18 Nov 2012
Labour's answer to the housing crisis
Today, the Labour party leader, David Shearer, gave a speech:
This is most excellent news and acknowledges the huge and growing need for more affordable housing in New Zealand. It also acknowledges the success of other state housing initiatives in New Zealand that ensured many Kiwis, including the current Prime Minister John Key, had security through affordable housing.
David Shearer might understate the effectiveness of such a policy, but like the state housing policy after WW2, there's a distinct possibility of a financial return on the governments initial investment.
The opportunities inherent in such a large scale plan to save costs by buying in bulk should ensure it's cost effectiveness. Being that the government can match the housing required with the people who require it through better technology should also ensure savings and efficiency. This policy will also boost the economy, which has been limping along under Nationals stupid neo-liberal agenda.
There is the political angle to consider, in that some property investments might not increase in value as fast as they are now once the state houses come on line. But I don't think there's any other choice and something must be done to address the overheated market in New Zealand and the fact that we're not building enough houses to meet demand.
Clearly one of the biggest positive to Labours housing policy (PDF) is that it will give those who've lost all hope of ever owning their own home a chance to get onto that all important property ladder. The social benefits to this are huge and shouldn't be underestimated.
So well done David Shearer... That's exactly the type of thing I would do if I were Prime Minister.
Today I’m announcing that we will put 100,000 Kiwi families into their first home.
That’s the sort of big change we need to make a big difference to people’s lives.
We’ll oversee and invest in a large scale 10 year building programme of entry-level houses that Kiwis are crying out for.
Yes, it’s a big commitment and it’ll take a couple of years to ramp up, but we can do it.
I won’t stand by while the dream of home ownership slips away from future generations.
At the peak of last decade, about 30,000 new homes were built a year. Now it’s less than half that.
These are the missing rungs on the housing ladder. And it shows what an active and responsible government can do to help.
The start-up cost of the building programme will be financed through issuing government stock called Home Ownership Bonds.
The money we make from selling the houses will go back into the pot for building more.
The houses will be compact in size. Some will be stand-alone dwellings and others apartments. All of them will be good quality and energy efficient.
The homes will be sold to first home buyers who’ve saved their own deposit, like with KiwiSaver.
We estimate that the maximum needed to be raised for a kick-start will be $1.5 billion.
It will quickly become self-funding though. And because it’s a capital investment, it won’t affect our commitment to balance the books and return to surplus.
I can already hear our opponents complaining that this is too bold. That the problem’s too big and there’s nothing we can do.
I won’t accept that. I won’t give up on the Kiwi dream of an affordable home.
I have spoken to Auckland Mayor Len Brown to take up his offer of a partnership with Auckland council to make land available.
In addition, we will introduce a National Policy Statement under the RMA to ensure that planning rules and consenting decisions support affordable housing.
This is most excellent news and acknowledges the huge and growing need for more affordable housing in New Zealand. It also acknowledges the success of other state housing initiatives in New Zealand that ensured many Kiwis, including the current Prime Minister John Key, had security through affordable housing.
David Shearer might understate the effectiveness of such a policy, but like the state housing policy after WW2, there's a distinct possibility of a financial return on the governments initial investment.
The opportunities inherent in such a large scale plan to save costs by buying in bulk should ensure it's cost effectiveness. Being that the government can match the housing required with the people who require it through better technology should also ensure savings and efficiency. This policy will also boost the economy, which has been limping along under Nationals stupid neo-liberal agenda.
There is the political angle to consider, in that some property investments might not increase in value as fast as they are now once the state houses come on line. But I don't think there's any other choice and something must be done to address the overheated market in New Zealand and the fact that we're not building enough houses to meet demand.
Clearly one of the biggest positive to Labours housing policy (PDF) is that it will give those who've lost all hope of ever owning their own home a chance to get onto that all important property ladder. The social benefits to this are huge and shouldn't be underestimated.
So well done David Shearer... That's exactly the type of thing I would do if I were Prime Minister.
17 Nov 2012
National fails the environmental test
Following the release of the Green growth: opportunities for New Zealand report (PDF) the National party made a number of press releases that appeared to support the proposals put forward by Pure Advantage.
In fact after reading these articles the National party looked decidedly pro-environment and I was hopeful they might even implement some of those most worthwhile recommendations.
Unfortunately my hopes were soon dashed when the house of representatives sat on Thursday and questions were raised (PDF) specifically about the governments position on those recommendations.
