Christopher Luxon, 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 › Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

1 | ... | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | ... | 188

11394 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3194879 14-Feb-2024 03:29

gzt: Three Waters cancelation/replacement is looking to be an interesting case

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-labour-blast-each-other-s-plans-as-details-emerge-of-where-three-waters-money-went.html

National appears to be going for 'voluntary' amalgamation. I can't really see how that will serve so many of the smaller locations and successfully fund them. In the end they'll need a mandated tidy up of the leftovers, or not bother as the case may be.

The previous three waters program was an essentially good process with horrific consultation and was largely sidetracked by co-governance.

Sooner or later almost all councils will end signing up as they hit their debt caps or have ratepayer revolts because of rapidly increasing rates.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#3194882 14-Feb-2024 06:31

gzt: Three Waters cancelation/replacement is looking to be an interesting case

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-labour-blast-each-other-s-plans-as-details-emerge-of-where-three-waters-money-went.html

National appears to be going for 'voluntary' amalgamation. I can't really see how that will serve so many of the smaller locations and successfully fund them. In the end they'll need a mandated tidy up of the leftovers, or not bother as the case may be.

There is an uncomfortable reality that smaller parts of NZ no longer have the population bases to cope with infrastructure needs and require propping up by dipping into the take from other parts of the country.

That may have worked when you could get away with massive Crown underinvestment in things like Auckland rail or other vital infrastructure, but given Auckland is mopping up a hugely disproportionate share of new migrants (and with little sign of a cohesive population strategy) that doesn't exactly work anymore. And people in the down-there bits don't like to be told that having a population of 1.3m on the whole mainland makes it a very expensive place to provision things like healthcare, roading and other goodies, compared to the 1.7m in Auckland alone.

It's one of the reasons I found the 3 Waters talk a bit hard to fathom - "It'll save money!" well yea but the only difference is the major infrastructure projects will be moved to someone else - they still have to be paid for by someone. And I'm not sure how Auckland being lumped with Northland - an entirely different region with a different climate (which is regularly in drought) is going to save Aucklanders money when we're already fair-groaning with population pressure.

Handle9

11394 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3194883 14-Feb-2024 06:39

GV27:

gzt: Three Waters cancelation/replacement is looking to be an interesting case

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/02/government-labour-blast-each-other-s-plans-as-details-emerge-of-where-three-waters-money-went.html

National appears to be going for 'voluntary' amalgamation. I can't really see how that will serve so many of the smaller locations and successfully fund them. In the end they'll need a mandated tidy up of the leftovers, or not bother as the case may be.

There is an uncomfortable reality that smaller parts of NZ no longer have the population bases to cope with infrastructure needs and require propping up by dipping into the take from other parts of the country.

That may have worked when you could get away with massive Crown underinvestment in things like Auckland rail or other vital infrastructure, but given Auckland is mopping up a hugely disproportionate share of new migrants (and with little sign of a cohesive population strategy) that doesn't exactly work anymore. And people in the down-there bits don't like to be told that having a population of 1.3m on the whole mainland makes it a very expensive place to provision things like healthcare, roading and other goodies, compared to the 1.7m in Auckland alone.

It's one of the reasons I found the 3 Waters talk a bit hard to fathom - "It'll save money!" well yea but the only difference is the major infrastructure projects will be moved to someone else - they still have to be paid for by someone. And I'm not sure how Auckland being lumped with Northland - an entirely different region with a different climate (which is regularly in drought) is going to save Aucklanders money when we're already fair-groaning with population pressure.

The theory for both schemes to save money is the WACC is should be lower for the government directly than councils. A fair chunk of councils are also already running up against their debt caps which means the only way to fund capex for infrastructure is rates rather than a more sensible mix of medium term debt for medium term assets.

The fact that it removes the incentives for councils to artificially reduce rates by defering capex, being the easiest way to get elected, is also a bonus.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#3194887 14-Feb-2024 07:20

Handle9:

The theory for both schemes to save money is the WACC is should be lower for the government directly than councils. A fair chunk of councils are also already running up against their debt caps which means the only way to fund capex for infrastructure is rates rather than a more sensible mix of medium term debt for medium term assets.

The fact that it removes the incentives for councils to artificially reduce rates by defering capex, being the easiest way to get elected, is also a bonus.

