutions.
You may not run your own business but I can assure you the exemptions do add up a lot of time for accountants to figure out. It's not as simple as leaving it to the accounting software to work out it : and why should small businesses rely on it? It's like Xero marketing their payment accounting system to small businesses in the same way as marketing Ferraris to Toyota owners. Translates to a lot of $ spent on something less productive. I think in the past threads we've battled this issue on GST exemptions of food before and I will agree, the 'simplicity' seems to fit nice in NZ; we're a small nation that should not have the vast accounting complexities as the larger nations.
To give you an idea, in Canada no one files a tax return manually on paper. The computations and wording is FAR FAR too complex for the layman that it's pretty much mandatory to use tax filing software. Just like Canada's vast open land and county side, so is their income tax act. Almost every angle you look at has exemptions of some sort. Exemptions for disable people, exemptions for small businesses in certain sectors, exemptions in farming, exemptions oil & gas explorations, medical exemptions if it exceeds a certain amount ratio to the person's low income. It's VAAAAAST! The question I ask here in NZ is do WE need such complexities?
A 'Tiny Home' is no different to a large motorhome and should not be created as a substitute for a proper home. I agree the NZ gov't is slow at the housing issue by WINZ recipients and it's easier to hire out the motels. But the ultimate root problem still lies in NZ's RMA because if you look at how Vancouver is building 'social housing' - those kinds of projects are well beyond what the NZ RMA would ever allow.
So is the problems we have in NZ due to a lack of planning and foresight or, a lack of resources?
Look you asked for suggestions, I gave them. Maybe they are not ideal (took me about 10 minutes on top of my head), but everything is better than solving everything by raising taxes like current government does.
I think you're correct in saying there's no planning. Nobody with balls to actually start huge projects that are necessary.
Well we have to fund the shortfall from selling assets for 1/3 of their current value in a recession. fiscal wizards.
National provided 25c to those on the lowest incomes in a growing economy.
50c if they wanted to splurge a bit lol.
Too funny. The remaining Government shares in the assets you refer to are worth a lot more than the companies were back when in full Government ownership. It was indeed a very smart move.
No idea what you're referring to with 25c & 50c but no doubt it makes sense to you
Labour getting tough on immigration? Happy to see as I am a xenophobe who thinks a population of 5 million is about right for a country the size of NZ. The only argument I have seen for a larger population is more people consuming stuff more GDP and a continuation of the endless growth model.
Also I am a greenie and think man made climate change won't be addressed by filling up NZ with more people. Sadly the green party doesn't care about climate change as much.
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/natio...?ocid=msedgntp
Importing low-skill people just makes them cheap - with cheap people, you don't need to increase productivity via mechanisation or similar means (working smarter).
We do need to import some people, though, as our birth rate is below the replacement (around 1.7 v's 2.1 which would be needed) so our population would reduce (like Japan).
If you need to import some people you might as well make them smart people.
Don’t insult the migrants coming to NZ in recent years - anyone of them is harder working and smarter than the multitude of unemployed & unemployables born and bred in NZ.
And now we have a government hell bent on creating more dependents, beneficiaries & deadbeats. Pay more for less or no work - what a fool’s paradise NZ is currently living in.
"We want to shift the balance away from low-skilled, low-paid work towards attracting high-skilled migrants and addressing genuine skill shortages in order to improve productivity," Ardern said.
Has there actually been a focus on attracting low-skilled, low paid migrants? How did they get past INZ who make even the visa applications of skilled IT workers very difficult? The article makes several references to the salary being used to determine if immigrants are "low skill".
I’ve heard this before, but there are a number of issues with that narrative.
ESOL providers have always been regularly audited by both the TEC and NZQA. These regular audits uncover any performance deficit from either an education delivery, qualification outcome, or financial perspective. Those institutions identified as having deficits are given a specific amount of time to rectify the issue, and are placed on a more regular audit schedule. In cases were issues are not rectified accreditation and funding (either for a specific course or for the institution as a whole) can, and in many cases, has been removed.
Completing an ESOL course is not enough to gain residency. Students must either have existing qualifications & experience to meet whatever the current INZ criteria are for awarding a work-visa (these change regularly based on perceived need), or they must attain higher qualifications such as a university degree in an area of shortage, or receive an offer of employment in an area identified having a skills shortage.
National reformed the tertiary education sector in the first term of the Key government, moving from a bums-on-seats based funding model established by Labour in the early 2000’s which ironically resulted in the proliferation of PTEs, to an outcomes based funding model. This resulted in a number of additional poorly performing institutions closing and educational outcomes improving. Successive governments have not changed this approach.