What this shows is that the media statements National made following the release of the Pure Advantage report were entirely false. The contradictions between them and what Bill English said in parliament couldn't be more apparent.
Either National acknowledges the fact that climate change is real and devises its policy accordingly or we will be faced with the consequences. These consequences aren't limited to adverse changes in the environment thatcould will have a detrimental impact on our primary productive industries, it includes such things as reduced tourism and less trade because New Zealands clean and green branding will be damaged.
In fact there are very few benefits to pursuing the economic policy that National is currently promoting compared to the advantages of a green growth agenda. For instance investment into clean industries creates more than twice as many jobs as investing into polluting industries. That makes the argument for increased oil and gas production through government investment to create jobs look rather pathetic... Especially considering the amount of times National has claimed that the government doesn't create jobs.
The government can create jobs through subsidies targeted at specific industries. National has chosen to subsidize the oil and gas industry through deregulation, tax write offs and paying for much of the exploration that has recently been conducted. Instead we should be following nearly every other country in the developed world and increasing the uptake of and investment into clean and green technologies.
Our future depends on the government promoting a brighter future through clean and green initiatives. Unfortunately National is entirely failing the test... What a bunch of idiots!
In fact after reading these articles the National party looked decidedly pro-environment and I was hopeful they might even implement some of those most worthwhile recommendations.
Unfortunately my hopes were soon dashed when the house of representatives sat on Thursday and questions were raised (PDF) specifically about the governments position on those recommendations.
Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree, therefore, that the challenge of achieving prosperity within these global resource limits, or the scarcity that he refers to, is what is leading to a boom in green industries such as renewable energy, and that this in turn creates the opportunity to grow a lot of jobs in New Zealand and we should embrace that?
Bill English: The fact is New Zealanders do embrace any viable green industry. The Greens carry on as if this is something that they thought of, but actually every day thousands of New Zealanders are acting as environmental managers, making decisions that trade off the prospect of income growth, or reduced costs, against environmental impacts. I would put in that category farmers, people who drive trucks who worry about their stock effluent, local councils making rules about putting underpasses under roads, and businesses that are trying to reduce their energy bill. This concept is not owned by the Greens or the Pure Advantage group. It is inherent in the New Zealand character, and the Greens should show more respect for that.
Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree that this is not a question about the Greens or Pure Advantage, rather it is a question about Government leadership, and does he agree with Pure Advantage when it says that there is an absence of a cohesive, long-term, green growth policy from his central government?
Bill English: No, and a couple of examples I would point to are the fact that New Zealand’s proportion of renewable energy is now higher than ever because we made the electricity market more competitive and stopped semi-subsidised programmes that were going ahead. The second is the example I used earlier, and that is water reform, which is probably the single most important environmental reform of the decade. Alongside that, I would actually put the regulation of the exclusive economic zone, which the Labour Government had a decade to do, did nothing, and in fact opposed it. It has been the responsibility of this Government to express what every New Zealander would like to see expressed, and that is their sense of stewardship for the oceans. In fact, I would say this Government has a much better record on this than either the Greens or Labour ever had.
Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with Pure Advantage, which has identified our natural biodiversity as one of the main competitive advantages of our $20 billion, jobs-rich tourist industry, and why, therefore, is the Government cutting funding to the Department of Conservation, which is the prime protector of that biodiversity?
Bill English: Funding is not being cut to the Department of Conservation. It is getting pretty much the same revenue as it has had, and it is being treated in exactly the same way as most other public services. But, again, I point out to the member that although the Department of Conservation has a role in biodiversity protection, a whole lot of other New Zealanders do. In fact, the Department of Conservation is getting ahead of that member’s perception, because it has understood that in order to protect the most biodiversity possible, it needs to work with those thousands of New Zealanders who have the same values and want to participate, want to protect biodiversity, and have plenty of skills to do so. It, like the Greens, does not have a monopoly and a sort of moralistic superiority about green stuff. Every New Zealander is interested in it, and more of them would like you to show respect for it.
Dr Russel Norman: Does he accept that this is not an issue about anyone not having respect for what ordinary New Zealanders are doing, and that the issue is about Government leadership, and the problem with the Government leadership is that it has been promoting mining extraction and motorways, and those kinds of priorities for the Government are completely at odds with the green growth agenda?
Bill English: I think the Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has shown a fine sense of balance in its leadership. Yes, we have advocated responsible mining. We are advocating roads of national significance. Alongside that, we are bringing in wide-ranging reform of the way we use water in New Zealand. We are regulating our exclusive economic zone, and any other number of environmental initiatives, including the home insulation scheme, to which we committed $300 million. Compare that with the record of the Labour-Green Government that preceded us, and its record is pathetic.