The government had the power to intervene or contribute to major water projects outside of a huge cenralisation of national water assets, including taking those assets from Aucklanders who had already achieved local body separation, and then lumping in the entire Upper North Island in with them. So the savings there that may have existed on a WACC basis would have been doing some heavy lifting to outrun the additional operational complexity that would have introduced.

The cynic in me thinks that they wouldn't have pushed that barrow so hard if it wasn't for Wellington being in such a mess yet continuing to make erratic spending decisions that they might have to face the consequences for. Effectively it would have been a bail-out for regions who continue to push back against basic things like meters and corporatisation despite cities like Auckland adopting them decades ago.

The main benefit I could see is that towns like Mangawhai wouldn't be lumped with the costs of evaluating and implementing schemes that eventually become more expensive than ratepayers can afford, but given the track record of other government departments of the day, it's not hard to think those blowouts would still have happened either way.

Handle9

11394 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3194893 14-Feb-2024 07:43

I absolutely support the government taking control of those assets if they pay for them and maintain them. We’ve seen in places like Wellington the literal shit show that has been created by leaving major investment decisions and maintainence to local bodies.

While it’s fun to criticise central government they are far far better at delivery than councils. Most of these assets aren’t complex infrastructure and the government is pretty good at building relatively simple and repeatable assets like pipes, schools and hospitals. They get themselves in trouble with big one off projects but this is the sort of thing that they are good at building.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#3194901 14-Feb-2024 08:23

Handle9: I absolutely support the government taking control of those assets if they pay for them and maintain them. We’ve seen in places like Wellington the literal shit show that has been created by leaving major investment decisions and maintainence to local bodies.

Which in turn begs the question of why should the general tax pool (30%+ of which comes from Auckland) bail out Wellington who have chosen to spend their money on the most mind-numbing stuff instead of their own water network - and keep voting for councilors who do so?

This tends to be a fairly common argument whenever Auckland needs a badly deferred piece of essential infrastructure to cope with massive population growth, so I'm keen to know why we should be bailing out ratepayers in other parts of the country who kept voting for councils to light money on fire for concert halls, convention centres and expensive library rebuilds that they objectively cannot afford. Wellington doesn't even have volumetric water billing and most houses don't even have water meters.

Realistically, these costs should be levied locally unless there is an overwhelming reason not to, much like Auckland is having to do with the Central Interceptor.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79295 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3194903 14-Feb-2024 08:42

@GV27:

Which in turn begs the question of why should the general tax pool (30%+ of which comes from Auckland) bail out Wellington who have chosen to spend their money on the most mind-numbing stuff instead of their own water network - and keep voting for councilors who do so?

I agree with the lack of investments in the water network. I would also like to know which investments you consider mind-numbing, please, so I can comment on those.

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.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#3195022 14-Feb-2024 11:48

freitasm:

I agree with the lack of investments in the water network. I would also like to know which investments you consider mind-numbing, please, so I can comment on those.

The obvious candidate is here:

https://thespinoff.co.nz/wellington/27-10-2023/sunk-costs-how-wellington-town-hall-became-the-ultimate-money-pit

For what it's worth, I consider the endless time and money being poured into Auckland waterfront stadiums to be in the same boat.

They're nice to have, but not when you have creaking infrastructure that's essential to daily live for ordinary people.

GV27

5897 posts

Uber Geek

#3195033 14-Feb-2024 12:30

One thing I hadn't appreciated is that while the EV subsidy is gone, the obligations on importers to maintain average emissions below a certain levels apparently remain.

Not something I come across with my personal haphazard importing of second-hand cars from Japan, but I'm not sure how that's going to work.

gzt

17146 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3195047 14-Feb-2024 13:31

That's a good thing. In the market for a PHEV or Hybrid myself at the moment. Really irritating to prefer hybrid because of a silly tax snafu. In all other terms PHEV is the best of both worlds for us. On the plus side I'm seeing some reasonable offers in the Hybrid area on my regular sites like Herald and Stuff advertising based on my search interest.

I really prefer PHEV but it looks like it's going to be hybrid.

Shadowfoot

First time caller
385 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3195051 14-Feb-2024 13:37

GV27:

One thing I hadn't appreciated is that while the EV subsidy is gone, the obligations on importers to maintain average emissions below a certain levels apparently remain.

Not something I come across with my personal haphazard importing of second-hand cars from Japan, but I'm not sure how that's going to work.

