Chris Hipkins, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Chris Hipkins, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | ... | 60

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#3048448 10-Mar-2023 09:11

Technofreak:

No, the issue is she chose to use bad data to make the claim waiting times had improved when they hadn't improved. With all the other evidence available for someone in her position to make those claims it indicates to me someone out of touch with their area of responsibility.

From RNZ this morning supposedly Health NZ were saying that the data provided to the Minister was correct but the data published was not.

Supposedly the updated data will be released today.

From here:

https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/03/10/correct-ed-wait-time-data-to-be-published-today-health-minister/

"The only data set that has got an error in it, I'm told, is the one that was published to the public. The one I used, the board used, decision-makers in the health system used, was correct."

So I guess the question will be whether the data actually shows the improvement the Minister has claimed there was, and if it does, do you still trust it?

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#3048603 10-Mar-2023 11:56

GV27:

From RNZ this morning supposedly Health NZ were saying that the data provided to the Minister was correct but the data published was not.

Supposedly the updated data will be released today.

From here:

https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/03/10/correct-ed-wait-time-data-to-be-published-today-health-minister/

"The only data set that has got an error in it, I'm told, is the one that was published to the public. The one I used, the board used, decision-makers in the health system used, was correct."

So I guess the question will be whether the data actually shows the improvement the Minister has claimed there was, and if it does, do you still trust it?

Moreover, if the data was inconsistent with what the Minister had been supplied then why did the Minister not provide the correction immediately. Why did the Minister not say, "hang on, that doesnt sound right - here is the number I have for Northland so we must have a problem here".

Why does it take the Opposition and the ED staff to have to public call the data wrong before the Minister says its erroneous and then why does it take days to publish it on the website when the Minister can give a verbal clarification with the information she has at hand?

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

johno1234

2808 posts

Uber Geek

#3049054 11-Mar-2023 20:57

ockel:

GV27:

From RNZ this morning supposedly Health NZ were saying that the data provided to the Minister was correct but the data published was not.

Supposedly the updated data will be released today.

From here:

https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/03/10/correct-ed-wait-time-data-to-be-published-today-health-minister/

"The only data set that has got an error in it, I'm told, is the one that was published to the public. The one I used, the board used, decision-makers in the health system used, was correct."

So I guess the question will be whether the data actually shows the improvement the Minister has claimed there was, and if it does, do you still trust it?

Moreover, if the data was inconsistent with what the Minister had been supplied then why did the Minister not provide the correction immediately. Why did the Minister not say, "hang on, that doesnt sound right - here is the number I have for Northland so we must have a problem here".

Why does it take the Opposition and the ED staff to have to public call the data wrong before the Minister says its erroneous and then why does it take days to publish it on the website when the Minister can give a verbal clarification with the information she has at hand?

It was obviously incorrect at the time it was announced. Was Verrall not paying attention or just not that aware of what is actually happening out there?

JPNZ

1547 posts

Uber Geek

#3049655 13-Mar-2023 16:28

A bunch more policies onto the scrap heap..

The transport policies to be scrapped include:

The Clean Car Upgrade Scheme. This “cash for clunkers” scheme would pay households to get rid of their inefficient cars and buy new cars. Hipkins said cancelling the policy would save $586 million.
The social leasing car scheme. A statement from the prime minister’s office said, “The scheme was to provide leasing arrangements to low income families for clean cars but was proving difficult to implement.”

Some transport policies would be wound back. These programmes would continue, at a slower or smaller scale:

- “Refocusing our goal of increasing and improving public transport as an alternative to driving to the five main centres of Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington and Christchurch.”
- Speed limit reduction work.
- Auckland Light Rail. Hipkins said it would continue in some form, but it would be delivered in stages.

Planned legislation would also be put on ice:

A bill to lower the voting age.
And work to regulate alcohol advertising and sponsorship of sport and public events. Ministers would not receive advice on this until next year, he said.
The Government was also set to consult the public about who should be considered in law to be a “contractor”, “employee” or “consultant”. This followed an Employment Cour truling which said some Uber drivers could be considered employees, rather than contractors of the multinational company.

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

johno1234

2808 posts

Uber Geek

#3049662 13-Mar-2023 16:46

Might be quicker to just list what they're still planning to do.

Bluntj

556 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3049669 13-Mar-2023 17:14

johno1234:

Might be quicker to just list what they're still planning to do.

Win an election...just maybe...

It is very interesting to see that so many unpopular policies are being dumped. We need to ask why were they implemented in the first place.

Democracy can be a strange beast at times ....

vexxxboy

4244 posts

Uber Geek

#3049671 13-Mar-2023 17:17

Beginning to really like this guy, who would have thought that a politician uses common sense when deciding what is important for the country. What a novel idea of cutting climate bills that spend nearly a billion dollars to cut emissions and emissions stay the same ,so just wasting money, to spend it on things that count like the Cyclone recovery.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3049685 13-Mar-2023 18:12

Bluntj:

It is very interesting to see that so many unpopular policies are being dumped. We need to ask why were they implemented in the first place.

Democracy can be a strange beast at times ....

Which is not the issue with this thread. The previous PM signed off policies. Great, good or poor. Its a reset, a new beginning. It could be rinse and repeat, or not.

This thread is about the new PM which is not the old PM

quickymart

13963 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#3049745 13-Mar-2023 18:41

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/03/election-2023-new-poll-shows-labour-could-form-next-government-with-greens-te-p-ti-m-ori.html

If I was Luxon, I don't exactly think I'd be panicking just yet but these numbers don't look particularly good for National.