Dr Russel Norman: Does he accept the findings of the Pure Advantage report that shows that New Zealand’s environmental performance is declining and that we slip from first to 14th place in the recent Yale Environmental Performance Index, so why does his Government keep promoting policies that are not only leading to record high unemployment but also degrading the environment?
Bill English: As I said before, the Government has a very balanced approach to these issues. It is actually the Greens and Labour who promote policies that destroy jobs. We promote policies that create them. But, alongside that, we are promoting policies that underpin the sustainability of those jobs—for instance, the water reforms that we are talking about will underpin the sustainability of our whole primary production sector, and therefore the sustainability of the jobs in that sector. In that sense, the Government is taking a balanced approach, and, actually, many New Zealanders support that.
Dr Russel Norman: Given his previous commitment to the use of pricing around scarcity, firstly, why has the Government changed the emissions trading scheme to effectively completely undercut a price on carbon, and hence remove that price signal through the economy; and, secondly, will he commit to putting a price on the use of water, so that we are able to use price signals to drive efficiency in the commercial use of water in irrigation?
Bill English: Arrgh!
What this shows is that the media statements National made following the release of the Pure Advantage report were entirely false. The contradictions between them and what Bill English said in parliament couldn't be more apparent.
Either National acknowledges the fact that climate change is real and devises its policy accordingly or we will be faced with the consequences. These consequences aren't limited to adverse changes in the environment that
In fact there are very few benefits to pursuing the economic policy that National is currently promoting compared to the advantages of a green growth agenda. For instance investment into clean industries creates more than twice as many jobs as investing into polluting industries. That makes the argument for increased oil and gas production through government investment to create jobs look rather pathetic... Especially considering the amount of times National has claimed that the government doesn't create jobs.
The government can create jobs through subsidies targeted at specific industries. National has chosen to subsidize the oil and gas industry through deregulation, tax write offs and paying for much of the exploration that has recently been conducted. Instead we should be following nearly every other country in the developed world and increasing the uptake of and investment into clean and green technologies.
Our future depends on the government promoting a brighter future through clean and green initiatives. Unfortunately National is entirely failing the test... What a bunch of idiots!
Thou shalt not kill
It's very sad to see an escalation in the conflict between Israel and Palestine recently. After many years of skirmishes and retaliatory strikes, Israel has decided to attack the Palestinians in what appears to be all out war designed to dispossess people who've already lost most of their territory because of unjustifiable wars. The Palestinians are defiant but clearly demoralized, with many years of sanctions and repression weakening the very fabric of their society.
Yesterday, the Guardian reported:
The potential for this conflict to escalate even further is there, with the Israelis calling up 30,000 reservists and amassing troops and tanks near the Gaza border. Despite a warning from Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, Israeli rocket and airstrikes have continued unabated, entirely dwarfing the retaliatory strikes coming from Palestine for the assassination of Hamas military leader Ahmed al-Jabari.
In fact the potential catastrophic consequences to allowing this conflict to continue are there, with the United States and Britain supporting Israel and Russia and China somewhat supporting the Palestinians, which makes the fact that there's no diplomatic solution on the horizon and the potential for other countries to get drawn into the dispute very concerning indeed.
Most people won't even remember what this conflict is about, and perhaps the Israelis are also somewhat ignorant to the real causes. It's not just about the Israelis wanting more land to expand into... The roots of this conflict go back to the end of the Second World War when countries were divided up. It also goes back to religious disagreement and the control of Jerusalem.
After WW2, the Allies incorrectly divided many countries up, including Palestine to create Israel to give the Jewish people somewhere to go and rebuild. In 1948 the UN recognized the nation of Israel, which then undertook a number of wars beginning with the Catastrophe in the same year, which was the beginning to the War of Independence, then there was the Six Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973, which led to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
During this time, Israel continued to implement unfair policy that dispossessed many Arabs from their ancestral lands. The resentments caused from this is the main thing driving the Israeli Palestinian conflict, but it's not the only factor involved.
The Zionists base many of their territorial demands on an incorrect interpretation of the Bible concerning the kingdoms of David and Solomon. The Zionists are taking scriptures solely concerned with a person’s spiritual growth and applying them literally to the world around them. The religious fervour this has caused is why the conflict has continued for over half a century.