The Clean Car Standard is what affects importers.

Blue Sky: shadowfoot.bsky.social

michaelmurfy

meow
13257 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3195084 14-Feb-2024 15:27

gzt: I really prefer PHEV but it looks like it's going to be hybrid.

Many Hybrids are really snakeoil - you're still burning fuel. Also PHEV is solving an issue that doesn't really exist with range anxiety in owning a full EV and to be honest with both (EV, Hybrid) there is more that can go wrong. Battery longevity in PHEV/Hybrids really isn't there and also RUC's are coming to all vehicles (eventually) also: https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=162&topicid=307020

Really isn't the place for this discussion anyway and it is off-topic but if you were looking at PHEV then for around the same cost you can get an EV and never have to visit a fuel station + charge at home (assuming you've got a place to charge it). I'd personally never go back to having a car reliant off a third party to provide the fuel.

Michael Murphy | https://murfy.nz
Referral Links: Quic Broadband (use R122101E7CV7Q for free setup)

Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by subscribing.
Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#3195146 14-Feb-2024 16:24

I think the RUC applied to PHEVs (albeit at a lower rate) has all but butchered that market. The distributors are certainly still gun-ho about EVs/PHEVs, but from a retailers perspective, we are very cautious. A standard Hybrid (non plug in) will give you gains in fuel efficiency, but their ability to run at zero emissions is very limited.

Drop rebate or introduce RUCs, but having done both at the same time, its sent shockwaves throughout car buyers.

The sad part is, the thought of the RUCs is far worse than the actual RUCs themselves. Ask your average person how much they spend on running costs, and other than the "$100 at the pump" type answer, how many will actually know how far they get or how often the put in that $100. For moderate use (15k kms/year), RUCs are going to be around $ 1140+admin, about $22 a week, hardly significant spending in terms of normal transport costs.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79295 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3195149 14-Feb-2024 16:36

Thanks, Luxon: Officials warn up to 13,000 children will be pushed into poverty as a result of benefit changes - NZ Herald

The changes were campaigned on by National at the election and are being passed under urgency this week. Act’s pre-election fiscal plan envisaged keeping the former government’s benefit calculation the same.

“Disabled people and people with health conditions will be affected by a change in indexation settings,” officials said.

The officials said the changes may encourage “work-ready” beneficiaries to enter the workforce, however.

The officials warned that under the ACH50 the number of children in poverty would increase by 7000, although the increase could be as low as 3000 and as high as 11,000. Under the BCH50 measure the increase would also be 7000, but this figure has a much larger variance, meaning it could be as low as 1000 or as high as 13,000.

I can imagine the thought process: "Yes, let's get people to work. The children, sick and disabled people are just collateral damage. We need more people working for our patrons."

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3195304 14-Feb-2024 19:59

freitasm:

Thanks, Luxon: Officials warn up to 13,000 children will be pushed into poverty as a result of benefit changes - NZ Herald

The changes were campaigned on by National at the election and are being passed under urgency this week. Act’s pre-election fiscal plan envisaged keeping the former government’s benefit calculation the same.

“Disabled people and people with health conditions will be affected by a change in indexation settings,” officials said.

The officials said the changes may encourage “work-ready” beneficiaries to enter the workforce, however.

The officials warned that under the ACH50 the number of children in poverty would increase by 7000, although the increase could be as low as 3000 and as high as 11,000. Under the BCH50 measure the increase would also be 7000, but this figure has a much larger variance, meaning it could be as low as 1000 or as high as 13,000.

I can imagine the thought process: "Yes, let's get people to work. The children, sick and disabled people are just collateral damage. We need more people working for our patrons."

Its all good. The average Joe or Joanne gets $18 0r $25 per fortnight, that will change their lives and invigorate the economy... /S The 600+M will save taxpayers. its also 600+M that are deducted from beneficiaries. FFS

While politically I get that, its about votes, as Kiwibuild was. New Govt, we will get NZ back on track, housing crisis, cost of living crisis, heath crisis, education crisis infrastructure crisis. Im hearing zip about those. Zip, Nada.

Where are the policies to resolve these issues they campaigned on? No one expects them to be resolved tomorrow, not even by Friday :-) but you hear nothing about these promises and the actions to resolve them. Not a bean.

I get the "undoing" although I do not agree win most, but that is unimportant, the fact is, there is no "DOING"

1 | ... | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | ... | 188