Good point. And redirecting taxpayer funding from people power, especially lower skilled immigrants, into mechanisation and similar would actually increase productivity. For example New Zealand has already developed and exported apple packing technology, replacing low waged humans (if they can get them). That company, RoboticsPlus, has other products up and running or in development. ACC has invested in their log scaling technology that will reduce potentially thousands of ACC claims.
In the UK an experimental field of I think maize was developed and harvested completely untouched by human hand. Very expensive. But Moore's Law.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...n-to-australia
Forget about migrants - how about keeping highly skilled NZers in NZ rather than losing them to countries like Oz?
Compare & contrast what Oz is doing with its budget - tax relief & improving competitiveness as its goal - vs the beneficiaries breeding focus of Cindy’s budget to be.
The problem i'm seeing with NZ is high net worth individuals with skills do not come to NZ. As I mentioned in another thread, wife's work mate is looking to move back to the US on the basis of tax inefficiencies here. These individuals that move comprise most of their wealth from stock market investments and when they realise they're paying on a paper gain + no ability to defer tax on the gains, why would the skilled want to move to NZ?
This is why we get a high % of migrants in a skill category that are from other (Asian?) countries where their gov'ts don't provide them with any pension or retirement planning.
Keep questioning why 20% of expat Kiwis live abroad?
Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree. Why would high net worth individuals come to NZ and reside permanently? We provide a great bolt-hole or a much easier method of emigrating to Australia. What needs to change in this country to attract vast hordes of high skilled individuals? We're busy killing off our major earners, so surely there's a clearly articulated strategy? No, probably not.
Microsoft data centres moving to NZ.
Amazon LOTR film production bringing more attention to nz.
We do need to make it easier for tech workers but there was too much low skill immigration.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-d...2YKFV5QLXNTZY/
Praised overseas for handling unforeseen crises (ChCh massacre, Covid) but busy at home creating crises (housing, child poverty, gangs, crime, business) which Cindy & her team are incapable of managing.
I always wondered how it was so easy for migrants between both NZ & Aus can freely move between both countries. No visa requirement!! Coming from Canada, the US treats the skilled Cdn moving to the US no different than any OTHER skilled migrant from another country (and vice versa). When we had that Chch mosque shooting, that question came up again. I'm seeing nothing but baddies moving between both countries. Australia rejects law breaking Kiwis living there and sends them back here. That Tarrent guy exploited NZ's ease for Australians to move over. The real question I ask is who are the people that are really benefiting from the Aus/NZ free migration pact deal? Our skilled doctors and nurses moving to Aus for the better climate and higher pay? What % of Aus are we seeing coming over to NZ? What if we close that deal and go back to having borders ; where would that leave NZ if the Visa process became a requirement no different to how other countries treat migrants?
@ Bjauck :
I agree NZ is in a touch situation where the gov't can't let the housing market collapse not equal the tax playing field.
Yes thats our growth engine(based on increasing debt in housing) ... while Aussies Mining Production exploration + downstream wealth from all the sub sectors that benefit from primary industry wealth is going to continue to increase the wage gap and drag even more young skilled kiwis over the ditch .
.. Our Govt pushing Green NIBMY anti fossil fuels anti mining etc ...
. who the hell is going to be able to buy all these million+ valued NZ properties going forward off their parents GEN ?? what NZ jobs will our kids have to get to afford them once Interest rates return to normal ??? can't all be .. sales RE Agents , bankers , Bureaucrats ...the growing NZ sector is Tertiary!!! so less exports of high value per person lower wages Vs Aus growing wages
Industrial structures
In the early 2000s New Zealand’s economic structure was similar to that of other developed economies. It had small primary (mainly agricultural) and secondary (manufacturing) industries, which together accounted for about 29% of New Zealand’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2008, and a much larger tertiary (services) sector which made up the remaining 71%.
Primary industry was dominated by dairy, sheep and beef farming, and also included forestry and fishing.
Secondary industry was unusual compared to other countries because of the large number of businesses processing primary products, such as dairy, meat and other foodstuffs, and wood and paper. Together these accounted for more than 30% of secondary industry in 2008. Machinery and equipment manufacturing made up another 10%, and aluminium and steel enterprises 8%.
Tertiary industry provided the majority of GDP and employment. Finance, insurance, and other business services made up about 15%, and property services another 15%. Transport, communications, retail, building, education and health each contributed between 5% and 10% of total tertiary industry.
Don’t worry too much about the future - Labour’s aim by 2023 is clearly to put in place a UIE (universal income entitlement) and make as many of the population as dependent on the government as possible to entrench its voters’ base - breeding beneficiaries is its singular focus with all of its free spending no holds bar welfare policies.
Australia is on track for a credit rating downgrade (1T debt bomb) while ours is overdue for an upgrade I think.
The finance minister has taken the Aussie banks to task for ripping profits out of NZ by removing most of them from default kiwisaver provision.
10% of our kiwisaver balances gone in fees alone while sir John of ANZ was in charge.