Make no mistake, the recent increased conflict between Israel and Palestine isn't about any justifiable retaliatory strike by the Israelis, it's about them wanting to exterminate the Palestinians off the face of the earth. The level of hatred, brainwashing and blind obedience to that cause and support from other countries might just ensure they achieved their most inglorious goal, which would be recorded in history as one of mankind's most vial occurrences indeed. The genocide of the Palestinians would be on par with how the Germans treated the Jewish people during the Second World War, for which there are no excuses.
I'm not in any way anti-Semitic in this criticism of what is driving the Israel and Palestinian conflict btw. However I disagree strongly with the way Israel and a minority group within it is going about achieving territorial expansion at the expense of the Palestinians.
There is a peaceful solution that needs to be acted upon, and only time will tell if an international intervention by the United Nations to remove weapon supplies from both sides would put a halt to the conflict. Who knows how many lives might be saved if the United States and Britain removed their support from Israel, and proposed sanctions on the aggressor nation?
In my opinion, a way forward also needs to be found in terms of addressing the underlying religious differences and the initial incorrect dividing up of Palestine. If these problems are not addressed, the conflict between Israel and Palestine will continue indefinitely.
Yesterday, the Guardian reported:
The latest round of hostilities between Israel and Hamas (Black cloud of death hangs once more over Gaza and Israel, 16 November) once again points to the futility of tacit ceasefires that are not shored up by a serious international initiative to resolve the underlying Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would enable both peoples to exercise their self-determination, free of oppression or threat. It is also a timely reminder to a victorious President Obama that, as his second term begins, he can no longer fiddle while this vital part of the world burns and the hatred, including towards the US and the West, escalates. Yet no new peace initiative can be launched without a definitive ceasefire, so that has to be the immediate priority.
The potential for this conflict to escalate even further is there, with the Israelis calling up 30,000 reservists and amassing troops and tanks near the Gaza border. Despite a warning from Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, Israeli rocket and airstrikes have continued unabated, entirely dwarfing the retaliatory strikes coming from Palestine for the assassination of Hamas military leader Ahmed al-Jabari.
In fact the potential catastrophic consequences to allowing this conflict to continue are there, with the United States and Britain supporting Israel and Russia and China somewhat supporting the Palestinians, which makes the fact that there's no diplomatic solution on the horizon and the potential for other countries to get drawn into the dispute very concerning indeed.
Most people won't even remember what this conflict is about, and perhaps the Israelis are also somewhat ignorant to the real causes. It's not just about the Israelis wanting more land to expand into... The roots of this conflict go back to the end of the Second World War when countries were divided up. It also goes back to religious disagreement and the control of Jerusalem.
After WW2, the Allies incorrectly divided many countries up, including Palestine to create Israel to give the Jewish people somewhere to go and rebuild. In 1948 the UN recognized the nation of Israel, which then undertook a number of wars beginning with the Catastrophe in the same year, which was the beginning to the War of Independence, then there was the Six Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973, which led to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
During this time, Israel continued to implement unfair policy that dispossessed many Arabs from their ancestral lands. The resentments caused from this is the main thing driving the Israeli Palestinian conflict, but it's not the only factor involved.
The Zionists base many of their territorial demands on an incorrect interpretation of the Bible concerning the kingdoms of David and Solomon. The Zionists are taking scriptures solely concerned with a person’s spiritual growth and applying them literally to the world around them. The religious fervour this has caused is why the conflict has continued for over half a century.
Make no mistake, the recent increased conflict between Israel and Palestine isn't about any justifiable retaliatory strike by the Israelis, it's about them wanting to exterminate the Palestinians off the face of the earth. The level of hatred, brainwashing and blind obedience to that cause and support from other countries might just ensure they achieved their most inglorious goal, which would be recorded in history as one of mankind's most vial occurrences indeed. The genocide of the Palestinians would be on par with how the Germans treated the Jewish people during the Second World War, for which there are no excuses.
I'm not in any way anti-Semitic in this criticism of what is driving the Israel and Palestinian conflict btw. However I disagree strongly with the way Israel and a minority group within it is going about achieving territorial expansion at the expense of the Palestinians.
There is a peaceful solution that needs to be acted upon, and only time will tell if an international intervention by the United Nations to remove weapon supplies from both sides would put a halt to the conflict. Who knows how many lives might be saved if the United States and Britain removed their support from Israel, and proposed sanctions on the aggressor nation?
In my opinion, a way forward also needs to be found in terms of addressing the underlying religious differences and the initial incorrect dividing up of Palestine. If these problems are not addressed, the conflict between Israel and Palestine will continue indefinitely.