Didn't the Maori Party say previously they wouldn't work with ACT? Good luck to National trying to form a coalition with them, if that's the case.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#3049805 14-Mar-2023 07:32

tdgeek:

This thread is about the new PM which is not the old PM

I mean... collective cabinet responsibility was a thing and Hipkins was a prominent Minister in Ardern's cabinet. So it's a fair question IMO.

It is also fair to ask that if all this stuff is being written off or just deferred indefinitely then what does the government actually have to show for the last three years?

Also noting the huge irony of super going up by over $100 per fortnight to help with inflation-driven 'cost of living' pressures but no tax relief for the people working, who apparently don't face extra living costs at all, from what I can tell. That's news to me.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3049820 14-Mar-2023 08:53

GV27:

I mean... collective cabinet responsibility was a thing and Hipkins was a prominent Minister in Ardern's cabinet. So it's a fair question IMO.

It is also fair to ask that if all this stuff is being written off or just deferred indefinitely then what does the government actually have to show for the last three years?

Also noting the huge irony of super going up by over $100 per fortnight to help with inflation-driven 'cost of living' pressures but no tax relief for the people working, who apparently don't face extra living costs at all, from what I can tell. That's news to me.

Points 1 and 2, he wasn't PM, this is the Ch PM thread, or its a general Labour thread? Given the change of direction, the posts should be a PM C Hipkins commentary. Either he is continuing the J Arden stance, or he isn't, that's the way I saw this thread.

Super people get a 7.22% increase on their "salary" According to the googled article, the average wage and salary increase for the same period was 6.24%

Inflation "rose by 7.22% in the year to December, while the net average wage – against which main benefits are indexed – rose by 6.24%. The extra boost to main benefits covers the 0.98% gap," she said.

Student allowances are up as are WFF. Benefits are up too.

Overall there seems to be many who are broadly getting increases

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#3049835 14-Mar-2023 09:58

tdgeek:

Super people get a 7.22% increase on their "salary" According to the googled article, the average wage and salary increase for the same period was 6.24%

There's a big difference between a salary you have to work for a salary you don't.

And the difference is you're using an average for the wages figure - some people will get more, some people will get less, some will go up but only if you quit a job and start a new one. Some will get literally nothing at all.

But everyone who gets a pension gets the pension increase. There's no over and or under. You just get it. And that's the real disconnect between comparing it to an average of the pay increases for jobs and roles people are actually doing with something that you just get by virtue of being a certain age.

Anyway the real issue I have is using the cost of living pressures to justify it while offering little to no relief for workers in terms of the tax the government extracts from their pay - if cost of living issues really are at that kind of crunch point then what's good for the goose has to be good for the gander.

Unless the point isn't that at all, and it's just cynical election year lolly-scrambling to try and see off NZ First and using the government coffers to do it. Which it is.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#3049839 14-Mar-2023 10:09

tdgeek:

Points 1 and 2, he wasn't PM, this is the Ch PM thread, or its a general Labour thread? Given the change of direction, the posts should be a PM C Hipkins commentary. Either he is continuing the J Arden stance, or he isn't, that's the way I saw this thread.

Super people get a 7.22% increase on their "salary" According to the googled article, the average wage and salary increase for the same period was 6.24%

Inflation "rose by 7.22% in the year to December, while the net average wage – against which main benefits are indexed – rose by 6.24%. The extra boost to main benefits covers the 0.98% gap," she said.

Student allowances are up as are WFF. Benefits are up too.

Overall there seems to be many who are broadly getting increases

Its kind of sad that both the media and the average man in the street dont know the legislation. The lift in these areas would have been the same if it had been the Opposition in power or even the Greens.

By law NZ Super must increase on 1 April by the rate of CPI measured in the quarter before March. ie with CPI at 7.2% it has to go up by 7.2%. It is politically agnostic.

Similarly main benefits must increase by the average ordinary time weekly earnings (as noted in the Social Security Act S452a). Other benefits must increase by CPI (excluding cigarettes and tobacco subgroup). IMHO I believe someone has erred with the AWOTE of 6.24%. I cannot find any reference to that number in the HLFS or QES data. https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/labour-market-statistics-december-2022-quarter/

It looks more like AWOTE increased by either 7.2% (hourly rate) or more likely 7.6% (being hourly rate and more hours worked). See Table 7 of the QES (series SBSZ9A) being the Average Weekly Earnings for FTE's. I'd like someone to clarify the data source for the 6.24% referenced its not a net average wage figure that benefits are based on.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3049843 14-Mar-2023 10:18

The 6.24% has been quoted in the media, unsure how accurate that is, but its not likely to be far off. The overall issue is that we have inflation so wages/salaries "should' go up by a similar figure. Wages and salaries appear to have done, now Super people, students, benefits, WFF.

When inflation was 2%, the same applies, today the number just happens to be different

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#3049890 14-Mar-2023 10:21

ockel:

By law NZ Super must increase on 1 April by the rate of CPI measured in the quarter before March. ie with CPI at 7.2% it has to go up by 7.2%. It is politically agnostic.

And there's no reason we couldn't set our tax brackets to do the same. But that as an added living cost pressure is fine, whereas apparently super must be increased by the rate of inflation, come hell or high water.

If 'increasing living costs' justify one then it justifies both. Choosing not to is no longer justifiable given how hot inflation is running.

1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | ... | 60