This morning I had a courtesy call from my BNZ manager that by July 1st, they will not longer be accepting cheque deposits. Interesting outcome how the NZ gov't brought in these AML / FMA / CRS regulations trying to deter $ laundering - as I explained to her all this has done is punish the businesses in NZ and it does nothing in addressing those (organised crime / patch gangs) from conducting business. I also explained to her how all the major banks in NZ are foreign owned and asked, "Where do the profits go?"
Indeed these Australian banks are ripping the profits out of NZ through all the residential lending. I wouldn't point the finger at Kiwi Saver for all the $ leaving NZ.
Not sure where the 10% figure on KS balances are coming from? You must be factoring all the taxes that all these NZ managed funds fail clearly disclose?
1 % each year in fees to the Aussie banks (who have closed regional branches) over 9 years or so years.
New Zealand citizens traveling to Australia to live & work do actually require a visa, which in this case is a subcategory 444 visa but which does not require any pre-travel application or payment and is issued at discretion of the immigration agent once you present yourself at the border. The reciprocal arrangement is implemented in a similar fashion for Australian citizens wishing to live & work in New Zealand.
From a Canadian perspective, If I remember correctly, there were some roles which had the automatic right to work in the USA under the NAFTA agreement. The roles were very limited and there were restrictions, but that's probably the closest comparison.
In terms of the Tarrent situation, there appears to be nothing to alert authorities that he would become a threat. He wasn't on any watch lists, hadn't previously committed a crime, but his travel patterns did appear suspicious in hindsight. I think it would be unlikely that any of the other categories of NZ visas would have be able to filter out his intent.
Data centres don't provide very much ongoing economic benefit aside from their initial construction or on-going lease, maintenance, & electricity consumption costs.
Filming in NZ always seems to involve vast quantities of tax relief & general subsidies before companies agree to produce films here. The last economic analysis I skim read stated that it was of a net benefit to the country, but it would be nice if the highly profitable studios could foot the bill themselves don't you think?
Really? I think this statement made by David Clark illustrates why the new providers were chosen: "The six default providers were selected because they offer the best value for money for their members in terms of lower fees and higher levels of service."
Besides which, there are still a number of Australian owned firms on the default provider list.
The visa is given at border upon arrival is the biggest distinction (no prior arrangement required) which is basically... a free ticket to going to Australia from NZ. You just say you're looking for employment and they rubber stamp you with the visa (at least this is how this was described by my cousins who left to Aus over 10 or 15 years ago).
Hold on there about your NAFTA statement. They are entirely different to what we have with NZ & Australia:
1) No person is allowed to search for employment. Ie the Cdn that is gaining employing in the US must ONLY be done so by invitation by the US employer and like any visa. Not go and visit the US and hand out a bunch of resumes trying to find the right job.
2) The most distinctive difference between NZ/Aus and the USMCA is neither Cdn or American can obtain full permanent residency. The reason is under the TN visa, the applicant must demonstrate INTENT to MOVE back. Therefore the Cdn under a TN visa is not the path for a green card (despite the TN visa can indefinitely be renewed - this rarely happens. - ie borders service will wonder after 9 years you're application to keep renewing is well... no demonstration to move back to Canada and will deny the application). Instead the path to getting the green card residency is under the H-1B visa which ding ding! treats migrants no different than ANY OTHER person around the world applying for a work visa.
Overall the deal with NAFTA was not about employment migration but rather, about COMMERCIAL TRADE. The USMCA made the trade field more equitable such as Canada allowing more dairy imports from the US (by trying to abolish these absurd high import tariffs) and by allowing companies to send their staff to either countries freely to promote their products at ie. trade shows, etc. this means the goods and services would freely cross borders. But hardly a comparison to what NZ/Aus has which basically has an open door policy for migration between both countries.
The issue with Tarrent, as in his manifest, citing that NZ was an easy place for him to move over and obtain firearms. It may be highly probably that if NZ / Aus didn't have open borders, then at best he may of only come to NZ as a tourist. Just look over in the US/Canada and see how many cases of foreign visitors obtaining firearms and shooting people up? What i'm getting at is the 1st line of defense is not at the firearms licensing level but at the border security.
There is still a character test which can and has tripped up New Zealanders attempting to enter, now that sharing of criminal history between the two countries is undertaken, plus the additional eligibility restrictions. There is also no path of citizenship under this visa (similar to what was applicable to NAFTA).
As I mentioned there are similarities, but they are not the same. I was tempted to cite WHP visas given their open employer and temporary status, but given other restrictions I am not sure they form an appropriate comparison.
Remember too that the SCV subsection 444 visa with Australia, like NAFTA, was also borne from commercial trade with Australia under CER (although the current SCV incarnation of the right to work did not exist until the mid 1990's) where New Zealanders were classified as exempt non-citizens.
I am not sure what the current USMCA terms are for employment, but are probably much more restrictive and overall a dogs breakfast.
If he wished to commit an atrocity in Australia as a citizen or NZ as a tourist, he would no doubt have been able to gain the resources to do so through a network of people in each respective country with similar ideals. IMO it would be overkill to remove the ability for New Zealanders and Australians to work in each other's country based on this specific incident, when other methods of filtering such people could be undertaken.
There is an undercurrent to removing the right to work, particularly for New Zealanders in Australia. It was not a hot topic when I worked in Australia full time, but it has now gained some momentum.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...-keep-him-safe
$1,300 a week for emergency room in a motel, no follow up by any state service providers and murder was committed.
This is how this government is spending freely & recklessly to be seen to try & overcome homelessness & child poverty.
Budget day ...we are blessed that the economy is doing a lot better than expected and that Grant can throw a few more zillion around.
I don’t there will be much in the budget for me personally ...that’s being selfish ...but the country will be a lot better off and that’s important
A ‘throw money’ at breeding beneficiaries & dependents budget from Clueless Cindy as expected.
Westpac NZ is looking for a buyer -- would be nice to see a lowball offer from the govt, 51% like the power companies.
Stops it going from falling into Chinese hands who may be the only buyers for it.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/budget...WABL3PQL6YO6M/
$100,000 per child - that’s how clueless Cindy is about lifting children out of poverty.
To be expected from a woman whose only claim to business experience is working in a greasy fish & chips shop.
A budget of global proportions.
The price of Gold has increased by US$9 since he delivered it...
Very disappointed with the paltry increase in Pharmac budget, extra 50M per year for 4 years is pathetic esp when so much money being splashed around on other things.
Generic medications are cheap as chips so don't require much of an increase.
Experimental gene therapies cost as much as $1mil per patient.
I think as a supporter of jacinda the budget is rather mediocre this time:
The short termism is nearly identical to what National would do with an debt-funded income tax cut to win an election.
Would like have to seen more of a micheal cullen mindset of long term investments.
Still better than a Judith Collins administration by a long way.
I agree. This new budget is bad - something I find difficult to swallow coming from Canada. There's no long term plan. Just throw a bunch of money to those on the benefit. No plan to empower those with disabilities, no plan to 'get them productive' to society.
Where's Jacinda's delivery? only time will tell.
In this NZ herald article it mentions the treatment is 430k each year. It's probably not a cure or even close to it though I'm an expert in pharma.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/budget...OIWVKWEZ4H2D4/
drugs are either very cheap or expensive with little in between.
Trikafta was only developed last year so it will come down in price.
Don't see why we should pay $500k/y when the cost will come down later.
Also important to keep in mind its sadly not a cure with only a 20% improvement in respiratory health.
The budget was mixed. The government has already thrown a lot at keeping people in jobs during the past year. NZ still has poverty/poor housing illnesses. That is disgraceful considering our expensive residential housing and how much money goes into land-based investment. Our incidence of rheumatic fever is shameful for a “developed” country.
We should nurture NZ born children and enable them to be more productive to reduce the dependence on immigration.
Also…education, education, education. Let’s aspire to be a high value added economy not a feudal/peasant type society where investment mostly ends up in land.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...on-peters.html
It's a shame since they would have benefited from Winston's years of experience at the table. NZ's moderating force to stop the impulses of both sides and ocassionally have some good ideas. :)
Yup - that was the Cdn initiative some 30 years ago ; put the investment into the young and break that dependency of being on welfare. My highschool observation had me see many of my friends coming off the welfare into decent paying jobs. The BC gov't had grants for those on welfare for education. One took the bite and studied computers and IT ; landed a job with the RCMP police force and after 30 years, he's retired. Those with disabilities yes I can understand ; but if you have 2 hands and a functioning brain, there's no reason why they can be productive and contribute to society. The gov't even had free sessions on how to make a resume / CV / free job counseling. I think there are these services in NZ? (but uncertain if WINZ pushes that focus?)
Again - Yes thumbs up Education, Education... Education
Yeah and like 2% of young people are on welfare, talk about a non-issue
I think Bjauck wants workers to have more productivity through a more european approach through investing in the human capital slightly more. More technology, learning how to use cloud software, machine learning etc.
There are supply issues everywhere so not a good time for complex "plans" but when people are exporting raw materials again maybe gigatown for the whole of NZ would be good. or at least the other major cities.
Good One. Nope - It is just the policies here that create the expense and have made Gods' own land on these islands so expensive.
A saves money, cashes in some Kiwisaver, gets an inheritance, gets a loan on security of the real estate itself and buys the real estate for $1m from B. B takes the $1m and gets $1m from the bank to buy real estate from C. And So On....